puzzle by sudokusnydictation.com
By Ed Sessa
©2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
10/07/20
Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle
Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis
10/07/20
ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:
Release Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2020
ACROSS
1 Something to
pay
5 “Nothing’s
broken”
9 Lawn game
14 Fir fellers
15 Cool off in a
shallow stream,
say
16 Weasley family
owl
17 Substantial
return
20 Popeye’s
nemesis
21 Zagreb native
22 Salon creations
23 NCR product
24 “You betcha”
26 Mohel’s rite
28 Color named for
a dancer
34 Dodger who
befriended Jackie
Robinson
35 Peter of “The
Maltese Falcon”
36 Word of regret
39 Sudden burst
42 9/11 Commission
chair Tom
43 Star transports
45 Emulated Van
Winkle, after 20
years
47 Bleeping
51 Toni Morrison
novel
52 Reluctantly
absorb, as a loss
53 Little bite
56 Admiral’s rear
59 Toon duck triplet
61 “Fame” singer
Cara
63 Making a killing
in Vegas ... or
what happens
in 17-, 28- and
47-Across
66 Do the
Thanksgiving
honors
67 Start to scope
68 __ fixe
69 Pulled a fast one
on
70 Beef
bourguignonne,
for one
71 Old geopolitical
states: Abbr.
DOWN
1 Flintstone word
2 Hold in awe
3 Anesthetize
4 Air Force NCO
5 __ Jima
6 Italian
noblewoman
7 Dump feature
8 Jedi Master
Obi-Wan __
9 Brutish
10 Uranus, for one
11 Scummy deposit
12 Gabrielle Chanel,
familiarly
13 Fraternal order
18 British detective
played by
Michael Kitchen
19 Deserve
25 Lager
alternatives
27 Like many
addresses
29 Incendiary acts
30 Race for four,
commonly
31 Dander
32 Gun lobby org.
33 “Jeopardy!” whiz
Jennings
36 Priest’s white
garment
37 Unlike Abner,
really
38 Geriatrician’s gp.
40 Bug on the road?
41 Dancing girl in
“Return of the
Jedi”
44 Moved stealthily
46 Journalist Couric
48 Wells’ sci-fi race
49 Bully’s array
50 Works with
dough
54 Word with tube or
circle
55 Some toys, briefly
56 It’s sung to the
same tune as
“Twinkle, twinkle”
57 Lady of the Haus
58 Md. athlete
60 “__ a Kick Out of
You”: Porter song
62 Slugger’s stats
64 Latin greeting
65 Fell, as firs
SUDOKU
“60 characters.
Bare your soul.
Get featured in the Daily!”
WHISPER
Introducing the
WHISPER
“I’ve made my
peace with
college, it is
what it is.”
“I’m in love
with Lucás.”
09/30/20
ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:
9 Fabled slowpoke
23 Pasta preference
26 Warming periods
27 Source of pliable
30 Relatively risqué
35 Big tin exporter
I
n the wake of Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg’s passing
last week, the national
discussion has pivoted from
the pandemic to the Supreme
Court, and the moves Senate
Republicans
and
President
Donald Trump are making to fill
the vacancy on the high court.
Democrats are absolutely correct
in calling out Senate Majority
Leader
Mitch
McConnell,
R-Ky., for reversing his position
from 2016, and Republicans are
absolutely correct arguing that
filling the Court’s vacancy is
the constitutional obligation of
the president and the Senate.
However,
while
these
two
positions
occupy
the
vast
majority of headlines, the most
vital lesson to be learned is that of
prudence, of restraint and of the
harm of nearsightedness.
Yet before launching into the
present day, it is important to
consult the annals of history.
Article III of the Constitution
establishes the judicial branch
of the federal government to
consist of “one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish.” Critically,
the
Constitution
does
not
mandate a set number of justices
to preside over the Court.
