A professor of Neurology at George Washington University says he believes there may be legitimate concerns over President Donald J. Trump's "forward-listing posture" that goes beyond the comical memes and gif responses normally shared on social media.

"I know something about political figures and observable signs of illness from afar," Richard E. Cytowic M.D. wrote in Psychology Today. "… The American public deserves an accurate account of our president's health."

"While most frequently observed in Parkinson's Disease, the bent posture so evident in Trump may also be seen in Alzheimer's Dementia, movement disorders of the basal ganglia, and as the side effect of certain medications," Cytowic continued. "Also noted are the sudden, jerking movements of Trump's right arm. Since they occur only on one side, the prefix "hemi" is applied, while "ballistic" means sudden or flinging in the manner of a projectile. Trump's hemiballistic arm movements are evident in news clips from Memorial Day (also here via C-Span) at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as are his uncontrolled swaying and forward tilt. He is seen to grab his wayward arm with the left one in an effort to keep it under control."

President Trump at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day. youtu.be

While Trump "aced" a 10-minute mental status screening in August, Cytowic said "the test is one an average adult should easily pass. To a neurologist, his way of walking, posture, and jerky movements are concerning and in want of explanation."

According to Cytowic, "It is true that individuals who have balance and gait issues similar to those observed in Trump can have degenerative brain disease in the frontal lobes, such as fronto-temporal dementia or Pick's Disease. Other possibilities are normal pressure hydrocephalus, sensory ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, small lacunar strokes in the basal ganglia, supranuclear palsy, the effects of too many medications, and Parkinson's Disease, which can begin on one side and also show early cognitive impairment."

Regardless, "The president is a public figure whose judgment we must trust," Cytowic said. "The American public is entitled to know about his neurological health given the enormous responsibilities placed on our Commander in Chief."

James Dale Reed is under arrest after leaving a handwritten and graphic note at a Fredrick, Maryland home that threatens to kidnap and kill Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The house has Biden/Harris signs on its lawn.

The suspect's image was caught by a video doorbell camera.

"This is a warning to anyone reading this letter if you are a Biden/Harris supporter you will be targeted," the letter states, according to WUSA9 News.

The threats in the letter (image below) are graphic.

(Trigger warning:)

"When We capture Grandpa Biden We will all severely beat him to the point of death as for Mrs. Harris she will be bent over and Anally raped by my rifle barrel," it reads.

It also threatens Biden and Harris "both will be executed on National Television [sic]."

"We have a list of homes and addresses by your election signs," the letter claims.

"We are the ones with the scary guns, we are the ones your children have nightmares about."

"We will not let Biden/Harris turn are [sic] country into a Communist wasteland," it also says.

"If Biden/Harris Want A War [sic] then they will get one, of course that means Black lives matter and Antifa."

Brad Bell, Maryland Bureau Chief for ABC 7 News, posted a photo of Reed and an image of the letter:

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Christopher Wray announced on Wednesday in a last-minute press briefing that both Iran and Russia have obtained voter registration information and have "taken specific actions to influence public opinion."

In particular, Ratcliffe said that Iran has been found to have sent "spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump." He seemed to be referring to an incident described in a Washington Post story published right before the conference, which said the U.S. has concluded that Iran had sent emails pretending to be from the right-wing group the Proud Boys to Democratic voters.

The Post explained:

The messages appeared to target Democrats using data from digital databases known as "voter files," some of which are commercially available. They told recipients the Proud Boys were "in possession of all your information" and instructed voters to change their party registration and cast their ballots for Trump.

It's not exactly clear the intent behind the emails. Ratcliffe, a partisan Republican put in place by President Donald Trump because he wanted a crony leading the intelligence community, seemed to give contradicting explanations. If the emails were intended to intimidate Democratic voters out of voting, that would presumably help Trump. But if the emails were meant as a false flag, designed to make Trump supporters look dangerous, then that would "damage President Trump," as Ratcliffe said. It's hard to see how Iran could have intended both outcomes. It's troubling that his explanation was this unclear, especially since he doesn't have a reputation for independence and credibility. (Ratcliffe and Wray took no questions at the briefing, refusing to give the press any opportunity to clarify their remarks.)

The other aim, though, seems quite plausible — the emails were designed to sow doubt, fear, and confusion about the election and its security. When Wray spoke, he encouraged viewers to trust in the American election system.

