Dear Senator Murkowski:

[I got an email saying to write my Senators about the Supreme Court nomination, so I wrote Senator Murkowski, even though she already said she would vote to confirm.  I know that as a Republican she's under great pressure to vote yes.  It's easy for all of us without that pressure to fault her.  And I do believe she's wrong.  But I also have taught ethics to graduate students and public officials.  It's MUCH easier to decide another person's ethical decision than it is to make our own.  When everything one has worked for is threatened, it's often hard to do 'the right thing.'  I advised my students to save up, as fast as they could, a year's salary so that when they are asked to do something illegal and/or unethical, they could refuse, knowing that they had a year to find another job.  

What I wanted to emphasize in this letter is that the Republicans have totally messed up the process of nominating Supreme Court justices.  The Federalist Society and others have spent 40 years or so focused on developing a theory of law that would favor the interests of corporations and people with lots of money.  The Democrats missed what was happening for way too long - that was there mistake.  But McConnell's holding up of Obama judges and the Merrick Garland, messed with fair play.  He could do that not because it was right, but because he had the votes.  

So this is what I ended up sending Senator Murkowski yesterday]:

I realize your decision to vote for Amy Coney Barrett was not an easy one and that my voice will have no impact on that decision.

But this is so important I feel compelled to write anyway.  

In the past, most Supreme Court justices were confirmed with comfortable majorities, with many if not most members from both parties voting for them.  It was only when Republicans started voting Federalist Society influenced candidates, who were far to the right and did not represent the views of the American public, that  bi-partisan votes ended.  And it has only been a few times.  (not sure the chart below will show up properly. If not, it's from the US Senate website here:  https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm)

Nominee		To Replace		Nominated*		Vote**		Result & Date***
President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy Coney		Ginsburg		Sep 29, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett		Kennedy		Jul 10, 2018		50-48  No.  223		C		Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M.		Scalia		Feb 1, 2017		54-45  No.  111		C		Apr 7, 2017
President Obama, Barack
Garland, Merrick B.		Scalia		Mar 16, 2016				N
Kagan, Elena		Stevens		May 10, 2010		63-37  No.  229		C		Aug 5, 2010
Sotomayor, Sonia		Souter		Jun 1, 2009		68-31  No.  262		C		Aug 6, 2009
President Bush, George W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr.		O'Connor		Nov 10, 2005		58-42  No.  2		C		Jan 31, 2006
Miers, Harriet		O'Connor		Oct 7, 2005				W		Oct 28, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.1		Rehnquist		Sep 6, 2005		78-22  No.  245		C		Sep 29, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.		O'Connor		Jul 29, 2005				W		Sep 6, 2005
President Clinton, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G.		Blackmun		May 17, 1994		87-9  No.  242		C		Jul 29, 1994
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader		White		Jun 22, 1993		96-3  No.  232		C		Aug 3, 1993
President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas, Clarence		Marshall		Jul 8, 1991		52-48  No.  220		C		Oct 15, 1991
Souter, David H.		Brennan		Jul 25, 1990		90-9  No.  259		C		Oct 2, 1990
President Reagan, Ronald
Kennedy, Anthony M.		Powell		Nov 30, 1987		97-0  No.  16		C		Feb 3, 1988
Bork, Robert H.		Powell		Jul 7, 1987		42-58  No.  348		R		Oct 23, 1987
Scalia, Antonin		Rehnquist		Jun 24, 1986		98-0  No.  267		C		Sep 17, 1986
Rehnquist, William H. 2		Burger		Jun 20, 1986		65-33  No.  266		C		Sep 17, 1986
O'Connor, Sandra Day		Stewart		Aug 19, 1981		99-0  No.  274		C		Sep 21, 1981
President Ford, Gerald
Stevens, John Paul		Douglas		Nov 28, 1975		98-0  No.  603		C		Dec 17, 1975
President Nixon, Richard
Rehnquist, William H.		Harlan		Oct 22, 1971		68-26  No.  450		C		Dec 10, 1971
Powell, Lewis F., Jr.		Black		Oct 22, 1971		89-1  No.  439		C		Dec 6, 1971
Blackmun, Harry		Fortas		Apr 15, 1970		94-0  No.  143		C		May 12, 1970
Carswell, G. Harrold		Fortas		Jan 19, 1970		45-51  No.  122		R		Apr 8, 1970
Haynsworth, Clement, Jr.		Fortas		Aug 21, 1969		45-55  No.  154		R		Nov 21, 1969
Burger, Warren 3		Warren		May 23, 1969		74-3  No.  35		C		Jun 9, 1969

