Tag Archives: Amy Coney Barrett

It Already Stinks

Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, December 1, 2021.

Picture by Hilary Stone Ginsberg

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed this trenchant question during oral arguments over a Mississippi abortion law that may be the vehicle for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a nearly 50-year precedent guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion.

The justice’s question is premised on the obvious fact that not much has changed since the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade. There have been no vast scientific or medical advances regarding the procedure. No novel legal theories have emerged on whether the Constitution does or does not protect a woman’s right to choose. Public opinion has hardly shifted on the issue for the last 50 years. Only one thing has changed. The Supreme Court now has a majority of very conservative justices who are determined to restrict, at least severely, access to abortion if not overturn Roe outright.

Sotomayor rightly worries that a purely political decision on such a controversial issue as abortion endangers the existence of the high court. “If people actually believe that it’s all political, how will we survive?” she asked. “How will the court survive?” The concern over the politicization of the pending decision — expected next June or July — is buttressed, as Sotomayor pointed out, by the admission of the bill’s sponsors that they passed the law only because there are new, very conservative justices on the court.

The stability of public opinion on abortion is remarkable. Since 1975, the percentage of Americans who believe abortion should be legal in at least certain circumstances has hovered between 76 percent and 83 percent, while the percentage who would ban the procedure in all circumstances has remained consistently in the high teens. Not only would a high court decision allowing states to ban (or severely limit) abortion be a political decision, it would be a political decision that runs counter to the views of a large majority of Americans. 

The politicization of the court’s pending decision on abortion is magnified by the politicization of the court itself. There are a majority of conservatives on the court even though Democratic presidential candidates won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections. Two presidents who were in the office only because of the Electoral College nominated five of those justices. To put it bluntly: The Supreme Court is dominated by conservative jurists appointed by presidents elected by a minority of voters. 

And, then there are the machinations of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell who — in a display of brazen political power lacking either constitutional or historical justification — manipulated senatorial rules to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing a successor to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. McConnell’s flimsy rationale: Scalia died in the last year of Obama’s term in office. When Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died less than two months before the 2020 election, McConnell tossed his new standard out the window so he could rush the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett before the electionthans. 

Barrett, perhaps sensitive to the political nature of her appointment, gave a recent speech in which she claimed, “This court is not comprised of political hacks.” She added, “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.” I might give more credence to Barrett’s words had she uttered them some place other than the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center. Yep, that McConnell, the senator who strong-armed her appointment to the Supreme Court!

Overturning Roe, which appears likely based on the questions the justices asked Wednesday, will be the capstone to a alarming number of political decisions made by the Supreme Court in the last two decades. Bush v. Gore was premised on legal arguments, as one academic phrased it, that “would further the election of the Republican candidate, George W. Bush.” Citizens United reversed century-old campaign restrictions previously upheld by the courts, again an instance of the only thing that changed was the makeup of the court itself. The same can be said of the high court’s ruling in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder which gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County, and while he is often viewed as an institutionalist who believes the court should tread carefully and incrementally, he is a longtime antagonist of the 1965 voting law. So, in a signal of the political brazenness of the current conservative majority, the Roberts-led court eviscerated another section of that law in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committeedecided last Junefurther tipping the electoral scales in favor of the Republican Party by allowing states to deny whole groups of Democratic-leaning voters access to the ballot. 

In addition to the pending abortion decision, the Supreme Court is slated in the current term to hear highly political cases involving the right to carry concealed weapons outside the home, the fate of affirmative action, and a religious case that could erode the separation of church and state. As the recent past indicates, and the possible future may buttress, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court issues political decisions frequently.

Unfortunately, Justice Sotomayor, there is already a stench issuing from the Supreme Court. The likely overturning of Roe is a political act, but the high court already stinks because of its numerous political acts — and the politicization of its makeup — over the last few decades.