The first Congress passed
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which
established the federal judiciary
and set forth specific rules for the
Court. Notably, it declared that
“the supreme court of the United
States shall consist of a chief
justice and five associate justices,
any four of whom shall be a
quorum.” Only after the Judiciary
Act of 1869 did the Court adopt
the current distribution of judges
–– one chief justice and eight
associate justices.
While the Supreme Court
is the least political branch of
the government, both in theory
and in practice, it certainly has
not remained impervious to
influence. In the 1930s, amid the
Great Depression and President
Franklin
Roosevelt’s
New
Deal, the Court faced a difficult
position. After rulings against
the constitutionality of various
sections of F.D.R.’s New Deal, the
President proposed the Judicial
Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,
more famously known as “the
court-packing plan.”
The
bill
ultimately
did
not succeed, thanks to then-
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
chairman Henry F. Ashurst,
but it introduced the possibility
that the executive might forgo
prudence and enact sweeping
changes to the most stable branch
of government. No president
since has attempted such a
radical move, but recent moves
by the Senate have dramatically
destabilized, and subsequently
politicized,
the
appointment
process for judges and justices.
In
2013,
during
former
President
Obama’s
second
term, Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev., enacted
something many labeled “the
nuclear option.” Under Reid, the
Democratic
Senate
approved
changes to the rules in which the
Senate, as an institution, dealt
with judicial nominations. These
changes prohibited the filibuster
from being deployed as a means
to delay confirmations, as well
as reducing the number of votes
needed to confirm a judicial
nomination from a supermajority
to simple majority –– from 60
votes, down to 51.
However, this rule change
did not affect Supreme Court
nominations,
only
cabinet
posts and federal judgeships.
That alteration to the rules
came in 2017, after Republicans
had successfully halted Judge
Merrick Garland’s nomination,
taken back the White House and
a Senate majority.
Current
Senate
Majority
Leader McConnell deployed the
nuclear option to remove the
supermajority requirement for
Supreme
Court
nominations,
successfully appointing Justice
Neil Gorsuch to the bench. By
virtue of timing, Justice Brett
Kavanaugh was confirmed under
the same rules, and now we
arrive at the predicament today.
Nearsightedness
and
the
temptation to tip the scales
in favor of current partisan
objectives
has
run
rampant
through the Senate in the last
decade.
The
nuclear
option,
so-called
for
its
previously
unthinkable ramifications, has
been enacted twice in the last
seven years, resulting in countless
judgeship
confirmations
as
well as two Supreme Court
confirmations. Such destabilizing
actions
would’ve
been
inconceivable a half-century ago.
Yet now, we may be on the verge
of again neglecting history’s
valuable lesson.
Both
the
president
and
the
Senate
are
fulfilling
their constitutional duties in
nominating Judge Amy Coney
Barret –– on this point, there
is no debate, “Biden rule” or
otherwise. However, consider the
present situation had Democrats
not unleashed the nuclear option
in 2013, and Republicans not
extended it in 2017. Judge Barret
would be nominated, yet since
the Republicans do not have a
super-majority –– and very few, if
any, Democratic senators would
be in favor –– Barret would not
be confirmed. Problem solved for
the left.
Ultimately, this results in a
painfully
obvious
conclusion:
Rash changes to the fundamental
operating procedures of the
Senate, in pursuit of short-term
partisan goals, greatly endanger
the stability of our institutions.
To assume Democrats expected
they’d be the only party
to reap the benefits of their rule
changes is hysterically foolish.
However, to expect the same
naivety from Republicans, this
time regarding Supreme Court
nominations, is similarly absurd.
I am confident, however, that
the Senate will right the ship. I
believe the Senate rules will be
changed back in the interest of
stability, though under which
party’s leadership I don’t know.
There remains, however, the
possibility of a future rife with
instability beyond the Senate,
which would be guaranteed if
the Democrats, upon sweeping
in November, look to F.D.R. for
inspiration.
