Mediaboss Marketing

Back in the 14th century through to the 18th century, people went to court for eavesdropping and for opening and reading personal letters[1] and from the end of the 19th century, this shifted to personal information being controlled in order to protect ones privacy.

It has been mooted for decades and extends outside what we may deem as our privacy rights today. When we mention privacy, we may be taken to early 2018, to the Facebook Cambridge Analytica data scandal, or to the EUs GDPR regulation which was implemented, again, in 2018. But privacy extends further than that, to issues involving contraception, interracial marriages and abortion (think Roe v. Wade). And it is such cases that have shaped our society and law around privacy today[2].

A brief history into privacy

A major article written by Samuel Warren and his legal partner Louis Brandeis advocating privacy rights was published in 1890 in the Harvard Law Review. The Right to Privacy argued that privacy is inherent in common law and generates various privacy torts, such as the disclosure of private facts (such as the aforementioned examples). Where some counter-argued that such rights can offer protection for the privileged, Warren and Brandeis still managed to pave the way for future legal cases regarding privacy.

And while the US Constitution, to this day, does not specifically mention a right to privacy, the Supreme Court has noted that it believes this right exists in the penumbra of several other, enumerated rights

William O. Douglas an American jurist and politician who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court quoted Brandeis in thePublic Utilities Commission v. Pollak case in 1952, regarding whether the radio broadcasts on public transport was a violation of freedom and privacy: The beginning of all freedom is the right to be let alone thus the right to privacy. The right to be let alone, Brandeis who was an Associate Judge at the time- quoted this in the Olmstead v. United States case in 1928, where Roy Olmsteads conviction was in part based on evidence gathered through government wiretaps, is the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. Even though the Court originally held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated, the decision was later overturned by Katz v. United States in 1967[3]. This case somewhat altered privacy rights in America, as the decision expanded the Fourth Amendments protections from the right of search and seizures of an individuals persons, houses, papers, and effects, as defined in the Constitution, to include what [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public as a constitutionally protected area[4].

And while the US Constitution, to this day, does not specifically mention a right to privacy, the Supreme Court has noted that it believes this right exists in the penumbra of several other, enumerated rights, such as the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and as such, citizens are entitled to it under the catch-all provision of the Ninth Amendment. This has shaped privacy, in the US, to this day.

How much risk is posed here if we mindlessly click agree, or how much of our lives are now actually private?

What is privacy today?

So, the right to privacy has been a much-debated issue for a very long time and it seems as society develops, so does our concern for privacy. Once upon a time, postcards were seen as a threat to our privacy and now, we dont give them a passing thought as we have bigger qualms at hand: should we accept cookies, allow our phones to track our movement, or download the latest craze, such as TikTok and risk our precious data being shared amongst strangers? How much risk is posed here if we mindlessly click agree, or how much of our lives are now actually private?

If I take myself, as an example: I dont post a vast amount on social media I could be abroad and my Facebook friends would be none the wiser as I like to exercise my right to privacy. But, simultaneously, my phone will sift through my emails and recognise I booked a flight and it needs to notify me when I ought to leave the house so I make my flight on time; it will recommend sights for me to see, hotels to stay at, it will keep track of where I visited, how long for, how many steps I did that day, what restaurants I visited, what photos I took at that specific location, so when I land back home, it can collate all this information and email me a mini 21st-century scrapbook on my adventure. My tiny phone is more aware of what I did on my holiday than my own mother. Does it bother me? Not so much, because all of these features are convenient and I am actively deciding what I share and what I keep private which seems to be the centre of many debates and legal cases (such as the aforementioned Katz v. United States case). If my phone was hacked, however, and all my information was leaked, even though I lead a very boring life, I would be concerned to how my privacy was violated and who now has all that information at hand, yet I would have to still acknowledge that I allowed my phone to track my every move and that information was always available and at risk of being available to somebody else. It is not until external parties, such as the government, want to access that data that everything becomes a little too 1984 and we feel like our privacy rights are being breached.

The global pandemic is the perfect example of this constant battle we have with privacy and our control over it.