When Supreme Court justices are confirmed on strict party lines, it projects a clear 

problem for the credibility of the court.  I know you said that now you are voting on the qualifications of the candidate, but clearly the process is still a serious problem when you will have a justice who was opposed by all the Democratic Senators who represent far more US citizens than do the Republican Senators.  From a 2018 article (https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-senate-is-so-rigged-that-democrats-may-never-control-it-ever-again-14ede9ac5f01/):

 "In the outgoing Senate — the Senate that placed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court — the 49 senators in the Democratic “minority” represent almost 40 million more people than the Republican “majority.” In the incoming Senate, the Democratic “minority” will still represent millions more people — despite the fact that Republicans grew their “majority” last night."

The removal of the cloture rule in court cases in general and Supreme Court cases in particular has meant that judges who are acceptable by at least some members of the minority party is no longer necessary.  

I would argue that these are procedural issues that are destroying the credibility of the US Supreme Court, just as the Congress' credibility has been seriously harmed in recent years.  

Voting Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court with only Republican votes moves the US government to further dysfunction.  The tactics of Majority Leader McConnell to not allow Obama court vacancies to be filled - including the outrageous maneuvering over Merrick Garland and then the even more outrageous change of "principle" to approve Barrett in the middle of voting.  This reveals McConnell as simply ignoring democracy and using the power he's accumulated - including changing the cloture rule - to force one more far right Republican justice onto the court.  And it will force Democrats to use similar kinds of actions to reestablish a US Supreme Court that is more in line with the values of the US population and interpretations of the Constitution that value individual human rights over the rights of multinational corporations.  And Republicans will loudly cry foul, as Democrats are doing now.

I've voiced my approval of actions you've take as Senator when they represented my values and I've voiced my disappointment with other actions you've taken.  

I know you walk a thin line, and I don't know that if you voted against Barrett it would even be enough to block her appointment.  But I'm extremely disappointed now at your decision and ask you to reconsider it, given that her appointment will mean all out warfare between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for years to come.

[This won't (perhaps hasn't by now) changed Murkowski's vote, but it does mean to me that Alaskan Democrats will need to find a strong candidate to run in 2022.  I suspect that fact that she showed doubts at all, made her persona non grata among the Republicans and they will find an alternative candidate in the Republican primary.  Though we are voting on a proposition this election that would change our voting to Ranked Choice.  If it passes the control of the parties will be weakened.  So everything is up in the air.  Even the removal of a demented president is being left to the public because the Senate Republicans didn't have the integrity to do the job themselves.  Any private corporation would have removed a CEO like Trump - either by gently by taking away his powers, or by firing him.  The Republican  Senators couldn't do that.  They have no credibility.   

And, by the way, it didn't seem worth the effort to even copy this and email it to my other Senator Dan Sullivan.]

I Found Trump's Health Care Plan - It's Called "Go Fund Me"

Trump campaigned in 2016 saying he would get rid of Obama Care and replace it with something much, much better.  So far the closest we've gotten is the regular teaser, "A few more weeks and we'll have it."  Biden challenged Trump on his missing health care plan again at Thursday night's debate and Trump claimed to have a great health care plan coming up.  

Well, I think I've found his plan.  It's called Go Fund Me.  