Posted December 3, 2021


So… The Emperor Has No Clothes

Picture by Hilary Stone Ginsberg

Most political analysts assume Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a master strategist who knows how to use (or bend) the Senate’s rules to achieve his ends. That is the prevailing interpretation based on McConnell’s career in the Senate and his sometimes dubious accomplishments, such as pilfering a seat on the Supreme Court by denying Merrick Garland a vote and ramming through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination in the waning weeks of the Trump administration.

But, what if the emperor has no clothes? Is it possible that the unnecessary and silly dispute over raising the debt ceiling reveals not McConnell’s wiliness and strength but, rather, his impotence?

McConnell admitted as much in recent days when he conceded that even if he wanted to allow Democrats to raise the debt ceiling on a straight party vote, with Republicans voting “no” but not filibustering the measure, he could not corral every Republican to allow the increase to pass. McConnell did convince 10 Republicans to approve a procedural move to allow the Democrats to move forward a stopgap bill raising the debt ceiling through early December. That bill passed Thursday night on a straight party vote. But, the concession is a temporary, not a long-term, fix, and its passage left some  Senate Republicans angry with McConnell because they think he caved into the Democrats. 

Most analysts agree the majority of the Republican caucus would stand aside and allow the Democrats to pass a debt ceiling increase rather than force the United States to default on its debts. But, there are a few diehard conservatives among Republicans — perhaps five or so senators — who would filibuster any proposal that would allow a majority vote on the issue. If one senator objects, then it would take 10 Republicans joining all 50 Democrats to end a filibuster. That would reveal dissension among Republicans, something that McConnell would not want made public. 

The debt ceiling standoff — temporarily ended, though it may be — is yet another argument for abolishing the filibuster. The filibuster has become a tool of Republican obstructionism, allowing a willful, petulant minority to prevent the majority from doing the people’s business. Something is wrong with a system that allows one senator to filibuster a measure and the rest of his or her colleagues refusing to vote to stop that obstructionism. Republican senators represent 40 million fewer voters than Democratic senators, yet the Senate is evenly split. It is likely to get worse. According to estimates, by 2040, 70 percent of Americans will be living in the 15 most populous states. They will be represented by only 30 senators, while the other 30 percent of Americans will have 70 senators voting on their behalf. 

The filibuster gives a small minority of a minority the power to prevent popular legislation from passing. It is absurd that a handful of senators, from small states, can prevent passage of popular measures to protect the environment, raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration policy. Both parties, of course, have wielded the filibuster in recent years to frustrate the other, but McConnell and his Republican colleagues have utilized the filibuster to bolster minority power in ways never intended by either the Framers of the Constitution or by senators through most of American history.

Fear that Democrats might take steps to abolish or limit the filibuster probably convinced Republicans to yield temporarily on the debt ceiling increase. While the filibuster is hard to justify ever, its use on matters that are not issues of policy — such as the United States honoring its debts — is beyond the pale. Everyone on both sides of the aisle insists that the United States must not default on its obligations, yet Republicans were willing to prevent a vote that would allow the country to honor its debt. Invoking the filibuster on the debt ceiling was not policy, but political maneuvering by Republicans aimed at making Democrats as uncomfortable as possible and, ultimately, allowing Republicans to portray Democrats as profligate spenders. South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham conceded the political motives of Republicans when he said, “I mean, I’m not going to be a complete asshole about it [raising the debt ceiling]. But, I’m going to make them take some tough votes.” Good to know that Graham sees himself as only a partial “asshole.”

Democrats have been inching toward doing something about the filibuster by either eliminating it entirely or carving out categories of legislation that would not be subject to minority obstruction. Republican intransigence on voting rights, for example, has forced increased demands for reforming the filibuster. The current fight over the debt ceiling has led some who have been hesitant to end the filibuster to change their minds. President Joe Biden — who served decades in the Senate and has been viewed by many as an “institutionalist” — said this week that it is “a real possibility” the Senate would change its rules to bypass Republican filibustering on the debt ceiling. Later, Biden added that filibustering debt legislation is “not right, and it’s dangerous.”