As written more succinctly in The New Yorker, people tend to invoke their right to privacy when it serves their best interests: People are inconsistent about the kind of exposure theyll tolerate. We dont like to be fingerprinted by government agencies, a practice we associate with mug shots and state surveillance, but we happily hand our thumbprints over to Apple, which does God knows what with them.

Freedom vs. privacy: What do we want more?

The global pandemic is the perfect example of this constant battle we have with privacy and our control over it. When governments across the world began to consider or release contact-tracing apps, many very apprehensive for obvious reasons: it screams a movement towards an Orwellian era. The app, which works by recognising when two phones are close together for longer than a set period of time (and if one user is later diagnosed with the coronavirus, an alert can be sent to the other), would enable the government to potentially track where you were and who you were with. The idea that the government would have a mass amount of data in their hands, didnt sit right with people, including many people close to me. But as soon as I questioned their reasoning and asked but do you care what cookies you accept or what information apps can access? they soon came to realise that they are not as concerned with their right to privacy as they thought, as they all simply dont take any notice to what Instagram is tracking.

There is clearly a societal need and purpose for utilising location-based data for the greater good.

Nonetheless, it was understandable why they were apprehensive. Norways health authority had to delete all data gathered via its COVID-19 contact-tracing app and suspend further use of the tool as the Smittestopp app represented a disproportionate intrusion into users privacy. The UK government was also forced to abandon a centralised coronavirus contact-tracing app after spending three months and millions of pounds on its development and switched to an alternative designed by the US tech companies Apple and Google after being promoted as more privacy-focussed, leaving epidemiologists with access to less data.

Speaking to Mike Ingrassia, President and General Counsel at Truata, he explains that the COVID-19 pandemic seems likely to enhance this sense of unease among consumers regarding the use of their data. On the one hand, consumers digital footprints are being expanded at a record-breaking pace as their lives move ever more from the physical to the digital realm. This is quickly increasing the amount of personal data that companies hold regarding their customers and incentivising those companies to monetise that data more aggressively in order to thrive during the pandemic-induced recession, he shares.

On the other hand, Mike expands, The response from governments to the COVID-19 pandemic has already raised many concerns when it comes to contact tracing apps, mobile location data tracking and increased surveillance. However, as the world continues its fight against the spread of COVID-19, it has become vital for governments to assess how they can use data for social good.

But why do we mindlessly allow Zuckerberg to store our data, but panic when the government wants access?

There is clearly a societal need and purpose for utilising location-based data for the greater good. But only if it is used responsibly. Governments must ask themselves whether appropriate safeguards and technologies are being applied so that they are not, in using that data to benefit society, failing to protect the rights of the individuals behind that data. Questions that need to be considered include what type of personal data is being shared, for what purposes and for how long?, says Mike.

There is no doubt that consumers have a growing awareness of the value of their personal information, and they are increasingly concerned with how its being used, both by public and private entities. It is not yet clear whether the introduction of GDPR and other more stringent global privacy laws has moved the dial on customer trust, as there still appears to be widespread confusion and distrust amongst consumers on how their data is being collected and who it is being shared with.

At the end of the day, the government is trying to do what it has always done: conduct surveillance of individuals and groups if they suspect they are presenting a danger to society. But why do we mindlessly allow Zuckerberg to store our data, but panic when the government wants access? Is our data in better hands when Facebook is using it, or with the government?

But in this day and age, when privacy almost correlates with data and our online activity, we lack full control over how private everything is.

And as Mike explains to us, even though most governments will in good faith want to use data responsibly, they will likely lack the tools and expertise to do so on their own. Private sector assistance, such as the provision of cutting edge, privacy-enhancing data analytics technologies so governments can responsibly get powerful insights from their data, will be needed. One of the most effective ways for governments to obtain such powerful insights from unique, large data sets responsibly will be to fully anonymise those data sets first, better enabling them to extract value from their citizens data without compromising the privacy of the individuals behind that data, Mike tells us.