The Go Fund Me website has a whole category called "Health Insurance Fundraisers".  12 appeals show up, but at the bottom of the page you can ask for more and get 12 more, then 12 more.  I stopped at 36, but it kept going.  

This is the defacto Trump Health Care plan.  

And I'm pretty sure the main thing many conservatives, and certainly Trump, oppose about the ACA is that it was Obama's program.  It's Obama that they want to erase even more than "socialized" medicine.

Best Political Ad, And Some Shabby Ones

 Since all my 'viewing' is online, I don't see the political ads on television, unless someone puts them online.  So my sample is small.  But the Jaimie Harrison ad below really impressed me.  It's not an attack ad and it goes beyond platitudes about helping the poor or lowering taxes (though it's still a feel good ad, not a policy ad.)  AND it's visually really cool.  His campaign against sitting Judiciary Committee chair Lindsay Graham has attracted a lot of money from outside of South Carolina, so he's got the cash to produce better than average commercials.  

Check it out.  Then we'll look at some local campaign mail I got that isn't so good.

Whether you need access to affordable healthcare, high-speed broadband to learn and work from home, or someone to pave your dirt road, I'm going to fight for you in the U.S. Senate. pic.twitter.com/UgoQOtVCnT

— Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) October 16, 2020

Now for the local stuff.  I'd note, that in both cases, these are races outside of my own local district so I'm not sure why I'm getting them.  

A.   "Chris tuck is attacking your right to choose"

Chris has been in the State House at least ten years.  He's a Democrat and has had party leadership positions.  

This ad comes from Republican Katherine Henslee who is challenging him in the election.  I scratched my head when I read this.  A Republican is attacking a Democrat for being anti-abortion.  I called the candidate it was from.  

Steve:  Why are you sending out attack ads about Chris Tuck on abortion?

Katherine:  I'm surprised you think it's an attack ad.

Steve:  Well you attack his position on abortion. 

Katherine:  It's the truth. 

Steve:  So, are you pro-choice?

Katherine:  No, I'm pro-life.

Steve:  Then why are you attacking him on his pro-life stance?

Katherine:  Well, he doesn't support pro-life legislation as strongly as I would.  

Steve;  But I suspect he probably aligns a lot better on most of the other issues with pro-choice voters than you do, don't you think?

Basically, she's trying to sow seeds of doubt among pro-choice voters.  I couldn't get hold of Chris, but another person involved in Democratic politics told me that he is, personally, against abortion, but he's a Democrat and doesn't push against abortion in his political role.  

I'm not sure what sort of effect this has on voters.  Probably not much, but it may be like the attacks on Hillary Clinton and now Biden, to try to make some Democratic voters just leave their ballots blank rather than vote for Chris Tuck.  

My Opponent's left-wing Antifa Supporters

The most effective part of this letter is the photos of defaced signs.  But we don't know who did this. And there's nothing to suggest that Revak knows either.  There's even the possibility that he did this himself, though I wouldn't make that claim without more evidence.  

But the rhetoric looks like it's straight out of national Republican campaign book:

• "Left wing Antifa supporters"
• "Organizations that work hard to defund the police and bail out violent rioters"
• "We will beat him and Antifa"
• "will stop at nothing to steal this district from Republicans.  Their thugs have come out in force."

And from the back page:

• "My opponent has support from outside money and influence. While our opponents want to suppress our resource development, limit our economic growth, and waste our savings, I'm fighting for what is best for the future of Alaska and for you"

1.  Antifa.   Wow!!  You'd think Antifa folks are running all over Alaska, rioting, and destroying property.  This is pure Republican  propaganda.  

Basically, the most 'real' thing about Antifa is how the Republicans the word to create a "Left" boogie man  that's  rioting and threatening to decent people.  It's part of Trump's strategy to throw whatever is said about him back onto his opponents.   But as this Washington Post article outlines, 

• there is no monolithic organization called Antifa; 
• it doesn't mastermind violence at BLM rallies;
•  it's not affiliated with the Democratic party; 
•  it's not funded by billionaires like George Soros; and 
• they aren't 'the real fascists.'