"You should be confident that your vote counts," Wray said. "Early, unverified claims to the contrary should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. We encourage everyone to seek election and voting information from reliable sources, namely, your state election officials. And to be thoughtful, careful, and discerning consumers of information online."

He added: "We are not going to tolerate foreign interference in our elections or any criminal activity that threatens the sanctity of your vote or undermines public confidence in the outcome of the election."

Neither Wray nor Ratcliffe mentioned any details about how Russia is interfering in the election or what it might use voter registration data for. It's not clear whether that's because the FBI doesn't have any details about Russian interference or if it is simply unwilling to share them for whatever reason. This, too, is concerning, because the despite Ratcliffe's claim that foreign election interference isn't a "partisan" issue, Trump himself has repeatedly tried to cover up Russia's intervention in 2016 on his behalf. There's no way to be confident that isn't happening now.

But there was another even more glaring omission in the pair's comments. Neither mentioned the fact that Trump — not Russia, Iran, or anyone else — is by far the greatest threat to the credibility of the election. He has been fueling bogus conspiracy theories that the election is going to be "rigged" for months, and he has called mail-in ballots a "hoax." So there was something ridiculous about the press conference emphasizing the threat of foreign election interference, especially as Ratcliffe name-checked the president as authorizing the intelligence community's efforts to protect American democracy.

"The president has instructed me to keep the country informed as appropriate," Ratcliffe said. "We will not tolerate foreign interference in our elections."

Wray's remarks about "early, unverified" claims that votes won't count, and that state election officials are the most reliable sources of information about the process, could be read as an implicit rebuke to the president. Trump has repeatedly contradicted local election officials in trying to spread doubt about the integrity of the vote.

And in urging Americans to be "thoughtful, careful, and discerning consumers of information online," Wray was, essentially, telling them to be the opposite of Trump, who has spread absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theories on Twitter recently. When asked to defend himself at an NBC News town hall, he said simply: "l put it out there, people can decide for themselves."

Arguing that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos had undermined the agreement, a federal judge on Tuesday denied approval for a class action settlement over the Trump administration's handling of a student debt forgiveness program.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup said DeVos had subverted the agreement by rejecting tens of thousands of applications from defrauded students without adequate explanation, Politico first reported.

Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee, threatened to block DeVos from denying any additional applications, calling the denial notices "potentially unlawful" and the process faced by borrowers "disturbingly Kafkaesque."

The May settlement required DeVos to speed up the processing of about 160,000 backlogged applications, some of which had been pending for years. DeVos has thus far denied 94% of applications, approving just 4,400 claims while denying 74,000 others, according to Alsup. The department told borrowers they could appeal the decision but did not say why it had denied the applications, the judge said.

"All may not be entitled to relief, but all are entitled to a comprehensible answer," Alsup wrote. "For 18 months, the secretary refused, largely on the grounds that such answers required backbreaking effort and, thus, substantial time. Now, the secretary has begun issuing decisions at breakneck speed. But most are a perfunctory 'insufficient evidence' — without explanation."

Alsup also said he would consider requiring DeVos to be deposed in a probe of the administration's handling of the claims and authorized depositions for up to five Education Department officials.

The judge granted preliminary approval for the settlement in May, requiring the department to process the backlogged claims within 18 months. As the department began processing the applications, hundreds of students objected to the settlement. About 650 people attended a virtual hearing to raise concerns about the settlement earlier this month.

"Students came together to speak up for themselves and show the court the massive scope of the trauma they have endured at the hands of the Department of Education, and the courts are listening," Eileen Connor, the legal director at Harvard Law School's Project on Predatory Student Lending, which represents the students, told Politico. "We look forward to the next stage of litigation in which we depose Department of Education officials to explain their actions under oath."

Alsup noted in his ruling that the Obama administration had approved more than 99% of "borrower defense" claims, which allow students to seek debt relief if they were defrauded by for-profit colleges. Under DeVos, the department has rejected 89.9% of applications.

The Department of Education said it is "studying the ruling."

"It's important to understand that no claim is 'denied.' Many are simply ineligible, because the claimant wasn't enrolled in an eligible program at an eligible date," department spokeswoman Angela Morabito told The Hill. "Others claims don't demonstrate financial harm. Just because a claim was filed does not make it valid and eligible for taxpayer-funded relief. The department is following the publicly available process for resolving claims as quickly as possible, so those students who are eligible and were harmed get the relief they deserve."