Taking an approach such as this, leveraging the best privacy-enhanced data analytics technologies available from the private sector, such as powerful anonymisation solutions and related analytics tools, will allow governments to unlock life-saving insights from data, without sacrificing the privacy rights of its citizens.

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, this might be one of the greatest opportunities for responsible coordination among the public sector and the private sector. If they can both embrace this opportunity if governments have the courage to use their data innovatively, and the self-restraint to do so responsibly, and if technology companies have the creativity to offer governments the tools to do so we will all benefit.

It is a fickle scale, where our need for control lies on one scale, and our trust in the technology lies in another. Perhaps we are more concerned with our right to freedom and liberty, as that is what shaped Roe v. Wade and Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak. And if we really think about privacy in this day and age (data, data and more data), we do somewhat lack full control of who has it and where it goes.

Do we care about privacy or are we actually aiming for liberty and freedom?

Rethinking what privacy actually means

Lets think about one of the most discussed laws of 2018: GDPR. Privacy was at the heart of this EU regulation, but in reality, the new measures were partially rolled out to help people better understand the way in which information is collected and used and was designed to harmonise data privacy laws, providing greater protection and rights to individuals. It gave the average citizens more control and freedom over what they choose to share and left organisations with more liability if they breached privacy rights. It wasnt to restrict companies access to our data per se (although companies were given less mobility in this area), it was to allow us to decide what we wanted to remain private. It is the same point that was mooted when postcards were invented if you felt threatened that your mail was going to be read and thus breach your privacy rights, you had the option to use an alternative method; if you dont trust a website with your cookies, you now have the option to refuse access. We have some control over our data and what we keep private but if we want to fully enjoy the world of Siri, we have to trust in the technology and be aware that our device is constantly listening and waiting for you to call its name.

The government is aware of our right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment in the US acknowledges that. The UKs Data Protection Act acknowledges that. The right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights, and authorities will recognise that if we feel like our privacy is being violated, we will speak about it. But in this day and age, when privacy almost correlates with data and our online activity, we lack full control over how private everything is. In a survey conducted by EY, they found that nearly half (46%) of survey respondents number one or two concern is not having a clear picture of where personal information is stored or processed outside of their main systems and servers[5]. Once data enters the internet, it will be accessed and logged and stored and analysed and compared with a billion other pieces of data, it is almost impossible to legislate data access away[6]. So, is any of our data truly private anymore? Do we care about privacy or are we actually aiming for liberty and freedom? Is it time for us to rethink what privacy means to us now and what it truly is in the current age?

[1] https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_2.pdf

[2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/18/why-do-we-care-so-much-about-privacy

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

[5] https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-can-privacy-really-be-protected-anymore/$FILE/ey-can-privacy-really-be-protected-anymore.pdf

[6] https://www.computerworld.com/article/3135026/does-privacy-exist-anymore-just-barely.html

More:
Do We Have Privacy Rights Anymore? - Lawyer Monthly Magazine

Black and white pictures cover a large poster board thats coated with red paint and handprints, as if illustrated in blood. Its so big that two protesters have to hold it. On a recent Saturday, theyre standing outside the Salt Lake County District Attorneys Office, demonstrating against police brutality and chanting for accountability from cops.

Sim Gill, it reads, their blood is on your hands.

Valencia was killed March 21, after police were called to investigate a report of shots fired. He was driving a car, and police tried to stop it, but he kept going. He crashed soon after, got out of the car and tried to run. Police have released few details about what happened next, but he was killed by Unified police during some kind of confrontation in a vacant homes backyard.

Palacios-Carbajal was killed May 23, when police investigating a gun threat saw him in the area, chased him and shot him in the back as he ran away, believing he had a gun. His death has sparked numerous protests in Salt Lake City, including demonstrations held each night in front of the district attorneys office, where protesters vow to rally until the release of the investigative report into his death, which prosecutors have said could come in the next two weeks.

If historys a guide, the officers involved in both of these shootings will avoid any felony or misdemeanor counts. In the past decade, only three police officers in Utah have been charged after shooting at someone while on duty and none has been convicted. Gills office has been involved in charging police in those three cases, which is a statistic that draws criticism: Activists argue three isnt enough. Police advocates counter that its three too many.