At best it's an idea that people scattered around the US identify with in opposition to the fascist direction of the far right.  But again, Trump will even take a name that is "anti-fa(scist)" and say that it is fascist.  

And there have been NO riots or even rowdy BLM marches in Anchorage or other parts of Alaska.  Only benign peaceful events.  Clearly this is nationally directed rhetoric by people who know nothing about what's happening in Alaska.  If Alaskan's did write this, it's based on national talking points, not Alaskan reality.

2.  "Steal this district from Republicans" assumes that a district is owned by one party or another. But each district belongs to all the constituents of the district.  There are no "Republican" owned districts for Democrats or Independents to steal.  I find this particularly invidious.

3.  Outside money and influence.  

Actually, "outside" was written with a small 'o' suggesting he didn't mean Outside of Alaska. But it doesn't matter, since pretty much all candidates have money from 'outside.'  Nationally, it's clear that Senators from red states represent tens of millions fewer voters than Senators from blue states, but have more Senators, as this chart from 538 shows:

So people in the more populous blue states recognize that ideological Supreme Court nominees get approved in the Senate because small state Senators (each state gets two regardless of population) representing a minority of the US population, make up the majority of US Senators.  And so they know that if they want their majority views to prevail in the Senate, they have to contribute to Senate races outside of their own states.  

And both Republicans and Democrats only complain about Outside money when it's their opponents Outside money.  I haven't hear Revak complain about all the Outside money Governor Dunleavy, who appointed Revak to his Senate seat, raised.  

4.  Defund Police

Another national Republican talking point.  In Anchorage,  conservative Mayor Sullivan defunded the police during his terms and more liberal Mayor Berkowitz added back police.  And nationally, the argument isn't to simply defund police, but rather to steer money to people and programs better equipped to deal with the causes of crime and defusing conflicts.  The argument is that the police have to deal with too many issues they aren't trained or equipped to handle.  Like poverty, addiction, and mental health issues.  Fund experts and programs dealing with those issues and free the police to handle the real criminals.  

That's it, a review of the campaign media of three candidates that came my way.  

I'm Not Really Being Lazy Just Because I Don't Have A New Post Everyday

 Because, actually, I do.  And sometimes two.  

Since I started tracking Alaska's COVID-19 cases, other posts aren't showing up so often.  I started just doing COVID-19 posts here, like this post.  But they were taking too much room and I was repeating the same charts over and over.  So I switched to a "Page" - a tab in Blogger jargon.  So now, unless you click on the tab above (just under the orange blog banner) it looks like I haven't done a new post.  

But in addition to updating the table with the day's new numbers, I do a brief summary as well.  Like this one from yesterday:

Monday, October 19, 2020 - Good signs, but not all good.  

Today was the second day in a row with no new deaths or new hospitalizations.  October 4 was the last time we had just one day with no deaths or hospitalizations.  We have to go back to September 14 and 15 for two days in a row like that.  And before that?  June 27-30 when there were four days with no deaths or hospitalizations.  This might just be a problem of not getting the hospitalization reports in over the weekend.  But it's a glimmer of hope.

There were 208/200 new resident cases.  It's four days in a row with 200 or more cases.  That has never happened before in Alaska.  Not so good.  The more cases, the more eventual hospitalizations and deaths to follow.

27 reported recoveries and 175 MORE active cases - for another all time high of 5235.

11,012 new tests, one of the highest totals. [10/20/20 -Had typo in chart yesterday.  Not sure how many new tests, yesterday.  The updated past numbers are totally different from what I documented daily.] We're at [5]33,723 tests total.  Our state population is about 730,000.  But this number is NOT how many Alaskans have been tested, but how many tests have been given.  Many essential workers get tested over and over again. 

