Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law a controversial abortion bill that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison.
“Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature,” said Ivey, a Republican, in a statement. “To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the ball is in your court. Literally.
Satire from The Borowitz Report:
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Asking for their solidarity in his trade war with China, Donald Trump is urging Americans to boycott Chinese goods and “just buy things at Walmart.”
Trump made his request via Twitter, where he told his fellow-citizens that it was their “patriotic duty” to punish China by buying as many goods at Walmart as possible.
“If you go to a great american store like Walmart, you’ll find lots of cheap sportswear, shoes, and other items for you and your family to enjoy,” he tweeted. “What better way to show China that we don’t need their dumb stuff!”
Shortly after Trump sent those marching orders to his countrymen, the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, offered a muted response. “I’m beginning to see how he lost a billion dollars,” Xi said.
From the Washington Post:
President Trump on Sunday blamed the result of the Kentucky Derby on “political correctness,” arguing that the horse that crossed the wire first should not have been disqualified.
“The Kentuky Derby decision was not a good one,” Trump said in a tweet, misspelling the word “Kentucky.” “It was a rough and tumble race on a wet and sloppy track, actually, a beautiful thing to watch. Only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby – not even close!”
Maximum Security appeared to win Saturday’s race by 1 3/4 lengths. But then two jockeys objected, and after stewards reviewed video of the race, they disqualified the apparent front-runner in a unanimous ruling, crowning Country House the winner.
“I wuz robbed, I tells ya.”
From The New Yorker, by John Cuneo:
From Esquire, by Jack Holmes, Associate Editor:
“What an absolute disgrace. John McCain’s legacy was inflated by historic proportions on his death, but it increasingly seems he was the only thing tethering Graham to any kind of honor, or ethics, or principle in public service. It now seems that while Graham might have seen McCain as a friend, he was more interested in him as a political benefactor, gobbling up the gravitas and the power like a Hungry Hungry Hippo. Now that McCain has died, Graham has simply chosen a new benefactor. Never mind that Trump dragged his old friend’s name through the mud, ridiculing his service in Vietnam at the time where Trump was dodging the draft by claiming he had “bone spurs.” Later, Trump would tell Howard Stern that avoiding sexually transmitted diseases in 1970s New York was his “personal Vietnam.”
There are many lessons from The Trump Era, particularly when it comes to the conservative movement. The cruelty is the point. The most important part of “White Evangelical Christian” is white. The very concept of public service has begun to collapse, as the Trump administration has completely corrupted the Executive Branch and defenestrated the concepts of ethics or conflicts of interest. And members of the Republican Party are now split into two groups: the True Believers and the cynical opportunists who will do anything to stay in Washington.
Do you really think Graham has watched Trump’s behavior in office and come to the conclusion that he is the right man for the job? No, he’s just the political parasite he’s always been. But nobody who attaches themselves to Trump makes it out. Nobody.”
From Esquire, by Charles P. Pierce:
“The last stanza of the morning’s performance of the low farce that is William Barr Covers the Royal Ass had the Attorney General of the United States telling Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, that when, at an earlier hearing, he had talked about the possibility that the Obama administration had spied on the Trump campaign, it was just a word that is a word and it just popped right out of his mouth. Bing! Like that. Whitehouse stared down at him as though Barr had grown a second head, and then everybody went out to vote and have a little lunch.
The morning’s performance was shadowed, of course, by the revelation in Wednesday’s Washington Post that Robert Mueller was agitated and upset with the way that his report had been summarized in Barr’s four-page memo released at the end of March. In response, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to talk about the Steele Dossier, Strzok and Page, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and, god help us all, Her e-maillllzzzzz!
On the other side, the Democratic members of the committee insisted on talking about what Barr has been talking about ever since he put out his memo and pretty much poisoned the well with regard to what Mueller found and what should be done next. Barr tried to tap dance, but he’s not very good at it, and his arguments kept colliding with each other. For example, he kept trying to deny that his four-page summary was actually meant to summarize anything, which, I think we all can agree, is a hard argument to make: that the purpose of a summary is not necessarily to summarize.