Gill faces a decision in a highly charged time, after weeks of protests in Salt Lake City and throughout the nation. He says hell set all of that aside and simply follow the law. Here is a look at what that legal standard is, what it takes to charge officers, and why it so rarely happens.

Utah law says officers can legally kill someone if they reasonably believe they must do so to prevent death or serious bodily injury to an officer or someone else.

Its hardly a unique standard. It is used in other states rooted in a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 1989 that found reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

When a police officer kills someone in Utah, it prompts an investigation from a county attorney or review board to determine whether an officers use of deadly force was justified or whether it violated the law.

The Salt Lake Tribune has tracked 185 cases in which police in Utah have shot at someone since 2010, and 92% of those cases were determined to be legally justified. Nearly a dozen cases are still pending.

In six cases, prosecutors determined that while an officer wasnt legally justified in using deadly force, they opted to not charge him or her with a crime deciding that it was unlikely that a jury would convict an officer based on the available evidence.

That happened in 2013, when Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings ruled that an officer wasnt justified when he shot a woman in the eye who led police on a drunken car chase, and again a few years later when the Iron County Critical Incident Task Force found in 2018 that a shooting wasnt justified when an officer injured a burglary suspect who was neither fleeing nor threatening anyone.

But in those rare instances when an officer is charged thats happened in 0.01% of cases prosecutors havent netted a conviction. Twice Gills office has filed charges against an officer only to later drop the case.

In a third case, Gill in 2014 charged former West Valley City Officer Shaun Cowley with second-degree felony manslaughter for shooting and killing 21-year-old Danielle Willard during an undercover drug operation as she backed out of a parking spot. Cowley had asserted that he feared for his life as her car backed toward him.

A judge dismissed the case after a preliminary hearing, finding that prosecutors did not have enough evidence to show that Cowley committed a crime. Thats a rare ruling at that stage, when all testimony must be considered in the states favor.

The prosecution had a small, low bar to get over, Fraternal Order of Police Executive Director Ian Adams said then. And they tripped.

Gill said if Utahns want police officers to be charged more often, itll require changing the states law. There have been no recent proposals for such legislation in Utah.

Federal lawmakers have debated two recent police bills, including the Justice in Policing Act. The House passed this Democratic-led bill Thursday, which proposes sweeping reform to how officers do their jobs and how they are held accountable. The bill changes the reasonable standard, so instead of prosecutors determining whether the officers force was reasonable, theyd have to determine if it was necessary. A Senate Republican bill that was blocked from consideration doesnt include this proposal.

In light of the nightly protests against police brutality many focused on the fatal police shooting of Palacios-Carbajal Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall has said shed support changes to define what reasonable means. In a tweet, she listed changes Salt Lake City officials were considering and one of them was support changes to state code on the use of deadly force and the legal standard for what is reasonable.

Gill said he, too, would support a change in the law. Other prosecutors in the state werent eager to speak out several did not respond to a request for comment. Utahs Statewide Association of Prosecutors did not want to weigh in.

Many of Utahs cops oppose changing the law.

Orem Police Chief Gary Giles said he hasnt seen issues with how the law has been applied through the years. He worries about adding more processes in which people who might not fully understand policing are weighing in on whether an officer did the right thing.

If an officer does something egregious, they need to be charged, he said. But the problem is, who do we want to have out protecting us? We want the best of the best. If, 28 years ago, I was told there was a really good chance I go to work and Im going to be forced into a situation to decide whether Im going to go home tonight or I go to prison, I dont know if I would want to be a police officer.

Adams, with Utahs Fraternal Order of Police, said he believes the statute is appropriate as is, and warned that changing it could create a law that doesnt understand the chaotic and fluid and very dynamic situations officers encounter.

This kind of tweak could create a situation where youre expecting a police officer to get shot before they can take any action, he said, and thats not reasonable.

Adams said that while the FOP wouldnt support changing the reasonable standard, there is room for reform in policing. For instance, he said, the group is lobbying to add more voices to the Peace Officer Standards and Training board, which handles officer discipline, including reserving a seat for the NAACP.

