Failed congressional candidate, Christian musician and activist Sean Feucht held the final stop of his “Let Us Worship” concert tour at the National Mall in Washington D.C. on Sunday.
But while Feucht and other Christian media outlets such as the Christian Broadcasting Network claimed that 35,000 to 40,000 people attended the event, local news reporters with WUSA9 estimated the largely maskless crowd only to be in the “hundreds.”
The event, which went from 4 to 8 p.m. local time, featured Feucht and other musicians as well as on-site prayers and baptisms. Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley also made an appearance on stage to pray for then-Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
The permit for the event included “a COVID-19 mitigation plan” with sanitation stations near portable toilets, masks and gloves for stage crew and “a sign placed at the table where we will give away Bibles,” WUSA9 reports.
However, the station’s reporters say they saw “virtually no social distancing or mask-wearing,” adding that “Feucht’s staff, are seen not wearing masks or abiding by social distancing restrictions per [guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].”
An official with the National Park Service, which oversees the maintenance of the National Mall, told the station, “While the National Park Service strongly encourages social distancing, the use of face coverings and other measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, we will not require nor enforce their use.”
In a tweet published on the morning of October 26, Feucht wrote of the concert, stating, “Over 35,000 Americans gathered to pray, worship and fill Washington DC with HOPE, LIFE & FAITH yesterday! A new Jesus people movement is sweeping the nation!”
Feucht is the leading force behind “Let Us Worship,” a group that opposes church-related lockdown measures as a violation of religious liberty. He has held similar events in California, Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Florida and Nashville, Tennessee, the last of which was held without his first acquiring a permit for the event.
Videos of Feucht’s past “Let Us Worship” events posted on his personal YouTube account have shown mostly white audience members without face masks and not practicing social distancing measures.
Feucht has called his events “protests” to circumvent municipal coronavirus requirements under the banner of free speech. Republican President Donald Trump has done the same thing in order to hold his large rallies without face masks or social distancing either, according to the Associated Press.
Earlier this year, Feucht ran an unsuccessful campaign to become a Republican House representative for the state of California. His campaign ended when he lost his state’s March 3 primary election.
November 3 is now just one week away as Americans prepare to head to the polls for what has been a tough and divisive presidential race.
While most celebrities who are open about their seem to be proudly supporting Biden/Harris, there is of course a cohort of famous faces who are firmly in the Trump/Pence camp.
Joe Biden is far ahead of Trump in the average of national polls. FiveThirtyEight has the Democrat nominee ahead nationally by an average of 9 percentage points, and Real Clear Politics shows Donald Trump behind by an average of 8 percentage points.
“THE DAY I MET TRUMP #trump202022020,” he wrote alongside a photo of him and the president.
“All I gotta say is Trump 2020 b****” he said. “F*** I look like paying a extra 33 is tax for Biden, b***** ass n—. F**** sleepy Joe n— Trump 2020 b****.”
A long-time Trump supporter, the Hercules voice actor is incredibly active on social media where he often tweets his support for the GOP and the Trump administration.
In May, he tweeted: “Let’s face it. Donald Trump is a rough individual. He is vain, insensitive and raw. But he loves America more than any President in my lifetime. He is the last firewall between us and this cesspool called Washington. I’ll take him any day over any of these bums. #Trump2020.”
Another long-time and vocal Trump supporter, Jon Voight came to the president’s defense during the impeachment hearings last year.
“This is a war against the highest nobleman who has defended our country, and made us safe and great again,” Voight said in the video posted to Twitter. “Let me stand with our president. Let us all stand with our President Trump in a time of such evil words trying for impeachment.”
Grey’s Anatomy actor Isaiah Washington left the Democrats in 2019 and voiced his support for Trump.
“Walking away … is a sacrifice, it’s a risk, and there’s a penalty for it,” Washington told Fox Nation’s Nuff Said per The Hill. He said the reason why he chose to “walk away from the Democratic Party as I know it … is that something doesn’t feel right.”