Senate
Minority
Leader
Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said
recently that “nothing is off the
table” if the GOP fills Justice
Ginsburg’s seat. The allusion
to court packing is clear as
day, though its ramifications
have apparently gone out the
window. Understand, the tumult
resulting
from
the
nuclear
option’s evocations resides solely
in the process for nominating
and
confirming
judges
and
justices. It would be appallingly
naive to fundamentally alter
the constitution of the Supreme
Court to directly benefit short-
term political ambitions.
The Supreme Court should
embody
stability.
Set
apart
from the political tidings of
the legislative branch and the
campaigning of the executive
branch,
the
judicial
branch
ensures the rights of the citizenry
persist. Inscribed in the stone
facade of our own University’s
law school is the phrase, “The
Supreme Court: Preserver of
the Constitution; Guardian of
our Liberties; Greatest of all
Tribunals.”
For
our
current
leaders
to
presume
such
superior motives as to justify the
modification of the judiciary’s
fundamental
rules
is
as
The Supreme Court: locked and loaded by the Senate
DAVID LISBONNE | COLUMN
David Lisbonne can be reached
at lisbonne@umich.edu.
T
his is not about religion.
This is about oppression.
On Oct. 11, 2019, the
crowd gave a standing ovation
for
their
famous
—
some
might say infamous — guest
from
Washington,
D.C.
The
mostly Catholic law students
of Notre Dame sat back down
as Attorney General Bill Barr
began by thanking his hosts.
However, his actual speech was
anything but gracious. For the
next half hour, Barr — sounding
more like a Fox News host
caught in the breakroom on a
hot mic than the leader of the
Department of Justice — painted
a fundamentally inaccurate and
detached portrait of this country.
The attorney general raved about
the “steady erosion
of our traditional
Judeo-Christian
moral
system,”
which he claimed
was under siege by
militant secularists
on
a
“campaign
to
destroy
the
traditional
moral
order.” He cited
examples of our
“moral upheaval”
ranging from the
rise of illegitimate
births to record
levels of mental
illness to the opioid
epidemic.
Now it’s easy to
dismiss these comments as the
views of one singular right-wing
nut, but dismissing Barr’s beliefs
out-of-hand
allows
speeches
such as that one to go ignored, all
while the Republican Party has
undergone a seismic shift that
now imperils the country.
Before we go any further, let
me make this crystal clear. As a
practicing Catholic myself, I have
no issues with religion or the
Church. I have an issue with the
false grievance politics present in
modern conservatism, which are
poised to drive the installation of
an unqualified religious zealot on
the Supreme Court, despite there
being plenty of more qualified and
equally, if not more, conservative
judges on appeals courts across
the country. This is not about
religion or conservative ideals,
this is about the Republican
Party’s strategy of characterizing
white Christians as oppressed
and preying on the group’s fear
of being replaced in order to win
elections, erode our democratic
institutions and retain power,
despite representing a slowly
shrinking
minority
of
the
population.
Amy Coney Barrett was born
in 1972 in New Orleans, La.
The eldest daughter of a lawyer
for the Shell Oil Corporation,
Barrett grew up comfortably
before obtaining a B.A. from
Rhodes College and a J.D. from
Notre Dame Law School. From
there, she went to clerk for a
circuit court judge from 1997 to
1998 and “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”
opponent Antonin Scalia from
1998 to 1999. Then, following a
brief stint in private practice,
Barrett settled in law school in
2002, developing a breadth of
controversial scholarship.
After
Barrett,
a
lifelong
member
of
the
conservative
Federalist
Society,
was
nominated by Donald Trump to
sit on the Seventh Circuit Court
of
Appeals,
this
scholarship
formed the basis of several
legitimate claims opposing her
nomination. These claims were
specifically amplified through
a contentious exchange with
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,
which instantly made Barrett a
conservative media sensation.