We think increasing representativeness in that body makes a lot of sense, Adams said.

Complicated investigations

Gill said that even when prosecutors believe charging an officer is appropriate, they face another barrier: collecting evidence.

Sometimes officers involved in the investigation dont give clear statements about what theyve seen, he said. In many cases, the officer who shot the person has chosen not to speak with Gills team at all.

Its that officers constitutional right, Gill conceded, but added that it makes it hard for prosecutors to do their jobs and sows distrust between law enforcement and those they police.

Adams sees it differently. He said he hasnt yet seen a Utah case where the officer deserved to be charged. When it happens, Adams said it seems to be because its politically motivated.

Recently, when a FOP attorney takes on an officers police shooting case, he has advised the officers not to speak to Gills prosecutors. Its not policy, Adams said, but he understands why an officer might choose to invoke the Fifth Amendment in those interviews.

If an officer or their attorney believes theres political bias on behalf of a prosecutor to disadvantage them, he said, then I dont blame them.

At this time, as anger at the Floyd killing has spread nationwide, state legislators and city leaders are feeling pressure to take funding from police departments and implement other reforms.

Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, said he is also getting input from police and the NAACP for some reform bills.

Hes not looking at the reasonableness standard in Utahs use of force law, but he said creating a statewide standard for use of force like lawmakers have done for police pursuits is on the table.

Thatcher said theres also some talk about adding punishments for instances when a police officers use of force involves the pure and deliberate, ad hoc infliction of pain for no reasonable purpose like is seen in the Floyd video. Hes also looking at a way to make use-of-force complaint findings more transparent.

Currently, theres no standard. Gills office routinely posts its findings online. No other county attorney in the state does this.

So far, protesters demonstrating for Palacios-Carbajal have called these incremental changes and reforms scraps, lip service to the movement without any teeth.

As theyve marched downtown streets each night for more than a week, theyve made their demands clear: They want murder charges filed against the officers who shot Palacios-Carbajal. They want an overhaul of a system that they feel favors the cops. They want a revolution or, at least, a paradigm shift.

D.A. whats your play? they chant. Put these killer cops away!

Correction: 12:20 p.m., June 28, 2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the number of officers charged after killing someone.

The rest is here:
Only 3 Utah cops faced charges for shooting at people in the past decade. None was convicted. Here's why. - Salt Lake Tribune

Democratic Sen. Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehouseDemocrats warn Biden against releasing SCOTUS list Key Democrat accuses Labor head of 'misleading' testimony onjobless benefits Sheldon Whitehouse leads Democrats into battle against Trump judiciary MORE (R.I.) is asking Attorney GeneralWilliam BarrBill BarrJustice Dept. considering replacing outgoing US attorney in Brooklyn with Barr deputy: report Ousted Manhattan US Attorney Berman to testify before House next week ACLU lawsuit calls on Barr to delay federal execution MORE to preserve any records related to a hacking probe on environmental groups that was launched in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) prior to former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Bermans dismissal.

The probe looks into phishing emails that targeted the email accounts of government officials, journalists, banks, environmental activists and other individuals. The emails reportedly impersonated a campaign against oil giant Exxon Mobil.

Whitehouse said that Bermans dismissal two weeks ago, which Democrats have speculated may be tied to his investigations into associates of President TrumpDonald John TrumpSecret Service members who helped organize Pence Arizona trip test positive for COVID-19: report Trump administration planning pandemic office at the State Department: report Iran releases photo of damaged nuclear fuel production site: report MORE, might have also been related to this probe.

Suggestions of political interference into ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions are rife at this point, Whitehouse wrote in a letter addressed to Barr.

Whitehouse said the interest of the oil and gas industry in avoiding an inquiry into the events documented in these stories, and its influence in the Trump administration, and any reasonable observer would have reason to be concerned.

"I strongly suspect that this industrys influence extends to decisions made by Department of Justice," Whitehouse said, noting instances wherethe department has taken pro-fossil fuel stanceson litigation.

The senator said Bermans termination heightens those concerns for matters in the SDNY.