DeVos revised rules related to the borrower defense program in 2019, prompting some Republicans to join Democrats to pass a bill blocking the policy.

"These for-profit colleges are the coronavirus of higher education," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at the time, adding that DeVos' rules made it "extremely difficult, if not impossible, for students to find relief."

But President Donald Trump vetoed the bill and allowed DeVos to implement the new rules in July.

Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev., the lead sponsor of the bill, said Trump's veto "sent a message to the American people that he cares more about enriching predatory schools than protecting defrauded students and veterans."

DeVos has repeatedly run afoul of the courts in the borrower defense litigation. Last year, a judge held the education secretary in contempt for violating a court order by trying to collect debt payments from thousands of students defrauded by for-profit colleges.

"At best, it is gross negligence," U.S. Magistrate Jude Sallie Kim said at the time. "At worst, it's an intentional flouting of my order."

Arne Duncan, who served as the secretary of education under former President Barack Obama, said DeVos "consistently chooses the powerful over the vulnerable."

"Luckily, she is not very good at it," he added, "and very consistently loses in court."

CNN reporter Donie O'Sullivan shed light on the disturbing QAnon movement hijacking the name of a respected humanitarian charity in order to spread disturbing, baseless conspiracies about Hollywood celebrities and prominent Democratic leaders, including presidential nominee Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Last week, O'Sullivan opted for a firsthand experience when he attended two QAnon events that recently took place —a protest in Los Angeles, Calif., and an indoor event that was held inside a conference room at a Scottsdale, Ariz., resort. On Tuesday morning, a clip of O'Sullivan's interviews aired on CNN. Despite having no evidence to support their claims, the QAnon supporters offered bizarre remarks about the non-existent pedophilia ring they believe Democratic leaders are involved in.

In reality, QAnon is a right-wing fiction that carries on the legacy of many darkly conspiratorial view over the years. It began with internet postings by someone known as Q dubiously claiming to be a Trump administration insider, but it has ballooned far beyond those origins. It has roots in anti-Semitic bigotry and accusations of blood libel, and it feeds off distrust in the media and mainstream sources, a skepticism that Republicans have been stoking for decades.

Apparently, QAnon followers are hijacking the "Save the Children" movement because they fully believe Democrats are using children for a pedophilia ring. O'Sullivan spoke with an individual who explained the moment as he admitted that most QAnon followers believe almost every high-ranking Democrat is a pedophile or supports pedophilia in some way.

Although President Donald Trump made countless promises to his supporters when he campaigned in 2016, QAnon followers are refusing to believe many of his promises were merely verbal commitments just to secure his presidency. In addition to the pedophilia claims, QAnon believes have also come up with a theory to justify Trump's failure to deliver on his campaign promises.

In the video clip, one QAnon believer baselessly claimed Trump could not lock up Clinton or remove all of the immigrants residing in the United States because the government is secretly controlled by the "deep state." However, the truth is that Trump's investigation into Clinton fell short and he never had the power to remove all immigrants.

Many of the QAnon protesters at the Los Angeles rally also expressed frustration with those who oppose their views as they insisted no one wants to "save the children." But, despite their uproar and outcry, the movement has faced heightened criticism because there is absolutely no evidence to back their conspiracies. The latest news comes just days after Trump was asked about QAnon during his NBC town hall with moderator Savannah Guthrie.

At the time, Trump insisted he knew very little about the conspiracy but also refused to condemn their theories. Despite QAnon believing children need to be "saved" from some pedophilia ring orchestrated by Democrats, the Save the Children charity is in no way connected to QAnon and its dangerous impact which serves as merely a distraction from real child protection organizations fighting for true causes.

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was reportedly tricked by comedian Sasha Baron Cohen into having an "indiscreet encounter" with a young actress who was playing as a far-right journalist in his new "Borat" movie.

The Guardian, which has seen footage from Cohen's upcoming movie, reports that "the former New York mayor and current personal attorney to Donald Trump is seen reaching into his trousers and apparently touching his genitals while reclining on a bed in the presence of the actor playing Borat's daughter."

The actress in question, 24-year-old Bulgarian native Maria Bakalova, posted as a right-wing journalist interested in interviewing Giuliani to ask him about his work for President Donald Trump.

According to The Guardian, Bakalova after the interview asks Giuliani to come to her hotel room for a drink.

Little does the New York mayor know, however, that Bakalova's room has been rigged with cameras — and as soon as Giuliani starts apparently playing with himself, Cohen's character bursts into the room and tells him that she's only 15 years old and thus "too old for you."