“I think Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is doing a good job at trying to get these states—and all of the American people—what they need,” the actor said in April 2020 per The Daily Beast, “and also trying to hold our economy together and be prepared for when this is all over.”
Scott Baio has appeared in an interview on the official website of the 2020 Trump campaign.
The Happy Days actor also spoke at the 2016 Republican National convention.
Alongside Donald Trump Jr., Kid Rock co-hosted a Trump rally in September in Michigan. The singer also supported the president in 2016.
The Clueless star is famously a Republican and has #MAGA” and “#WomenForTrump” in her Twitter bio.
The actor who once played Superman told the Washington Post he is “backing the president for sure.”
“I don’t like a single Democratic candidate,” he said. “I mean Pete Buttigieg is an interesting guy and he’s smart and he’s eloquent, but when you start getting into his economic philosophies and that whole Marxist push—no, I’m not cool with that.”
Country singer Ted Nugent is voting for Trump.
“I think he’s the greatest president in the history of America,” he told “Pat’s Soundbytes Unplugged” podcast, adding: “I think he’s the greatest leader in the history of the human experience.”
The controversial comedy actress posted a photo wearing a MAGA hat earlier this year.
The 2020 election could feature a very high turnout of young voters, if the results of a new poll prove correct.
A national survey released Monday by Harvard University found that 63 percent of respondents aged 18-29 said they would “definitely” vote in this year’s election. The result is a substantial increase over the 47 percent who said the same before the 2016 election, and it matches the 63 percent of respondents aged 18-24 who said they would “definitely” vote before the 2008 election.
“Young Americans recognize that the issues that impact their day-to-day lives are on the ballot, from health care and mental health to racial and social justice,” Mark Gearan, director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School, said in a statement. “The unprecedented interest in this election and the significant increase in early and mail-in ballots portend historic turnout.”
“As this generation becomes the largest voting bloc in the electorate, their notable civic participation is a very good sign for the future,” Gearan added.
When former President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were first elected in 2008, actual turnout of voters aged 18-29 reached a peak of 48.4 percent, according to the United States Elections Project. Despite increased efforts at increasing youth voter turnout, the youngest age groups have remained the least likely to cast ballots in elections for decades.
High turnout among young voters would likely be a massive advantage to Democrats and Biden in particular, with polls consistently showing him with a significant lead over President Donald Trump. The Harvard poll shows Biden favored by 50 percent of voters aged 18-29 compared to 26 percent for Trump, with Biden’s lead reaching 63 percent to 25 percent among likely voters.
The former vice president’s favorability rating among young voters has also increased since a Harvard poll earlier in the year. Biden’s favorability rating in the poll released Monday was 56 percent among likely voters, up from 42 percent in a survey conducted in March. The biggest shift was seen among young Hispanic voters, moving from 38 percent favorable in March to 55 percent favorable in the recent survey.
However, only 63 percent of young Biden voters believe that the Democrat will win the election, compared to 74 percent of Trump voters who are confident that the president will be reelected. Of those who said they would vote for neither candidate, 36 percent believed Biden would be the winner, while 30 percent predicted a Trump victory and 34 percent were unsure.
Mirroring other surveys of the general population, the poll also found that the way young voters planned to vote depended heavily on their political party. A 56 percent majority of Democrats said they would vote by mail, compared to 33 percent of Republicans. Conversely, 56 percent of Republicans planned to vote in person, compared to 33 percent of Democrats.
The poll was conducted among 2,026 people aged 18 to 29 between September 23 and October 11. It has a margin of error of 2.18 percent.
Newsweek reached out to the Trump and Biden campaigns for comment.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz said in a Monday interview with Axios on HBO that Democrats make assumptions about what kind of justices Republicans want on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cruz, a staunch Trump supporter, criticized the behavior of Democrats during the Senate hearings for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed Monday night. Some Democrats have opined that Barrett’s presence on the Supreme Court would help conservatives overturn certain health care rulings, such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which made abortion on demand in the U.S. legal. Cruz told Axios on HBO interviewer Jonathan Snow on Monday what he was looking for in a Supreme Court justice.