A report released last month by Citizen Lab, a cybersecurity watchdog group at the University of Toronto, showed details of the hacking campaign, which were linked to a company in India.The report nor prosecutors with the SDNY have accused Exxon Mobil of wrongdoing.

A spokesman for Exxon Mobil said in a statement to The New York Timeslast month that the company has no knowledge of, or involvement in, the hacking activities outlined in Citizen Labs report.

Upon Bermans resignation his former deputy, Audrey Strauss, took on his position.In his resignation Berman described Strauss as the smartest, most principled, and effective lawyer hes worked with who he said he trusts to maintain the offices tradition of integrity and independence.

Berman is scheduled to testify before House lawmakers in a closed-doormeeting next week.

See the rest here:
Democrat asks Barr to preserve any records tied to environmental hacking probe | TheHill - The Hill

President Trump this month celebrated the confirmation of his 200th lifetime appointment to the federal bench, outpacing his predecessor by dozens through three-and-a-half years.

Campaign supporters of Mr. Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, have been urged to buy T-shirts saluting the two men as Back-to-Back Supreme Court Champs, their faces rendered in white silhouette with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh etched on the sleeves.

And four years after the battle over a court vacancy helped deliver Mr. Trump to the White House, the president hopes to keep his job by playing the hits: He has pledged to produce an updated roster of would-be justices to galvanize the right before November, warning that his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., would nominate a radical lefty as a slate of major cases returns the judiciary to the political fore.

Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. VOTE 2020!

That message arrived well before the courts latest ruling to disappoint conservatives on Monday: a 5-4 decision striking down a law restricting abortions in Louisiana.

By their own account, Democrats have long found themselves outmaneuvered in electoral fights over the courts. Exit polls from 2016 showed Mr. Trump winning by double digits among those who called the Supreme Court the most important factor in their vote.

Most memorably, Mr. Trump made the novel choice to publish a list of prospective nominees, shaped by leaders from conservative groups like the Federalist Society, supplying specificity (at least on this subject) from a candidate prone to ideological shape-shifting.

It gave certainty to people who didnt know the president and I was one of them, said Penny Nance, the chief executive of Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group. It was probably the No. 1 issue when we looked at the polling of what brought conservatives to the voting booth in 2016. I think it will be a top-of-mind issue, certainly, in 2020.

Trailing in the polls amid overlapping national crises that he has strained to corral, Mr. Trump seems even more likely to place the courts, an area of unambiguous conservative triumph, at the center of his case for re-election.

Whether Democrats can harness their own enthusiasm on this score is at once uncertain and potentially critical to election fortunes this fall, both in the presidential race and several competitive Senate contests where the Republican incumbents Supreme Court votes might figure prominently. (In Maine, Senator Susan Collinss support for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018 attracted wide-scale scrutiny and millions of dollars in donations against her before she had an official opponent.)

Recent years have produced no shortage of seminal moments to mobilize Democrats around matters of the judiciary: the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh; the non-confirmation of Judge Merrick B. Garland; the Supreme Courts refusal in April to extend the deadline for absentee voting in Wisconsin during a pandemic.

Still, some in the party sense an asymmetry in how urgently many Democratic voters think about the courts.

I do think it has picked up in visibility, but I dont think it moves millions to the polls in the way that it really should, said Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and a close Biden ally. Thats the challenge that remains before us.

Progressives have suggested that Mr. Biden, the former vice president, could prompt excitement by releasing his own list of preferred judges. Some activists have urged him to embrace a proposal to expand the size of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Biden has done neither, though he has promised to nominate a black woman to the court and said that the judiciary was the single most important reason that his wife, Jill, wanted him to run in 2020.

John Anzalone, a pollster and adviser for Mr. Biden, said that much of the modern Democratic electorate plainly grasped the significance of the courts. A Suffolk University/USA Today poll in April found that Democrats were slightly more likely than Republicans to call the Supreme Court one of the most important issues affecting their vote.

I do think that women college-educated women, suburban women are without a doubt a much bigger part of our coalition, Mr. Anzalone said. And theyre much more awake to the ramifications of replacing a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That is real.