“Republicans are making the case more powerfully than I could a million times on the floor,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat and a longtime filibuster opponent. “What they are doing is obstruction and utterly exposes the filibuster. And it is not just inconvenience. It is desperately dangerous.” McConnell and other Republicans may have gotten the message that Democrats saw the fight over the debt ceiling as a way to alter the filibuster.

But, that recognition does not change the fact that McConnell cannot control his caucus. The willingness of a handful of Republican senators on the far right to endanger the credit of the United States forced McConnell to deny Democrats any Republican cooperation in allowing a straight party vote on preventing a default. So, perhaps it is McConnell being led by far right conservatives in the Republican Party rather than McConnell leading the Republican caucus.

After all, the emperor has no clothes!

Posted October 8, 2021

Supremely Undemocratic

Picture by Hilary Stone Ginsberg

I just read a most frightening book: The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court is Reshaping America, by Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent for Vox. Frightening because the Supreme Court, unelected and not answerable to the public due to the life tenure of judges, is reshaping American politics and society in an undemocratic direction not favored by a majority of voters.

The Supreme Court’s recent activism fills a void left by partisan gridlock in Washington. Congress has passed little substantial legislation in the last decade. This may be changing with Democrats in control of Congress and the presidency, but unless Democrats are willing to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, President Joe Biden’s ambitious plans probably will come to naught. Besides, the rightwing tilt of the nation’s high court may well result in the Supreme Court overturning much of whatever legislation Democrats succeed in passing.

While Congress dithered, a conservative Supreme Court was busy, dismantling campaign finance laws, eroding voter protection legislation, weakening Obamacare, undermining the separation of church and state, removing safeguards against sexual and racial harassment, diminishing rules shielding the environment from polluters, and granting employers increased power over hours, wages, and the safety of workers.  Conservatives once decried “judicial activism,” but now that Republicans represent a minority of the nation, the courts have become the last bastion of conservative ideology. Republicans under GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell have been ruthless in insuring Republican domination of the nation’s courts. 

The reshaping of American law by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts will continue in the term starting this October, with the high court poised to overturn abortion protections and end affirmative action in higher education. In addition, the court will hear a lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association that asserts the constitutional right to carry a weapon outside the home. The case challenges a century-old New York law that requires citizens demonstrate a legitimate self-defense need in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. 

All this is being done by an undemocratic branch of the United States government. The Supreme Court has always been far removed from popular will. The justices, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, hold lifetime jobs and short of some egregious actions warranting impeachment and conviction, they cannot be removed from office. 

Millhiser describes how the Supreme Court has eviscerated voting rights protections in the last decade and predicts further encroachment on equal access to the ballot. He notes that the Supreme Court can weaken democracy because the American constitutional system is, itself, not democratic since not all votes are equal. Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 even though his opponent received three million more votes. While the numbers fluctuate with each election, Republican senators represent 40 million or so fewer people than Democratic senators because conservative red states like Wyoming have the same number of senators as liberal blue state California, even though the latter has a population nearly 70 times greater.

To put it starkly, the last three justices confirmed to the court — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by senators who represent less than half the country. These three justices — all relatively young — have tipped a conservative-leaning court to the far right. The result: An undemocratic cohort of justices is weakening American democracy. 

Much ink has been spilled describing the judicial attack on voting rights. But, as noted above, it is not the only area in which the Roberts-led Supreme Court is removing democratic protections. Of particular note is the attack by the court — led by Neil Gorsuch — on what is often referred to as the “administrative state.”

Governing a modern industrial and technological society is complex. Members of Congress cannot and do not know all the details required in, say, protecting the environment or regulating businesses. All Congress can do — and should do — is pass the broad outlines of policy, such as establishing the limits of permissible carbon emissions into the environment. When Congress acts in such a manner, it considers the best technology available at the time the law is enacted. But, technology changes, so to keep up with these changes, Congress routinely delegates to the various departments and agencies of the executive branch the power to establish rules. And, these departments and agencies may change the rules as needed given technological improvements and societal needs. 