A bombshell Columbia University study finds President Donald Trump is responsible for the coronavirus deaths of 130,000 to 210,000 Americans.

"We believe that this was a monumental, lethal screwup by an administration that didn't want to deal with reality," Dr. Irwin Redlener, the lead author on the study and the founding director at Columbia's National Center for Disaster Preparedness told The Daily Beast.

The study calls Trump's response to the pandemic an "abject failure," citing "the staggering and disproportionate nature of COVID-19 fatalities in the United States."

"The inability of the U.S. to mitigate the pandemic is especially stark when contrasted with the response of high-income nations, such as South Korea, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, and Canada, as well as low- and middle-income countries as varied as Thailand, Pakistan, Honduras, and Malaysia. All of these nations have had greater success in protecting their populations from the impact of the coronavirus," researchers say in the report published Wednesday.

They note the U.S. per capita death rate is "more than fifty times that of Japan."

"If the U.S. had followed Canadian policies and protocols, there might have only been 85,192 U.S. deaths—making more than 132,500 American deaths 'avoidable.' If the U.S. response had mirrored that of Germany, the U.S. may have only had 38,457 deaths—leaving 179,260 avoidable deaths," according to the study.

The researchers say "Politicization, leadership vacuum, and the failure of top officials to model best practices" especially mask-wearing, have contributed to the disproportionately high U.S. death rate.

The report concludes the "two major deficiencies" of "inadequate testing and insufficient contact tracing, have blunted the United States' capacity to stop the exponential spread of COVID-19."

"According to Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Robert Kadlec at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), thousands of lives could have been saved if the White House had approved the distribution of over six million masks that were prepared for delivery in late February," the report notes.

Dr. Redlener does not mince words.

"Americans have a bad case of pandemic fatigue. We want to get back to some semblance of normalcy, but we never did what we had to do to achieve that state," Redlener told The Beast. "We've delayed the return of normalcy and fallen into this web of dishonesty and opposing science that was concocted by the president."

Redlener adds, "this incredibly anti-science administration has caused an enormous tragedy in America."

Republican supporters of Judge Amy Coney Barrett have been citing her Catholicism as one of the reasons why the U.S. Senate should confirm her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible. But Barrett is by no means universally loved among Catholics. And the National Catholic Reporter has slammed Barrett this week in a blistering staff editorial, asking the U.S. Senate to "reject" her nomination.

In the editorial, the Reporter's editorial board argues, "We believed it was wrong for the Senate to consider this nomination in the first place given the precedent set four years ago when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February (2016), nine months before the election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, saying repeatedly that the American people should have a say in the matter. This year, when the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg created a vacancy less than nine weeks before Election Day, McConnell has seen fit to ram through the nomination."

The editorial complains that "hypocrisy is rank" with the nomination and that it is impossible to see how "rushing this nomination will be good for our democracy."

Although the National Catholic Reporter says that Barrett isn't responsible for McConnell's actions, she has let herself be used as a "vehicle for his agenda and that of President Donald Trump."

The Reporter stresses, "She could have phoned the White House and asked not to be considered for the nomination. Barrett is only 48 years old, and there will be other vacancies."

The publication also takes Barrett to task for being so evasive when answering questions from Sen. Amy Klobuchar and others during her confirmation hearings.

"It is her bad faith in discussing the law that warrants disqualifying her," the editorial stresses. "About the evils of climate change, access to health care and voter intimidation, Americans deserve better than a relativist dressed in originalist drag."

Amy Coney Barrett regards herself as an "originalist," that is, someone who believes that all legal decisions must be based on the "original understanding" of the Constitution. This is often put forward as a straightforward, consistent lens through which law can be viewed, rather than trying to put into context little things like shifting views on race and gender equality. However, originalism is further complicated by a split between groups focused on "intent" and those focused on "meaning." And if you think those are the same things … well, you're just wrong. Intentionalists believe the law is determined by what the original authors of the Constitution intended when they took quill to parchment. Those focused on meaning insist that they support the "public meaning" of the words at the time they were written. People who, like Barrett, belong to the later group, insist that their interpretation is more consistent.

In fact, both approaches require jurists to peer into the minds of 18th-century Americans, interpreting words, attitudes, and relationships that have shifted enormously over two and a half centuries. In short, any claim that the nation can be properly governed by divining the inner monologue of wig-wearing slaveholders not only makes about as much sense as using the plans for a Conestoga wagon as the repair manual on the Space Shuttle, it's also just plain bullshit.