“There is a real difference between what Democrats and Republicans are looking for in a Supreme Court justice,” Cruz said. “Democrats are outcome oriented at the core. They want their guys to vote their way. They assume what Trump wants and a Republican senate wants is a justice that’s gonna vote for Donald Trump.”
“What I want the justices to do if we have that is to resolve the cases according to the law and the constitution,” Cruz continued. “I’m looking for a justice who will follow the law.”
Cruz said he believed that the U.S. Senate had a role in pushing back against appointees who may not follow the constitution.
“So it’s entirely consistent to say if you got a president who’s appointing the one, I’m gonna fight to confirm them,” Cruz continued. “If you’ve got a president who’s appointing the other, I’m going to fight not to confirm them.”
Justice Barrett was appointed to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court after a contentious confirmation process that many Democrats deemed unfair. Some Democrats said that Barrett should not be confirmed until after the November presidential election.
Before the vote was taken, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Americans would “never forget this blatant act of bad faith.”
However, Barrett was confirmed by a 52 to 48 margin, with only Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins breaking ranks to vote against Barrett.
Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris said in a tweet after Barrett’s confirmation that the process was “illegitimate.” Harris added that Barrett’s confirmation was an effort by Republicans to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Millions of Americans have purchased health insurance through the ACA which the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn. Barrett, a Trump appointee, is expected to vote on the ACA.
“We won’t forget this,” Harris wrote. Newsweek reached out to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden‘s campaign for comment.
After a swearing-in ceremony at the White House, Barrett attempted to calm Democrats by saying she would not allow her personal belief systems to influence her voting record.
“The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means, at its core, that I will do my job without any fear or favor, and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences,” Barrett said.
A new poll finds President Donald Trump with a slim lead over Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden for the first time in more than a month.
The Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday found that Trump was favored by 48 percent of likely voters, compared to 47 percent for Biden. Another 3 percent said they would vote for a third party candidate, while 2 percent were undecided. A Rasmussen poll released on September 16, also giving Trump a 1 point advantage, was the last publicly released national survey to show the president in the lead.
The candidates were statistically tied in the poll since the result falls well within a 2.5 margin of error. The poll was conducted online and over the phone among 1,500 likely voters on October 21, October 22 and October 25. The firm had been releasing weekly polls of the presidential race, but Monday’s survey was the first of several daily polls planned to be released until Election Day on November 3.
Rasmussen has a history of giving the president favorable poll results when compared to other firms. A job approval poll released Monday showed 52 percent approving of Trump’s performance, compared to 46 percent disapproving. The result is at odds with almost every other recent survey, with polling analysis site FiveThirtyEight’s average of approval polls to giving Trump a 42.7 percent approval rating and a 53.5 percent disapproval rating as of Monday night.
Other polls of the presidential election have also shown significantly different results than the Rasmussen survey, with a Monday average of recent surveys giving Biden a 9.4 national lead. Of the polls released on the same day as the Rasmussen poll, Biden’s 7 percent edge in an IBD/Tipp survey of likely voters was the next closest to approaching favorable for Trump, with some others giving the former vice president a double-digit lead.
State polling is somewhat less negative for Trump, although Biden is still maintaining a clear advantage. As of Monday, Trump was trailing Biden by an average of 2.3 percent in Florida, 5.1 percent in Pennsylvania, 7.1 percent in Wisconsin and 8.3 percent in Michigan, according to FiveThirtyEight. The president had a 1.5 percent lead in Ohio, while he held an average lead of 1.2 percent in Texas, where some recent surveys have suggested a surprisingly close race.
FiveThirtyEight’s election forecast gave Trump a 12 percent chance of winning the election on Monday, just over a week before Election Day. The site gave Trump a 24.8 percent chance of winning eight days before the 2016 election, when he defied polls and many predictions by defeating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College despite losing the national popular vote by 2.1 percent. Rasmussen’s final national poll of the previous election gave Clinton a 1.7 percent lead.
