Politics

I’ve noticed a pattern over the past few years. We saw it when Joker made over a billion dollars at the box office, despite numerous reviews and think pieces assuring us that everyone who enjoyed it was a dangerous alt-right incel. We saw it most clearly in 2016 and again in 2020 when the tens of millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump were uniformly smeared as white supremacists. To suggest any other motive was unacceptable. Racists! All of them! We saw it twice in the past week. The first of those instances is related to the ongoing Freedom Convoy protest in Canada. More on that later.

On Tuesday, I reported that Congresswoman Terri Sewell, a Democrat representing Alabama's 7th District, will not hold in-person meetings at her DC office with unvaccinated individuals. "PLEASE NOTE: Proof of COVID-19 vaccinations are required for every in-person or in-office meeting with the Congresswoman or with Staff,” read the signature on an email I got ahold of from one of her staffers. You can read that story here. Of course, I gave her office the chance to comment on the piece before it went to publication. I emailed her press secretary my questions with a two-hour deadline, and the piece was not posted until three hours later. The story was picked up by Fox News shortly thereafter. I did not hear from the congresswoman's office until around 9 p.m.

Congresswoman Terri Sewell hasn't been deterred by court injunctions against President Biden's vaccine mandates; instead, the Democratic representative for Alabama's 7th district has instituted her own. Only vaccinated persons may meet in-person with Representative Sewell or her staff, according to an email obtained by The Spectator. Representative Sewell's scheduler recently sent out an offer for congressional staffers to nab some free peanuts from Alabama. For those not in the know, congressional offices regularly receive free promotional products from their state and share or trade with other offices. A note at the bottom of the "FREE SNACKS" email, however, suggests the unvaccinated might not be able to get their hands on those tasty peanuts.

The Covid-19 pandemic has affected every part of society, and the country’s economic wellbeing has been no exception. The time since March 2020 has provided a sort of natural experiment as to how various untested policy ideas play out in real life. Initially, most politicians on both sides of the ideological spectrum agreed on the need for a robust federal response to the virus. These actions took many forms: universal relief checks, enhanced unemployment benefits, and historic funding of vaccine research and distribution — just to name a few. For well over a year, the federal government was a source of seemingly unlimited spending. Although many of those policies have since fallen by the wayside or are at least becoming less relevant, some remain part of a fierce public discussion.

Another battle in the West’s sanctions war against Russia is set to begin. The US and its NATO allies have put together what they’re calling a strong package of economic restrictions on Russia in response to its military buildup near Ukraine’s border. What’s in the package remains a secret but it appears to focus on Russia’s energy sector. A State Department spokesperson told NPR on Thursday that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany would remain inoperable if an invasion happened. The Financial Times suggested that other new Russian gas developments are also on the sanctions list. The UK wants Russia booted from SWIFT, the Belgian financial messenger services company, while the West also floated the idea of sanctioning Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The latest improbable Democratic champion, Representative Liz Cheney, just about said the quiet part out loud: her January 6 Committee has the singular goal of pre-defeating Trump ahead of any voting in 2024. As it becomes clearer that the Committee is failing in its propaganda campaign to get Republican power brokers to dump Trump, and as it is near crystalline that the Committee will not find evidence leading to formal prosecution of Trump for sedition, treason, or insurrection, they are getting desperate. The latest? Purposefully misinterpreting an obscure phrase from a post-Civil War constitutional amendment.

The retirement of Stephen Breyer is a rare piece of good news for Joe Biden. With the president and his team busy deciding which black woman they will pick to replace the court’s oldest justice and the senior member of its liberal wing, it’s not hard to see where the story ends. This may be the first time a president has had to get a Supreme Court nomination through a 50-50 Senate, but surely even this White House will manage to get the job done. But the politics of the nomination process are less predictable than its outcome. It’s not hard to see the political upside for the president. A disunited party might rally around Biden’s pick while the nomination process could remind them who the real enemy is.

No, Kamala Harris will not be Joe Biden’s nominee to replace Justice Steven Breyer when he retires from the Supreme Court later this year. “Imminent Supreme Court retirement?” ejaculated CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin earlier this month. “Longshot: VP Kamala Harris,” he suggested. NBC scooped on Wednesday that Breyer would step down at the end of this term — and more cranks joined the Kamala chorus. “Kamala Harris for the Supreme Court. #KHive She cannot win election with these numbers (yes it’s unfair, but Kamala is a pragmatist) she’s young, she’d be a great justice — and she’d spend a lifetime on the bench,” tweeted Louise Mensch. “@amyklobuchar for Vice President.” “Straightforward from here,” wrote Bill Kristol.