But there's something even more odd about how conservatives like Barrett apply originalism. Because they seem to believe that the "original meaning" of every word and phrase just happens to be a conservative meaning. And where they can't find the meaning that they want, these dedicated preservationists have a second approach … throw it out. Throw it all out. Like the entire 14th Amendment.

The 13th Amendment may have abolished slavery when it was ratified in 1865, but it took the14th and 15th Amendments to define what the end of slavery really meant in terms of law. After all, slavery is more than just forced labor. If slavery "ended" but some people still were denied equal protection, equal rights, and equal representation, was slavery really over? It took until 1868 for the 14th Amendment, upholding citizenship rights and equal protection, to be ratified. It wasn't until 1870 that the 15th Amendment extended this to voting rights.

As far as the 14th Amendment goes, it includes what are now referred to as the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. In short, it says that everyone born in the United States is a full citizen, with the full rights due to a citizen, and can't be deprived of those rights unless they're given due process of law. All of this makes the 14th Amendment integral to questions of citizenship, and foundational for Civil Rights legislation. It's such an important amendment, that legal scholars have called it "the second Constitution" for its attempts to tear out the elements of slavery built into the original document. Among other things, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rests entirely on the authority granted to Congress by the 14th Amendment.

For clarity, here's Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's not just pretty straightforward, it's a pretty undeniable good. So how did it come to be that when Barrett writes about this text, she mentions it in this way.

"Congress has to decide whether to … rely on the power conferred by the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment." Or … "The originalist legislator might have to face questions … such as the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment."

How did originalists, the people who are supposed to be following the text as written, come to doubt the legitimacy of a whole chunk of that text? Specifically, how did they come to X-out the part of the Constitution that ensures rights are extended to people of color and children of immigrants?

Back in 2011, The Atlantic took a look at this question and how conservative Republicans became "14th Amendment deniers." For some Republicans, the 14th Amendment was viewed as being only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved, and not applicable to future generations. This view has become common in right-wing media, and sorry as that sounds, it's not even the most radical view.

The even uglier approach has been to outright challenge the validity of 14th Amendment because members of Confederate states were not seated in Congress when the amendment was proposed just after the end of the Civil War. Because of this, say the deniers, the Congress itself was illegitimate, and so anything it recommended—including the 14th and 15th Amendments—are illegitimate.

This is not even worthy of being called a "myth." There is not the least bit of justification under law to support this position. There never has been. However, this claim has become deeply embedded in the whole Lost Cause, South Shall Rise Again, Back to the Cotton Fields culture of conservatives—especially Southern conservatives. And just like Confederate statues, this mythology has found admirers in the modern Republican Party.

How far has it gone in the past? Far enough that in 1957, Georgia's state legislature passed a resolution titled "A memorial to Congress of the United States of America urging them to enact such legislation as they may deem fit to declare that the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were never validly adopted and that they are null and void and of no effect." The reason that Georgia did this in 1957 was simple—it wanted to uphold segregation, and it rightfully understood that the 14th Amendment made that position impossible.

To be absolutely clear, there is nothing in textual originalism that requires adherents to view the 14th or 15th Amendments as any less legitimate than any other additions to the original document. The idea of the "illegitimate 14th Amendment" is simply not a serious legal argument. It is white supremacist mythology that has gained supporters within the Republican Party specifically because it presents the basis by which all Civil Rights legislation can be undone.

That Barrett brings up questions of the 14th Amendment being legitimate in her writings with considerable frequency and apparent support should be an absolute bullhorn to the nation that she believes all Civil Rights legislation to rest on thin air. While Barrett has listed Brown vs. Board of Education among those Court decisions she regards as "super-precedents," she voted in 2017 to refuse a re-hear a case in which a company segregated employees by race to different locations. She has clearly stated her opposition to marriage equality, denied that rights extend to transgender Americans, and all that is on top of her direct threat to Roe.

Amy Coney Barrett stands as a threat to not just everything Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg achieved in her career, but to work that has been upheld by many members of the court—Democrats and Republicans—over the last half-century and more. She's not an originalist, she's an "eraserist."