Until recently, the Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases that it is best to allow the executive agencies to flesh out ambiguities in law and to write rules to enforce congressionally passed laws. Gorsuch disagrees, arguing that it is better to give judges, who he says are “independent” of popular whim, this power. Gorsuch would place the rule-writing power, as Millhiser writes, “in the hands of the closest thing the United States has to a medieval nobility — unelected judges who serve for life.”

Gorsuch argues that judges — unlike federal regulators who are answerable to an elected president — are above politics. The justice conveniently forgets that he has his current job because Senate Republicans used raw political power to keep President Barack Obama’s appointee — Merrick Garland — off the bench to put instead a conservative — Gorsuch — on it. Republican Senators knew full well that a Republican judge like Gorsuch is far more likely to issue a conservative judicial decision than a Democratic judge.

Millhiser avoids discussing the remedies for curbing the undemocratic tendencies of an undemocratic institution bent on abrogating democratic rights, but his book provides fodder for calls in recent years to reform the court. Among the suggestions for change are increasing the number of justices (“court-packing”), limiting the tenure of justices, allowing every president to appoint two new justices, and creating a system to select justices on a bipartisan basis.

Whatever the remedy or remedies, the need to act is urgent to insure the continuation of American democracy, which is threatened by the conservative justices who dominate the Supreme Court.

Posted August 31, 2021

The Shamelessness of Mitch McConnell

Picture by Hilary Stone Ginsberg

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell does not care about much in politics — except the exercise of power for its own sake. Former President Barack Obama recalls in his memoir that McConnell told then Vice President Joe Biden, when discussing the policy merits of a bill, “You must be under the mistaken impression that I care.” Legislating for the public good has never been a goal of the Kentucky senator. 

But, McConnell does care about the courts, seeing the federal bench as a tool to entrench Republican dominance of one branch of government, at least, for decades. He worked with former President Donald Trump to pack the courts. He has used every trick in his legislative toolbox to insure conservative majorities in the court system. When he could, McConnell choked off Obama’s nominees to district and appellate courts and rammed through Trump’s. He notoriously denied Obama’s last nominee to the Supreme Court a hearing, then forced through Trump’s final nominee only days before the 2020 presidential election. 

In his single-minded pursuit of judicial power, McConnell has made up the rules on the fly on who gets to appoint whom and who approves which nominee, finding a justification — no matter how absurd — to fit every situation. When conservative hero Justice Antonin Scalia died, McConnell refused to consider Merrick Garland as the replacement, saying the Senate should not vote on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year. Never mind that Scalia died in February 2016 and Obama named Garland in March. Never mind that the Senate previously approved justices in an election year.

Four years later, McConnell had to come up with a codicil to the rule about not approving a justice in an election year. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020, Trump named Amy Coney Barrett, whose nomination McConnell ushered through the Senate on October 26. What about the 2016 rule? Oh, McConnell told us in 2020, he only meant the Garland rule to apply when the president and the Senate majority are from different parties. When the president and the Senate are from the same party, then the rule is different and the Senate can approve the nominee up to election day. McConnell would even argue, I suppose, up to the inauguration of the next president. 

Now, the codicil has its own codicil! McConnell suggests that if Republicans regain control of the Senate in 2022 and a vacancy to the high court occurs in 2023, he might block a nomination made by President Biden. When conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt asked McConnell about this scenario, the senator replied, “We’d have to wait and see what happens.” That is McConnell-speak for the following: If my majority in the Senate is strong enough to withstand a defection or two from moderates in my caucus, I will block a Biden-named justice. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin of Illinois summed up McConnell’s hypocrisy: “Are you surprised? I mean he would change the rules a third time if he could to make sure that they get the choice on the next Supreme Court justice.” Durbin added, “He’s not much for precedent and tradition when it doesn’t serve him politically.”