Newsweek reached out to the Trump and Biden campaigns for comment.
Several Michigan sheriffs have vocally refused to enforce a ban on firearms at polling places announced earlier this month by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. Several gun groups are also suing Benson, saying that she overstepped her authority by bypassing the state legislature to create an unconstitutional law.
On October 16, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson sent a directive to local clerks throughout the state informing them that openly-carried firearms aren’t allowed within 100 feet of polling places on Election Day.
The directive, which was intended to prevent voter intimidation and disturbances at polling places, doesn’t apply to in-person early voting locations. It still allows concealed guns at polling places that aren’t designated as “gun-free zones,” such as schools and churches, according to the Iosco County News-Herald. The directive also encourages police and elections officials to use “education and deterrence” over arrests.
Three groups—Michigan Open Carry, Michigan Gun Owners and the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners—have filed two lawsuits against Benson, Attorney General Dana Nessel and Michigan State Police director Colonel Joseph Gasper.
“If you want to pass a law in Michigan, there’s a procedure by which the state can do that,” Dean Greenblatt, attorney for Michigan Open Carry told WMNU-FM. “The Legislature passes a bill, and then it goes to the governor for signature, but we don’t have rule-by-edict in Michigan.”
The gun rights groups say that Benson’s directive violates the Second Amendment rights of gun owners who are within their legal right to carry firearms, adding that open-carriers shouldn’t have to choose between their right to bear arms and their right to vote.
However, Michigan state law gives Benson supervisory control over elections, including the right to issue such directives for polling places, according to MLive.com. The state also has a separate law forbidding people from participating in voter intimidation.
“As the state’s chief election officer, the secretary has a duty and responsibility to protect that right and to provide much-needed clarity to voters and election workers on the existing state and federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation, harassment and coercion,” Benson’s spokesperson Tracy Wimmer said in a statement issued on Friday.
Benzie County Sheriff Ted Schendel said he wouldn’t enforce the ban, telling the Traverse City Record Eagle, “It’s illegal. [Benson] doesn’t have the authority to make laws.” He said he worries that more people will carry firearms at the polls now just to contest her “illegal order.”
Traverse City Police Chief Jeffrey O’Brien, Grand Traverse County Sheriff Tom Bensley and Livingston County Sheriff Mike Murphy have all said they have no intention of enforcing the directive either, though they pledge to respond to reports of any disturbances or voter intimidation on Election Day.
Robert Stevenson, director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, has told chiefs to consult their local prosecutors for guidance on whether or not to enforce the ban.
Until the courts decide, Nessel has said Michigan State Police troopers will enforce the ban at any locations where local police refuse to.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is smart, shrewd and funny. His mastery as a D.C. appellate lawyer—the best of his time, arguing 39 times before the Court—led admirers to say his middle initial stood for God. (Alas, it’s “Glover.”) His rulings in controversial cases—including when he was the decisive vote in 2012 to uphold Obamacare—play the long game, planting the seeds for larger conservative triumphs his opponents now don’t realize. Only weeks after he was confirmed in 2005, when a light bulb exploded in the courtroom during argument, he quipped, “It’s a trick they play on new chief justices all the time!” But for all his talents, few at the Court profess to really know him. Although he’ll chat with colleagues at lunch about last night’s game, that’s about all anybody learns about what’s inside.
So it was astonishing several years ago that Roberts let his guard down. Law clerks were taking him to lunch a few blocks from the building. On the walk there, to make small talk, one asked, “How do you like the job?” Instead of pablum like, “It’s the privilege of a lifetime,” he showed his real self. Roberts reminded the clerks there had been only 16 chiefs before him. Of course he was thrilled to be No. 17. But Roberts understood the history of the Court. Even among the chiefs, he said, there had been only one John Marshall, who served for 34 years at the beginning of the 19th century. Marshall wrote the seminal Marbury v. Madison which established the Court’s authority over the other branches—a role that the actual text of the Constitution hardly manifested. In the conference room of the Court, where appeals are decided and where only the justices are allowed, Marshall’s portrait hung above the fireplace, gazing directly at Roberts, who presided over meetings. Marshall “had the opportunity to decide the great questions because the Constitution was undeveloped,” Roberts told the clerks.