When Donald Trump first announced, in 2015, that he was seeking the Republican presidential nomination, no one in the GOP gave much thought to his son, Donald Trump, Jr. But the younger Trump has since become a prominent figure in the Trumpian version of the Republican Party. Journalist David Smith discusses the rise of Trump, Jr. in an article published in The Guardian this week, explaining why he has become so popular with a certain type of Republican voter — even though some conservatives view him as a glaring example of the GOP's intellectual decline.

Combative, snarky, belligerent and mean-spirited, Trump, Jr. has a lot more in common with his father than he does with his sister, White House Senior Adviser Ivanka Trump — who fancies herself as more of a conservative intellectual even though her critics view her as low-information. Ivanka Trump at least pretends to have a thoughtful tone when she is giving a speech or writing a Twitter post, whereas Trump, Jr. openly disdains intellectuals. And even though Trump, Jr. is a millionaire, MAGA voters with a fraction of his income adore his anti-elitist schtick.

"When Don Jr. and his father bash Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and (former Vice President Joe) Biden at campaign rallies, they generate louder reactions from the crowd than when they set out agenda items or achievements," Smith explains. "Don Jr.'s Twitter feed offers his 5.8 million followers little by way of policy but a torrent of Democrat-baiting and conspiracy theories."

Trump, Jr., Smith stresses, is "adept at throwing red meat to" his father's MAGA base, and Trumpians eat it up when he is giving a speech at a rally.

But Trump, Jr., now 42, has his share of critics on the right, including conservative activist/author Rick Wilson — a former Republican Party strategist who is supporting former Vice President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election and was a co-founder of The Lincoln Project, a right-wing anti-Trump group. Interviewed by The Guardian, Wilson slammed Trump, Jr. as a perfect example of the modern-day GOP's intellectual bankruptcy but stressed that he knows how to rally his father's base because he "speaks fluent MAGA."

The 56-year-old Wilson explained, "Trumpism replaced conservatism as the ideological underpinning of the Republican Party, and because of that, they don't really fight about issues anymore. They fight about effect and whether or not they're winning these ephemeral social media battles — and in that world, the highest order goal is the 'owning of the libs.' It is a throwaway phrase substituting the validity or strength of an argument with a sort of self-satisfaction that you have been transgressive in some way towards liberals or progressives."

The Never Trumper continued, "Donald Trump, Jr. is a master of that. He is a post-Republican Republican. He is there only to engage in that performative dickery that is lib-owning in the Trump world. It is a political performance art to show your contempt for norms, institutions and education."

But even though Wilson has a very low opinion of the president's son, he predicts that Trump, Jr. will run for president in 2024 and believes that the GOP has sunk low enough to give him the nomination.

The Trump administration is considering designating several preeminent international human rights groups "anti-Semitic" in response to their criticism of Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people, according to a report published Wednesday.

Politico reports the State Department could as early as this week declare groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam to be anti-Semitic organizations and urge world governments to stop supporting them.

A congressional aide told Politico that the move is backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who reportedly has presidential aspirations and is burnishing his Zionist credentials while serving in what is arguably the most pro-Israel administration ever.

The proposal is highly controversial, however, and has raised eyebrows and ire among career State Department officials including attorneys who argue the potential designation poses serious free speech concerns.

The declaration would likely take the form of a report from Elan Carr, the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. It would likely cite the groups' criticism of Israeli policies and actions, as well as their actual or perceived support for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), the peaceful global protest movement for Palestinian rights that is backed by prominent Jewish peace groups. None of the targeted organizations officially support BDS.

Carr's report is expected to cite posts, reports, and media statements by the rights groups criticizing Israel's ongoing illegal occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, as well as the exclusively Jewish settler colonization of Palestinian territory, which is also illegal under international law. Both the occupation and settlements have been the subject of dozens of United Nations resolutions, most of them condemning Israel's actions.

Settlement building and expansion have also been called a form of ethnic cleansing and apartheid by international observers, icluding over 400 Jewish scholars and the former U.N. human rights official Richard Falk—who is also Jewish.

It is unclear what, if any, impact the proposed anti-Semitic designation would have on the rights groups. None of the three named groups receive any funding from the U.S. government. All three categorically deny accusations of anti-Semitism.

"AIUSA is deeply committed to fighting anti-Semitism and all forms of hate worldwide, and will continue to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth, and dignity are denied," Amnesty International USA iterim director Bob Goodfellow said in a statement. "We vigorously contest any allegation of anti-Semitism, and look forward to addressing the State Department's attacks in full."