McConnell’s shenanigans are patently absurd! The Constitution says the president has the power to nominate judges to the Supreme Court with the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” That is it! Nothing more. It takes a tortured reading of our founding document to turn “Advice and Consent” into blocking presidential nominees and packing the courts. But, McConnell is a master at tortured readings. It is also extraordinarily hypocritical of a leader of the party that professes — at least, it once did profess — fealty to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. Moreover, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Constitution about political parties. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution thought parties had no place in a republic. James Madison, revered as the Father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist 10 that a “well-constructed Union” would “break and control the violence of faction (the 18th century term for party).”

McConnell’s rationales may constitute shenanigans, but they are explicable shenanigans. As much as McConnell cares about the courts, he cares more about being majority leader. He knows that Republicans are in danger of being frozen out of power in the coming years as the Republican base of older white men shrinks as a percentage of the population. The looming electoral catastrophe facing Republicans is a spur to pack the courts now. It is also a spur to use the courts as a political weapon to mobilize conservative voters. McConnell knows that the only way for Republicans to regain control of the Senate is to encourage conservatives to vote in the 2022 midterms. One issue that motivates many Republican voters is control of the courts, which is why McConnell now is threatening to deny a president from the opposing party any chance to name a justice to the Supreme Court.

This may be absurd and not what the Founders intended, but it is hardball politics, and Democrats must also play hardball to stay in the game. For starters, Democrats must persuade the 82-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer to retire now so Biden can name his replacement while Democrats have control of the Senate. No justice wants his or her retirement to appear politically motivated, but McConnell has turned Senate judicial approval into a political matter, so it is too late for Breyer to be squeamish about leaving. He must not make the same mistake Ruth Bader Ginsburg made in sticking around as a justice until her death. Ginsburg deservedly is a liberal icon, but she erred by not retiring when Obama could have named her successor.

Democrats should also consider increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to equalize the court’s ideological makeup. Such a move has the odious repute of “court-packing,” but the Constitution is silent on the number of justices on the high court, and in the early years of the Republic the number fluctuated. More importantly, McConnell’s high-handed, extra-Constitutional manipulation of the constitutional requirement that the Senate “Advice and Consent” has resulted in his packing the court, giving Democrats every justification to act.

If raising the number of justices proves unpalatable, Democrats can move to reform the Supreme Court. Reform could adjust the personnel of the court by shortening their terms of office through term limits or granting every president the power to appoint two new justices regardless of how many justices wind up serving at any given time. Other proposals include devising a process to select justices on a bipartisan basis. 

None of this would be easy, particularly proposals suggesting bipartisan action. But, Democrats must act. The nation is becoming more progressive. President Biden has an ambitious program that may or may not get through Congress. But, regardless of whether Biden or some future progressive president — backed by overwhelming majorities in Congress — gets to enact liberal policies, Democrats must insure that those policies are not then nullified by Mitch McConnell’s shameless legacy of a conservative packed court.

Posted June 18, 2021

Undemocratic Republicans

We’re not a democracy. — Tweet of Senator Mike Lee, Utah Republican, October 7, 2010.

Senator Lee’s screed against democracy channeled long-standing right-wing tropes claiming the United States is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. The impetus for this view of the American social compact derives from controversies surrounding the nation’s entry into World War II. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the defense of democracy central to persuading the American public of the necessity of intervening in the European war. Opponents of U.S. intervention pushed back by arguing that the nation was not a democracy, but a republic.

The concept became a right-wing slogan in the 1960s when Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, used it in a speech entitled, “Republics and Democracies.” Welch claimed that in a democracy, “There is a centralization of governmental power in a simple majority. And that, visibly, is the system of government which the enemies of our republic are seeking to impose on us today.” Welch’s ideas never completely disappeared, and his cramped view of the American democratic experiment found expression earlier this year in a lengthy report, “America is a Republic, Not a Democracy,” issued by The Heritage Foundation. 