“It’s not like that anymore,” he said. “I was born in the wrong era.”
Roberts got lucky. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy retired in 2018, and with the swearing-in of Brett M. Kavanaugh, Roberts became the median justice. Not exactly a true “swing justice,” which might suggest flaming moderation. He remained a die-hard conservative who came of age during Reagan days. On the Court, though, on most contentious cases he just happened to have four liberal justices to one side and four conservative justices on the other. He would be the most powerful chief justice since FDR’s term. And he was still in his early 60s, the third-youngest member of the Court. If he served until he was 87—the age at which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September—he wouldn’t reach the halfway point of his tenure until 2022. While Supreme Court eras get named by whomever sits in the center seat, the Roberts Court really would be. And it was that way for two years, as he cast pivotal votes in such key areas as gerrymandering, abortion and religion.
But Roberts’ luck may have run out. With Ginsburg’s death and Amy Coney Barrett‘s ascension, the chief justice no longer is the midpoint. Barrett likely will be the Newtonian equal-and-opposite of Ginsburg. With Kavanaugh, and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, she will be part of a rock-solid five-vote conservative bloc. Yes, yes, you never know how a justice will vote, but, no, no, you should have little doubt. That alliance could issue rulings that overturn Roe v. Wade, invalidate the Affordable Care Act, broaden the rights of gun holders, allow claims of religious freedom to prevail over claims of discrimination, reconsider the right of same-sex couples to marry—and perhaps most significantly, declare unconstitutional the entire federal regulatory regime. The justices have already made little-noticed inroads on the last one. And someday, maybe, Medicare will be in jeopardy. Asked at her confirmation hearings about the constitutionality of the 54-year-old federal program, Barrett declined to say. Too “abstract,” she protested. You never know if the Court would ever face the question, she said, which is true of any question, which is why she gave virtually no substantive answers—her strategy from the outset.
Barrett, along with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, are surely credentialed and competent, but that’s not why any of them were anointed by the conservative legal establishment and appointed by President Donald Trump. All three were put on the Court to vote a certain way in critical cases—and in a way that renders the chief justice superfluous.
Remember that the president harbors particular animus toward Roberts. During the 2016 campaign, Trump regularly trashed the chief, whom he called an “absolute disaster.” “He gave us Obamacare! It might as well be called RobertsCare!” Trump hollered during one of the debates. (Roberts hated it. After hearing his name booed on TV during the GOP convention that year, he confided his indignation to a friend. “I’ve been a reliable conservative,” he complained. “Don’t they realize?”)
As president, Trump kept up the attacks, which widened to criticism of federal judges generally. Roberts finally responded in a highly unusual statement to an AP reporter. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts wrote. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” (Never mind that on an increasing number of issues we do have Trump judges and Obama judges: look at who appointed a judge and you’ve got a reliable gauge how they’ll vote on a legal question about, say, immigration.)
With Barrett aboard, the new median justice in all likelihood will be Kavanaugh. Even more than the fact of Roberts’ two years occupying the position, the change reflects just how far rightward the Court will shift with Barrett on it—and just how quickly chance can transform the slowest, steadiest branch of government. When Roberts in June voted to protect the status of Dreamers under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program, Kavanaugh was on the other side. Same thing three days later when Roberts aligned with the four liberals to strike down a Louisiana statute requiring physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Two weeks after, as a momentous term for the Court neared an end, Roberts and Kavanaugh diverged on whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applied to gay and transgender workers. Roberts said it did. And then in mid-October, Roberts voted with the three remaining liberals to permit election officials in Pennsylvania to count some mailed ballots received after Election Day. (His vote resulted in a 4-to-4 deadlock, which let stand a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.)