The test positivity rate dropped slightly from 4.78 yesterday to 4.6 today.  Under 5.0 is good.  

The State keeps other numbers I don't keep track of on the chart above.  I've been reporting Reproductive Number in the daily reports lately.  Today down slightly to 1.07.  Under 1 is the goal.  We're close.

I haven't mentioned hospital capacity for a while, mainly because it hasn't been an issue.  But when I looked today, The hospitals are getting a little more crowded.

57% of adult beds are occupied.  There are 550 vacant.  That's for everything, not just COVID-19.

68% of adult ICU beds are occupied.  There are only 43 left.  Again, not just COVID-19 patients.

Ventilators aren't an issue at this point.  Only 9% being used with 324 left.  

There are 41 COVID-19 patients in hospital beds and 24 more suspected COVID-19 cases.  

What I'm learning is that the State's numbers are fluid.  That is they get adjusted as more info comes in - maybe some new cases turn out to be non-residents instead of residents, or a bunch of tests come in from several days ago.  I'm just doing each day's numbers and if anyone every wants to know how much the State's numbers have fluctuated, they can compare what the State has posted to what I have posted.  Though that won't show how often the State adjusted their numbers.  

We've been seeing about 200 new resident cases a day this last week or so and the number of active cases keeps going up because new cases outpace recovered cases.  Though recovered cases are one of the least up-to-date numbers they offer.  

On the positive side, our Test Positivity has only been over 5.0 a couple of times.  (5.0 is the target number set by the WHO.  And our Reproductive Number is only fractions above the target number to be below: 1.0.  

But with not much effort at all, the numbers could explode, and our hospitals could get overpacked.  

Anyway, just wanted to point out that this action is taking place a little hidden from sight in the tabs. There are two COVID tabs because the first one was getting really big.  It goes from June 1 to September 30. (Before that I was doing daily COVID-19  posts, which you can probably find most easily by looking at the Blog Archive (right had column) in March, April, and May.  The new tab started October 1.  

Stay well and if you must engage the anti-maskers do it gently and just listen, don't argue.  Ask questions if you have to say anything.  They have issues regarding power mostly, so telling them to do something pisses them off.  Like a rebelling teenager who will do the opposite of what you ask them to do.  These are chronological adults, but emotional teenagers.  (Yeah, that's a pretty broad generalization, but I suspect it's more accurate than not.)

"When You Find Hypocrisy In The Daylight, Look For Power In the Shadows" - Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse At Barrett Hearings

I didn't see all of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  But of what I saw, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had the most insightful things to say.  He stepped back and put this particular nomination into both the context of recent events and also much longer term events.  As he says, he's looking beyond the stage of the puppet theater of the hearing to see who's pulling the strings and pushing the sticks that move the puppets.  

Most important is his following the money that:

• Has spent 40 years educating law students in a very conservative way of interpreting the law.
• Funded shadow organizations that make multiple  Friend of the Court filings on the court cases they have themselves created
• Also funded Federalist Society that gives Trump his Supreme Court nominee names

He looks at where the money comes from and traces most of it back to the same few people.

He then says, while the media have focused on abortion and LGBTQ rights (which are important), the real story deals with 80 cases that were decided by 5-4 rulings along partisan lines.  These cases had four themes important to large corporations:

• Unlimited Dark Money - that allows the wealthy and corporations (yes those do overlap) control legislatures that make the rules and even to get people appointed as head of federal agencies that regulate them.  Citizen United is the key decision here, but there are many others
• Knock the Civil Jury Down - The powerful can't control civil juries like they can control Congress.
• Weaken Regulatory Agencies - particularly pollutors to weaken their independence and strength
• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering - making it harder to vote for citizens who might vote against their interests - Shelby County decision on no factual record against overwhelming support on the other side, that knocked out voter suppression protections and a bunch of states started suppressing the vote.  Same on gerrymandering.  