When questioned about one
of her own law review articles,
which
argued
that
Catholic
judges should recuse themselves
in cases regarding the death
penalty, Barrett claimed that
her views had evolved. The
two sparred for a couple more
minutes as Feinstein probed
further into Barrett’s religious
beliefs,
and
the
exchange
ended with Feinstein saying,
“the dogma lives loudly within
you, and that’s of concern.”
The statement — a de facto
insinuation that one cannot be
both a Catholic and an impartial
judge — incensed right-wing
media, going viral on Twitter
and being plastered across Fox
News and other conservative
outlets. However, this outrage
was completely manufactured
and, at its core, untruthful.
Feinstein, who, herself, went
to Catholic school, has voted to
confirm hundreds of Catholic
judges to the courts and had
never shown an anti-Catholic
bias in her five terms before then.
Similarly, Catholic Sen. Dick
Durbin, D-Ill., questioned Barrett
during her confirmation about her
self-identification as an “orthodox
Catholic,” identifying as Catholic
himself. However, those comments
received next to no coverage by
conservative outlets. Why? Well,
simply put, that question from a
fellow Catholic does not fit with
the narrative that
those
networks
and the party they
support would like
to portray.
Fox and other
conservative
media
outlets
wanted to portray
the hearing as the
powerful,
scary,
elderly
Jewish
senator attacking
the young Catholic
judge because of
religious
hatred,
despite
this
narrative clashing
violently
with
reality.
However,
the conservative audience, which
loves to see themselves as victims,
did not examine the coverage
closely, instead succumbing to
confirmation bias and rallying
around Barrett. This popularity
made Barrett the apple of Trump’s
eye, and, on Sept. 26, Scalia’s
golden child — despite having next
to no experience in the judiciary
and next to no belief in voting
rights — was announced to replace
the notorious RBG.
Normally, in the profile of a
political figure, this is when
I would talk about Barrett’s
draconian judicial philosophy
— which we should all examine
more closely — or maybe poke
fun of her Karen-esque persona,
but that’s not really the point.
The point of this article is much
larger than just Barrett. It is
about the system that put her
in a position of power. It is not
the Federalist Society or her
clerkship with Scalia. It is not her
short stint in the federal judiciary
or her conservative credentials
as a judge. It is about the false
grievances of the few white
Christians who feel threatened
by the societal advancements
made by minorities and other
“untraditional” groups. Sadly,
these increasingly disconnected
people have corrupted the ranks
of the Trump administration
from top to bottom.
The current vice president
is a far-right conservative who
supports conversion therapy and
opposes “Mulan.” The secretary
of state is a climate change denier
who believes that Trump was
sent by God to save the Jews from
“the Iranian menace.” Even the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention director — a scientist
— doubts the efficacy of condoms
in slowing the spread of AIDS.
These radicals have led executive
agencies to embrace conspiracy
theories, reject science and wage
a protracted war against the
progress
marginalized
groups
have made in this country over
the last 50 years in order to benefit
the racist, nativist and white
supremacist portion of their base.
Next time Trump emboldens the
Proud Boys, remember the people
surrounding him.
This administration is the result
of a decades-long concerted effort
by conservatives to transform the
federal judiciary and degrade our
democratic institutions through
constant attacks on voting rights.
The crowning achievement of this
movement will be in front of the
Senate Judiciary Committee on
Oct. 12, and likely on the Supreme
Court by Nov. 3. Though she
did not earn this seat, much like
her counterpart Justice Brett
Kavanaugh, conservatives think
she’s entitled to it. Now, we all
must ask ourselves what she
would be willing to do to keep it.
The Notorious ABC:
Unqualified, undemocratic and
full of grievance
KEITH JOHNSTONE | COLUMN
The point of this
article is much
larger than just
Barrett. It is
about the system
that put her in
a position of
power.
Keith Johnstone can be reached at
keithja@umich.edu.
10 — Wednesday, October 7, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com