For Democrats and liberals, the Barrett-for-Ginsburg swap and the rush job that made it happen—in turn producing Kavanaugh-for-Roberts—adds injury to the insult of the events of 2016. Back then, Republicans obstructed President Barack Obama‘s nomination of Merrick B. Garland for the seat that Gorsuch eventually took. All of that is why expanding the size of the Court became a talking point for so many Democrats.
Being on the Supreme Court is a great gig—easy workload, best marble workplace in Washington, ultimate job security, the whole summer off. Being the chief is better, and being the chief is best when your vote rules. What’s John Roberts to do now? The best guess is he’ll wind up shifting rightward. For starters, he’s less constrained from following his conservative political instincts. It was one thing to play the roles of incrementalist and institutionalist when he could control outcomes in cases and save the Court from the triumphalist instincts that Thomas and Alito display without shame. There’s no point in that, all the more when it means consorting with the liberal wing with whom he shares little by way of ideology.
Moreover, the way of continued importance lies in joining with the other five conservatives, not with the remnants of the left. It’s not merely to be part of an ascendant majority. By tradition, the chief, though he gets but one of nine votes and may not have served the longest, is deemed the member of the Court with the most seniority. So, anytime he’s in the majority on a case he gets to decide who writes the opinion. That privilege of assignment is rarely appreciated by casual observers of the Court. But the justice who writes the main opinion can influence the direction of constitutional law for years, with a subtle signal to future litigants here or a seemingly innocuous aside there. Language matters. Much of the power of William J. Brennan Jr., the liberal lion of the Court from 1956 to 1990, derived from his matchless ability to form unexpected coalitions. Though it helped he had a lot of liberal leaners with him during many of those years, not everyone was always willing. Brennan did his cajoling not with the Irish charm often ascribed to him—but with words.
There’s nobody on the current Court who’s better at words than Roberts. It was that facility he demonstrated in his straddle in the 5-to-4 Obamacare ruling. Conservatives still rail about him being a turncoat—but that says more about their obtuseness than his treachery. In that ruling, Roberts was able to insert language about reining in congressional powers generally (though not in that case) that a future conservative Court will thank him for. During the many months that produce opinions, coalitions form, dissolve and re-form. In the Obamacare case, Roberts himself shifted from one camp to the other, finally siding with the liberals. To the extent Roberts is now part of a group of six conservatives—keep in mind it only takes five to command a majority—he’ll realize there’s only so much he can do by assigning majority opinions to himself. The others may balk if he refuses to topple certain liberal precedents or tries to play the institutionalist card. The others will be able to do so because they don’t need his vote. But only fools would underestimate Roberts’ ability to recalibrate.
Other justices might not care. Antonin Scalia, for one, showed little interest in winning allies. It was more satisfying—and easier—to write archly, be witty, take shots. Everybody loves a character. On the left, William O. Douglas, from 1939 to 1975, was the same way—the darling of acolytes, with little sway beyond. And there are a few justices in American history who acquired influence as “great dissenters.” What influence that John Marshall Harlan (1877 to 1911) or Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1902 to 1932) failed to earn by championing civil liberties in their own time they earned in posterity. (Ginsburg has been called the Great Dissenter of her time, but she had plenty of majority opinions and her instincts favored consensus; if the Court has a strident voice in the minority, it’s Sonia Sotomayor.)
Anybody who knows Roberts knows he has little interest in being a lone wolf or just part of the pack. He’s renowned as an institutionalist because he loves the Court—its history, its purpose in constitutional design, its mystery and majesty. Those are as crucial to him as his twin policy agendas, the deregulation of political campaigns and the eradication of racial preferences. But his institutionalism is also rooted in love for the role of the chief. In his wily way, he doesn’t let anybody forget it.