Whitehouse makes a great presentation providing the evidence clearly.  This is critical to getting a good sense what's happening and why Democrats are upset with this nomination.  The Republicans have been packing the courts for years and years - through 

• creating a legal theory, Originalism, that I consider the Intelligent Design of Constitutional Law, and 
• through blocking Democratic nominees and holding off Merrick Garland, so they could fill those seats

I don't put up that many third party videos here.  Only ones I think are really worth your time.  So please figure out a good time when you can listen and then do so.

While we're on this topic, let me also point out that the words "extreme liberal" is not the opposite of "extreme conservative."  

"Extreme liberals" on the court have worked hard for individual rights - desegregating schools, supporting voting rights, giving women equal rights to men, recognizing the rights of LGBTQ folks.

"Extreme conservatives" have fought all those individual rights in favor of the rights of corporations, going so far to apply the individual rights in the Bill of Rights to corporations.  

The liberals are much more in synch with the beliefs of most US citizens.  The conservatives push legal theories that go against what most citizens hold, but they do a good job of marketing their contrary positions, by framing abortion as murder, and just outright lying.  

The two articles below offer more on this:

Mother Jones article on Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse comments at Barret hearing: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/watch-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-school-amy-coney-barrett-on-dark-money/

Here's a piece written by Sheldon Whitehouse spelling out the dark money interests in shaping he Supreme Court and how they do it.  

LA Times Article Looks At Republican Candidates Reversing Their Anti-ACA Stances - Including Dan Sullivan

Alaskans have all recently watched as Senator Dan Sullivan was forced by a leaked video to take a strong Twitter stand against Pebble Mine.  In the video, Pebble executives say that Sullivan is in their corner, but keeping quiet before the election. 

An LA Times article today says Sullivan, along with other Republicans like Iowa's Joni Ernst, are backing off their earlier anti-ACA stands.  

"WASHINGTON — Contempt for the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — was so central to Sen. Joni Ernst’s 2014 election campaign that the Iowa Republican, in a TV ad promising she’d “unload” on the law, pulled out a handgun and fired repeatedly. “Give me a shot,” she asked voters.

Six years later, the first-term senator is battling for reelection, and she’s holstered her gun.

Ernst is not alone. Earlier this month, she joined fellow Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Dan Sullivan of Alaska — two other would-be assassins of the 10-year-old healthcare law who are now fighting for their political survival — in breaking with their party to support Obamacare on the Senate floor. They voted with Democrats on a measure opposing a Republican-backed case against the law that’s now before the Supreme Court.

As that vote showed, endangered Republicans are frantically trying to pivot away from the “repeal Obamacare” slogans that served them well for much of the last decade. Those are now a liability amid a jump in public support for the healthcare law.

Candidates also are playing down the long-standing legal challenge initiated by a coalition of Republican-led states that’s reached the Supreme Court. And from President Trump on down, they claim to be guardians of Obamacare’s most popular provision — a guarantee of insurance coverage for people with preexisting conditions — though that mandate would fall with the rest of the law if the court’s conservative majority sides with Republicans."

As you can see from the chart below, Alaska is one of only four states not involved in the case, either for or against the ACA.  

The chart comes from a Kaiser Family Foundation webpage that explains the court case and who all is involved.  Click on the chart to enlarge and focus it.

But I'm more troubled by unflagging loyalty to Trump as one of the bots on the Republican side of the US Senate.  He acts like a kid who doesn't want the teacher to call on him.  Sort of like the Pebble guy who said he's trying to lie low until the election is over.  And while he said he didn't vote for Trump in 2016, he now says he will.  

One has to wonder who is holding all those Republican Senators in line and voting to confirm Amy Barrett's appointment to the Supreme Court.  Senator Whitehouse gave the most insightful presentation on that in the Hearings and I'm hoping to get up a post about that soon.  I'll link to it here when I do.  

[UPDATE October 17, 2020:  Here's another article from Salon:  Alaska GOP senator routinely voted for policies that benefited family's chemical company]