This seems like a good day to resurface this column, from after the Mississippi oral arguments, about why the constitution should--and does--protect a woman's right to choose, and why that moral choice should not be subject to majority rule. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/… With a few of my favorite quotes. Justice Harlan: “The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution."

Ok, Twitter, this one's for Colin Powell.
First, vaccination is incredibly helpful, as is mask-wearing. Neither is foolproof against breakthrough covid, alone or together, givien Delta. That is why mask-wearing by others is important and in the interest of all. This is especially true in contained environments, such as elevators. It is particularly true of older people--my comment to my unmasked elevator companion was not only aimed at protecting myself, but at making certain that I don't inadvertently infect someone more susceptible.

Some facts on the timing of Supreme Court nominations/confirmations in presidential election years. Since 1900, the latest has been July (John Clarke to replace Charles Evans Hughes, who resigned to run for prez). 1/2 In chronological order:
1912, Taft nominated Maylon Pitney in March.
1916, Wilson named Brandeis in Jan. (confirmed in June), then Clark.
1932, Hoover named Cardozo, Feb..
1940, FDR named Murphy in Jan.
1988, Reagan named Kennedy in Nov. 1987, he was confirmed in Feb.

Thinking through what is so disturbing about Trump hijacking of WH for his campaign. It's not a question of technical provisions of Hatch Act--it's something deeper. Incumbency has its obvious advantages--the magisterial trappings of the presidency, as.... anyone who's seen an AF1 flyby before a campaign stop can testify. The playing field is inherently unlevel. A sitting POTUS has a megaphone to make news, issue orders, take actions, that a challenger lacks. Fine. And in the midst of pandemic...

It is bad enough for Trump to misuse his clemency power to protect Stone--and himself. But this blast at Mueller and prosecutors--"These charges were the product of recklessness borne of frustration and malice"--is beyond even the Trumpian pale. (Or not.) More WH: "the out-of-control Mueller prosecutors, desperate for splashy headlines to compensate for a failed investigation, set their sights on Mr. Stone." An insult to all career DOJ prosecutors.

Hello, Justice Department, hello, AG Barr, let me do a little legal research for you: "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." New York Times v. United States. The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint."

About last night: Is there one of those long German words to capture that feeling when you are simultaneously massively relieved about the outcome and still enormously worried about where things could go from here and the ultimate conclusion? Because that’s how I feel: relieved and terrified. Credit to Buttigieg and Klobuchar for admirably accepting reality. Credit to voters for seeing problems with Bloomberg and looking beyond the massive media buy; credit to Bloomberg if he does look at the data and leave. But...

Everyone who works for Trump: quit now. Save your souls. Save your honor. Save your reputation. Russia attacked our democracy. He doesn’t care, won’t defend our country.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1018738368753078273

I know this sounds extreme. It doesn’t feel like my usual approach to things. But extreme times, extreme measures. Maybe mass resignations of the (alleged) grownups would rouse a supine Congress, alarm even some Trump voters