Democrats had been bracing for possible disappointment in the Louisiana abortion case, among other decisions pending before the end of this court term.

But two high-profile rulings had already come as a pleasant surprise to them: one holding that a landmark civil rights law protects L.G.B.T.Q. employees from workplace discrimination and another preventing Mr. Trump from immediately proceeding with plans to end a program shielding young immigrants from deportation.

While welcoming the outcomes, activists have advised Democrats to beware a conservative majority bearing gifts.

The courts not evil 100 percent of the time, Meagan Hatcher-Mays, the director of democracy policy at Indivisible, said before Mondays decision. But theyre evil, like, 94 percent of the time.

Such successes can, paradoxically, register as something of a narrative complication for those arguing that the court is stacked against the left.

Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, a progressive group, suggested that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. understood as much and was steering the court accordingly.

These rulings are enough to convince a lot of people on the left that they should continue to play within the system and not offend sitting federal judges by calling them out as overly political, he said. In some sense, that is the exact game that Roberts is playing: to side with the liberals in just enough cases so the public misses the larger trend of this courts rightward swerve.

The chief justice has nonetheless angered many Republicans who appraise his tenure as a failure, recalling him siding with the courts liberal wing in cases challenging core provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In the abortion ruling on Monday, he voted with the liberal justices but did not adopt their reasoning, saying that deference to precedent compelled him instead.

Some critics of Chief Justice Roberts hold high office: Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesnt like me? Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter this month.

Conservatives say that, if anything, the Roberts era has demonstrated the need for Mr. Trump to fill vacancies for another four years.

Frustration with the chief justice and concern about the direction the courts were going was part of what galvanized conservatives in the first place to elect someone like Trump, said Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.

By prizing courage in addition to credentials, Ms. Severino said, Mr. Trumps approach is almost designed to avoid a future John Roberts, whom she accused of operating with politics in mind in some ways echoing the charge of his progressive skeptics.

She also joined some liberal counterparts in calling for Mr. Biden to release a list of potential nominees.

Many Biden supporters see little need for that step because, unlike Mr. Trump in 2016, the former vice president has an exhaustive record on judicial affairs, including an extended tenure as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Those close to Mr. Biden are rarely eager to dwell on the treatment of Anita Hill before his committee at the confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas. But others cite his work to defeat the nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork in 1987 as a towering feat for Democrats and a turning point for a chamber that had previously been disinclined to reject a nominee for primarily ideological reasons.

I dont think theres ever been any president assuming Bidens elected who knows as much about or has been as involved in shaping the Supreme Court as Joe Biden, said Mark Gitenstein, who led Mr. Bidens Judiciary Committee staff during the Bork fight.

And those who have doubted Mr. Biden in 2020, he added, were hardly the first.

The irony of the Bork fight is its not unlike what youre seeing now, Mr. Gitenstein said. People totally underestimated Biden.

Giovanni Russonello contributed reporting.

See the rest here:
Trump Is Running on the Courts Again. Should Biden Do the Same? - The New York Times

Polls, betting odds and pundits are all pointing toward a substantial victory for Joe BidenJoe BidenThe Hill's Campaign Report: Biden chips away at Trump's fundraising advantage The Memo: Trump grows weak as clock ticks down Nina Turner addresses Biden's search for a running mate MORE.TheNew York Timespoll showed Biden leading President TrumpDonald John TrumpSecret Service members who helped organize Pence Arizona trip test positive for COVID-19: report Trump administration planning pandemic office at the State Department: report Iran releases photo of damaged nuclear fuel production site: report MORE by a staggering 50 percent 36 percent, a 14-point margin.The Real Clear Politics polling averages show a 9-point lead for Biden.He leads Trump even more among women voters. TheTimespoll also indicated strong leads in critical swing states Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina, ranging from 6 to 11 points.These results point to an overwhelming Electoral College victory.

If the present polling holds up through election day, such a powerful victory in the presidential race would almost certainly fuel victories down-ballot.Key Senate races in Maine, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa and Montana all appear to be trending in the Democratic direction. All of this suggests Democrats gaining control of the Senate.