In addition, Barr had no answer for the fact that, a couple of weeks ago, while testifying before another congressional committee, he had said he didn’t know of any problems Mueller had with how he’d summarized the counsel’s work. By that time, Barr had received Mueller’s letter expressing those very problems, and he had spoken to Mueller on the phone. Of course, when the chairman of the committee, Senator Huckleberry Graham, starts things off by stating flatly that he hasn’t read the whole report, anything goes, I figure. William Barr is another figure in the Trump Organization wax museum, and he’s melting down like all the others.
From The Hill:
Stephen Moore, whom President Trump has floated for an open seat on the Federal Reserve Board, said in newly unearthed comments that he supported removing many child labor laws.
“I’m a radical on this, I’d get rid of a lot of these child labor laws. I want people starting to work at 11, 12,” Moore said during a debate on the minimum wage in 2016.
From the Washington Post:
President Trump suggested Wednesday that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats move to impeach him.
“I DID NOTHING WRONG,” Trump wrote. “If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ there are no Crimes by me at all.”
The notion was ridiculed by several legal experts, including Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, who accused Trump of “idiocy.”
“Not even a SCOTUS filled with Trump appointees would get in the way of the House or Senate,” Tribe wrote on Twitter, adding that Trump apparently thinks his recent court appointments would give him a “ ‘get out of jail free’ card.”
From the Washington Post, by Monica Hesse:
“Throughout the 448-page Mueller report, the president is very emotional. He is forever “becoming angry” or “expressing anger” or “expressing frustration.” He “was furious” at Jeff Sessions for not protecting him. He “screamed” at and “lambasted” his attorney general, demanding, “How could you let this happen?” Regarding perceived “horrible treatment” of an adviser, the president was “upset for weeks.”
At one point, the president became so “unhappy” and “upset” with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn that “he would not look at him during intelligence briefings.”
I see almost no benefit in imagining parallel universes. Hypotheticals are difficult and not always comparable. But, my God: Can you imagine if a female president became so paralyzed by her emotions that she was notably upset for weeks? Can you imagine if a female politician’s strategy for dealing with her staff involved screaming at them, then lambasting them in public, and then not looking at them?
Can you imagine how hard she would have tried not to put herself in that situation, knowing how eager people have been throughout our political history to hold women’s emotions against them? Anti-suffragists claimed women’s rash temperament should exclude them from voting. Stubborn voters claimed women’s rash temperament should exclude them from running for office (Hillary Clinton spoke of learning to “control her emotions” as far back as college). In a Georgetown University study released just this week, 13 percent of Americans still believed that women were less emotionally suited to political office than men.
Can you imagine if the president was a person of color? If an attorney general waved away a black man’s bombastic behavior in the Oval Office by explaining he was often just really angry?
Here is why it matters now, though. The attorney general of the United States of America has stated that the president’s emotions are relevant to the legal analysis of the obstruction case. And there’s a way we tend to talk about the emotional displays of men in power: as if they’re extremely relevant. Righteous, even. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s outraged, tearful outbursts during his confirmation hearings last summer could have been taken as a sign that he lacked the dispassionate mien one would hope for in a Supreme Court nominee. But instead of putting a damper on the judge’s outraged approach, committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) mirrored it, shouting and literally shaking a finger at his Democratic colleagues. His anger was rewarded. “Lindsey Graham may have single-handedly saved Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation,” read a CNN headline.
As much as Barr’s statements about President Trump are about the specifics of the Russia investigation, they also reflect broader questions: Whose emotions are valid? Whose anger is righteous, and whose anger is hysterical? Whose frustration is “sincere,” and whose is a sign that they are unfit to serve?
The answer isn’t for female politicians to start screaming, or male politicians to become robots. It’s to recognize that we can’t dignify emotion in one sex and dismiss it in another. It can’t be righteous indignation for some people, and hysterics for others. The president is an emotional man. What a luxury. So many of the rest of us are forced to just be crazy women.