Eric Goldstein, an official with HRW, said in a statement that his organization "fight[s] discrimination in all forms, including anti-Semitism."

"Criticizing government policy is not the same as attacking a specific group of people," added Goldstein. "For example, our critiques of U.S. government policy do not make us anti-American."

by Lynne Anderson, The Conversation

The Affordable Care Act has seen dozens of legal challenges, but it could now be at its most vulnerable, many health policy scholars and advocates believe. And this is after a Republican-dominated Senate couldn't kill it, Republican governors who refused to expand Medicaid couldn't end it, and two prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings kept it alive.

The law is up for another challenge Nov. 10, 2020, once again before the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue is whether the elimination of a tax penalty for failing to have health insurance now makes the entire law unconstitutional. It involves a legal issue called severability, and it's anyone's guess about how the court will decide. But Republicans have high hopes that the court will strike down the law. One of President Trump's campaign promises in 2016 was to “repeal and replace the disaster of Obamacare."

The makeup of the court that day will be different from the court that originally agreed on March 2, 2020 to hear the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18, 2020, leaving the Supreme Court with eight justices. Republicans in Congress – most of whom vehemently oppose the law – are aiming to confirm a justice in record time to replace her. Ginsburg consistently voted in favor of the ACA. Given Republican challenges to the law over 10 years, health care advocates and Democrats are concerned.

That is not only because of the speed with which Republicans are moving to seat a new justice. Health policy experts and those who back the law are concerned that the nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, may not back the law. After Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a majority opinion in the 5-4 decision in 2012 upholding the ACA, Barrett wrote in a legal journal that Roberts had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute." On Oct. 13, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin asked Barrett in congressional hearings about her views on the ACA. She replied by saying, in part, that “I am not hostile to the ACA."

Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifying before Congress.

The current case is called California v. Texas.

We hope these articles from our archive will help you understand the complicated developments.

1. The case that led to Nov. 10

This latest challenge began when Republican attorneys general or governors of 20 states, led by Texas, challenged the legality of the ACA in 2018 based on the 2017 tax law. (That first case was Texas v. U.S.) In December 2018, a Texas judge ruled in favor of the Republican challenge. A previous landmark case in 2012 had ruled that the penalty for not having insurance was basically a tax. And because the 2017 tax law zeroed out that penalty, the judge ruled, the entire ACA was unconstitutional.

Simon Haeder and Valarie Blake explained in this article:

(Judge Reed) O'Connor suggested that people will feel nonetheless beholden to follow the law even without the penalty…Next, O'Connor held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. With Congress reducing the individual mandate penalty to zero in the 2017 tax bill, the plaintiffs in the Texas case argue it no longer functions as such.

2. The second ruling

Democratic leaders and many others were stunned. In response to O'Connor's ruling, states led by Democratic governors and attorneys general jumped in and appealed the Texas ruling. A year later, in December 2019, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit essentially split the issue raised in O'Connor's ruling in two. The matter remained unsettled and seemed destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Haeder explains in this article:

The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court on Dec. 18, 2019 agreed with regard to the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. The judges punted, however, on the crucial question of severability by tasking the original judge to reexamine what parts of the ACA should fall with it.
While the verdict left the ACA standing for now, it added potentially years of uncertainty. An ultimate showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court appears inevitable.

On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Sept. 18, 2020. On Sept. 24, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order that aims to replace parts of the ACA, should the Supreme Court strike down the law. On Sept. 26, President Trump announced his intention to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who has served as an appeals court judge for three years, to fill Ginsburg's seat.

3. The recent executive order

Trump has been steadfast in his resistance to the ACA, which, among other things, includes protections for people with preexisting conditions. This is a very popular component of the health care law. In his Sept. 24 executive order, Trump tried to assure the American public that they would still be able to obtain insurance, regardless of preexisting conditions, even without the ACA.

Haeder had this to say:

When it comes to Trump's executive order, the topic that received the most public attention – the guarantee that “Americans with preexisting conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates" – carries no legal weight nor clear explanation of how it would be achieved or funded.
More generally, after years of promising a detailed plan, the America-First Healthcare Plan focuses primarily on past actions. It also spends just 491 words on laying out a set of objectives – lower costs, better care and more choice – yet does not provide a mechanism or road map for how to implement them.

Editor's note: This article is a roundup of articles from The Conversation's archives.

Lynne Anderson, Senior Health + Medicine Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.