I suspect Lee’s tweet was not part of a theoretical exercise about the nature of American government. Much ink can be, and has been, spilled over the Founders’ distrust of democracy (hence the Senate and the Electoral College as checks on the popular will), and the widespread 18th-century conviction that America — as a burgeoning continental empire — was simply too large to emulate ancient Athens as a direct democracy. Besides, though the free citizens of Athens gathered in assemblies, the city-state of the classical era teetered between tyranny and democracy during the Peloponnesian War — as Thucydides describes — and it practiced slavery.

No, Lee had a particular point in mind, no doubt. He, like many Republicans, is worried, specifically, about this election in which the people appear poised to express their will and throw Republicans out of the White House and the Senate. More generally, his concern is about current demographic trends that are likely to make the Republican Party a permanent minority in coming years. 

The immediate concern for Republicans is November 3, and the Trump administration, aided by many sycophantic Republicans, has been softening the country for a repudiation of democracy. Trump has been doing this by refusing to say if he will honor the results of the election — if he loses — and peacefully cede power to his successor and by priming some of his more violence-ready followers to take matters into their own hands (“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by”). The vehicle for all this is Trump’s frequent attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in balloting, a form of voting likely to be employed in disproportionate numbers by Democrats trying to stay safe during the pandemic. In Trump’s world, mailed ballots constitute “massive fraud.”

If Republicans succeed, millions of Americans will lose their vote this year through challenges to mail-in ballots and through transparent attempts to suppress the vote, such as the decree by Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott to limit drop-off locations for mail-in ballots to one per county. Abbott’s voter suppression gambit is in the courts now, but if it is approved it would mean that Harris County — a Democratic stronghold that includes the city of Houston and which is huge in size and population — would have only one drop box to serve more than four-million people.

Voter suppression has been a Republican ploy for decades. Republicans have imposed restrictive voter-ID requirements, limited times for registering to vote and actually voting, and closed voting places in areas with large numbers of minorities. Republicans keenly are aware that as the proportion of minorities and the young increase among eligible voters, Republican chances of retaining political influence diminish. Suppressing the vote is a tactic to delay the inevitable day when the GOP will no longer be an effective nationwide political organization.

Packing the Supreme Court is another Republican attempt to thwart the popular will. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, abused the system by withholding hearings on President Barack Obama’s federal judgeship nominees. Then, once Trump was elected, McConnell rushed to place as many conservative judges on the federal courts as possible as a way to curb the progressivism of emerging Democratic majorities. McConnell’s grotesque power play to deny President Barack Obama a Supreme Court appointment nine months before an election while pushing the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the high court after millions of Americans have already voted is the best known example of Republican court packing. The motive is obvious: Republicans are likely to lose the White House and Congress for decades to come, but if young conservatives are put on the bench, they will be in a position to overturn progressive legislation. At least, that is the thinking.

Democratic threats to “pack the court” are a response to Republican attempts to make the Supreme Court the last bastion of conservatism. Court packing has an odious reputation, but there is nothing in the Constitution fixing the number of justices at nine. True, the last serious attempt to increase the number of justices — by Roosevelt in the 1930s because of judicial opposition to the New Deal — is viewed as a political failure. But, while the number of justices remained at nine, what is often forgotten is that in the midst of the court-packing fight, the Court veered to the left and began to approve New Deal welfare and regulatory legislation. Historians argue about cause-and-effect in the famous “switch in time that saved nine,” but the precedent is clear. Perhaps, the looming Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act will be a harbinger of both how conservative the court will be and what Democrats will do to counter a possible turn to the right.

Voter suppression and jamming conservatives on the courts are Republican attempts to undermine American democracy. Labelling the United States a republic, rather than a democracy is an exercise in political theory not likely to impress many Americans. But, suppressing the vote and packing the courts with conservatives does affect many citizens, which is why all indications are that record numbers of Americans are likely to vote this year against the undemocratic tendencies of the Republican Party.

Posted October 13, 2020