Consider Elena Kagan’s investiture in 2010. That’s the ceremony in the courtroom in which a new justice is formally installed. It’s takes under 10 minutes, but with dignitaries and family there, it’s a big deal. The new justice, seated at ground level in a chair used by Marshall, hears some nice words and then takes the bench. Roberts recognized Kagan as “the 101st associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.” That was true enough, but it wasn’t how it had been done before. The prior year, Sotomayor was the “111th justice,” without the “associate.” Kagan should’ve been 112th. Roberts changed the script by subtracting the chiefs who hadn’t previously served as an associate justice. (Five had.) Now, there would be one tally for associate and another for chief. Kagan noticed. So did the other justices. They each knew their number in the way every president knows his. Why would a chief who revered Court traditions mess with my number?
Because it made his rank more exclusive. Silly? Sure. Vain? A bit. But it tells you something about Roberts, who has two bobbleheads in his chamber, one of Abraham Lincoln and one of himself. The current chief, with a long reign still ahead but his Court taking a hard turn rightward, will not likely tolerate irrelevance.
David A. Kaplan, former legal affairs editor of Newsweek, is the author of The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court in the Age of Trump (Crown, 2018), from which some of this material is adapted. His other books include The Accidental President (William Morrow, 2001). He teaches journalism and law at NYU and CUNY.
Hell in a Cell is in the rearview mirror, but the WWE will build to the Survivor Series pay-per-view starting tonight on Monday Night RAW.
The October 26 edition of WWE’s flagship show will see the beginning of a new top champion and a lot more fallout from Hell in a Cell. Randy Orton defeated Drew McIntyre in a Hell in a Cell to capture his 14th WWE Championship.
Orton proved that he is at the top of his game on Sunday, but what will this new reign mean for the rest of Monday Night RAW? Will we see a new challenger in “The Fiend” or Keith Lee? Will Drew McIntyre get a rematch, or will he get into another feud? The top of Monday Night RAW is in flux, so it’ll be interesting to see how the WWE handles it.
The Miz finally got what he wanted, the Money in the Bank briefcase. After getting a Hell in a Cell match against Otis with the briefcase on the line, the former champion won with the assist of a heel turn from Tucker.
Miz is a Monday Night RAW superstar, but will he really want to cash-in on Randy Orton or will he keep an eye on who is holding the title for the right time? Also, will we see Otis and Tucker start their feud on RAW tonight?
Jeff Hardy got to get one over on Elias after striking him with his own guitar on Sunday. While the act got Hardy disqualified, the WWE Universe knows this is just the beginning between these two.
In an impromptu match, US Champion Bobby Lashley took out Retribution’s Slapjack in a one-on-one bout. What is the next chapter in the feud between The Hurt Business and Retribution?
With Survivor Series next month, we’ll likely get some more information on what the format will be. Will we get Monday Night RAW taking on SmackDown again? Will NXT be involved this year? How will The Undertaker get involved? Plenty of questions, and tonight may be the start of some answers.
Here’s everything that happened on the October 26 episode of Monday Night RAW.
WWE MONDAY NIGHT RAW RESULTS
Drew McIntyre Promo
McIntyre starts the night by coming out to the ring. He says he doesn’t have the words to say, but promises he will be WWE Champion once again.
He says it’s not about how hard you get hit, it’s about how you get up and move forward.
The Miz interrupts and gets to the ring with John Morrison. Drew says he’ll drop them both where they stand. Morrison says that Drew had an impressive reign with Miz saying it’s almost as impressive as being a two-time MITB winner.
Miz says that Drew doesn’t have to worry about facing Randy Orton because he has the briefcase. Miz brings up how he cashed-in on Orton 10 years ago and Drew should be thankful that McIntyre doesn’t have the title because he would have been cashed-in on.
Morrison says that he just hopes it doesn’t take 19 years for Drew to get the title again. McIntyre headbutts Miz and throws Morrison around.
McIntyre goes for the Future Shock DDT on Morrison, but Miz chop blocks him and helps Morrison get away. McIntyre crushes Miz’s glasses and says that he has an idea for management regarding Miz and Morrison.