Democrats are feeling bullish about a surge to a victory, gaining the White House and the Senate while retaining the House of Representatives.This has triggered talk of eliminating the legislative filibuster in the Senate.The argument made is that even if Democrats win, the 60-vote requirement to end debate in the Senate will prohibit the passage of the progressive agenda.

I believe using a newly minted majority to steamroll the minority would be extremely short-sighted, even if initially successful.

You will hear the battle cry, If we dont do it, the Republicans will when they get the Senate back.Weve heard this before.It rings particularly hollow because Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnell'Comrade' Trump gets 'endorsement' from Putin in new mock ad by Lincoln Project ACLU calls on Congress to approve COVID-19 testing for immigrants Carville repeats prediction that Trump will drop out of race MORE (R-Ky.) and his Republican majority did not do so during the first two years of the Trump administration.Trump repeatedly demanded the end to the filibuster. On Twitter, he wrote, If Republican Senate doesnt get rid of the Filibuster Rule & go to a simple majority, which the Dems would do, they are just wasting time!McConnell and the Republicans, who have denied little else to Trump, refused.

One might think that Democrats would have learned from having eviscerated the filibuster for judicial nominations.In 2013, they used a parliamentary slight of hand that we now call the nuclear option to sweep away the 60-vote requirement.If they are honest, Democrats will admit that this has been a terrible disaster. McConnell has fast-tracked 200 federal judges through the confirmation process, including 53 in the powerful circuit courts.

In the words of Mark Twain,Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.Any Democrat tempted to destroy the legislative filibuster, should consider the cost of giving a future GOP majority the power to realize a right-wing agenda and control the federal budget without any input from the minority.

Joe Biden knows this.During the debate in 2005, then-Senator Biden argued, We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing individual rights, and they would undermine the protections of a minority point of view in the heat of majority excess Quite frankly, it is the ultimate act of unfairness to alter the unique responsibility of the Senate and to do so by breaking the very rules of the Senate.He went on to say, At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation It does not mean I get my way. It means you may have to compromise. You may have to see my side of the argument. That is what it is about, engendering compromise and moderation.

In 2012, when my book,Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of the Senatewas published, then Vice President Biden in a personal handwritten note wrote, It should be required reading for this session of the Senate. Great job.

Some Democrats have opposed eliminating the legislative filibuster, including a few who regret their vote to eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations. For example, Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharThe Hill's Coronavirus Report: Rep. Rodney Davis says most important thing White House can do on COVID-19 is give consistent messaging; US new cases surpass 50k for first time The Hill's Coronavirus Report: Stagwell President Mark Penn says Trump is losing on fighting the virus; Fauci says U.S. 'going in the wrong direction' in fight against virus Hillicon Valley: Facebook takes down 'boogaloo' network after pressure | Election security measure pulled from Senate bill | FCC officially designating Huawei, ZTE as threats MORE (D-Minn.) on NBCs Meet the Press said,I don't think we should've made that change, when we look back at it.

A bipartisan group of 61 senators wrote a letter to the leadership (31 Democrats signed) in 2017 stating, [W]e are united in our determination to preserve the ability of members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.

If Democrats do sweep to power in November, they will face an historic moment.Hopefully, Biden and his Congressional majorities will seek to use that moment wisely and reach out for greater consensus with independents and moderate Republicans.

Lasting major legislation like Social Security, Medicare, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Medicare prescription drugs, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and many others were accomplished with large Congressional majorities.This has contributed to the staying power of these public policies.

Eliminating the filibuster would take us in precisely the wrong direction.

Richard A. Arenbergis Director of the Taubman Institute for American Politics and Policy and avisiting professorat Brown University. He is a former senior aide toSens. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.),Carl Levin(D-Mich.) and Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine)for 34years. He is the author of the award-winning "Congressional Procedure: A Practical Guide to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress" and co-author of Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of theSenate.You can follow him on Twitter@richarenberg

Read the rest here:
Democrats: A moment in history, use it wisely | TheHill - The Hill