Survivor Series Announcement
Commentary announces a series of qualifying matches to determine RAW’s team.
Matt Riddle will take on Sheamus, AJ Styles will take on Jeff Hardy, Elias will take on Keith Lee.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounced President Donald Trump for engaging classism after he baselessly questioned whether she went to college during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania.
Trump questioned the education credentials of Ocasio-Cortez while mocking her environmental policies at his rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania on Monday, derisively referring to her as a “great student of the environment” before remarking “I don’t think she ever took an environmental course in college… she did go to college, right?”
“I could say yes, but who cares?” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to the president’s comments. “Plenty of people without college degrees could run this country better than Trump ever has. As much as GOP cry about ‘elites,’ they’re the ones who constantly mock food service workers, people w/o degrees, etc as dumb. It’s classist & disgusting.”
“I’ve hired people w/o degrees who have done incredible, effective, & strategic work,” she added later. “The more college costs soar, the more degrees become a measure privilege than competence. Our country would be better off if we made public colleges tuition-free & cancelled student loan debt.”
Ocasio-Cortez graduatedcum laude from Boston University in 2011 with a degree in economics and international relations. As a high school student, she competed with students from around the world to win a second-place award in microbiology during the 2007 International Science and Engineering Fair.
Trump previously claimed that Ocasio-Cortez was a “poor student” and “not even a smart person” during a Fox News interview in August. She responded by challenging the president to release his college transcript to be compared to hers.
“Let’s make a deal, Mr. President: You release your college transcript, I’ll release mine, and we’ll see who was the better student,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on August 13. “Loser has to fund the Post Office.”
Trump has not released his transcript. He graduated in 1968 from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in economics. In a secretly recorded phone conversation, the president’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry said that he “got into University of Pennsylvania because he had somebody take the exams.”
In 2011, Trump disparaged the education of former President Barack Obama during an interview with the Associated Press, demanding that Obama release transcripts while saying he had “heard he was a terrible student.” Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983, before going on to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991.
White voters without college degrees were a key demographic in helping Trump to secure the presidency in 2016. Recent polling suggests that the group continues to favor him in the current election.
Newsweek reached out to the Trump campaign for comment.
Did President Donald Trump place Amish supporters at a rally in Pennsylvania? One Twitter user appears to think so. They claimed that the president hired supporters for his rally on Monday in Lancaster County, a dominantly Amish (and apolitical) community.
“Trump’s campaign should do their homework before hiring their ‘supporters,'” one user wrote. They shared an image of the president at the rally with a man in a traditional Amish straw hat and beard, who also appeared to wear earbuds, behind him in clear view.
“The Amish fellow in the left of this picture is shown wearing earbuds and jacket with a zipper;the Amish shun both. And, wait for it……..Amish don’t VOTE!” they added.
In a video shared online, Trump mentions having the Pennsylvania Dutch in his crowd and giving a thumbs up. Several Amish men respond by giving him a thumbs up behind him.
“Don’t tell anybody, but the Pennsylvania Dutch are voting en masse. They’re voting. I heard that the other day,” Trump said a rally he held at the Lancaster Airport in Lititz, via Philadelphia Inquirer.
“They said, ‘We work hard. We can’t have a man who sleeps all day in the basement,” the president added, taking aim at his election rival Vice President Joe Biden. A handful of Amish men could be seen in the front row of the rally. Whether or not they will vote “en masse” remains to be seen.
Some Twitter users believe that the attendees who appeared Amish were allegedly, either hired, or Trump supporters dressed up for the rally.
They also alleged that at another Trump rally, nuns were hired to attend, wearing “MAGA” face coverings and placed right behind the president’s podium.
Newsweek contacted the White House but did not hear back by the time of publication.
The Pennsylvania Dutch community are known for their rejection of technology, along with other aspects of modern life, such as voting.
As per the York Daily Record, the Amish appear to shun political activism. “I read in the Bible, my Kingdom is not of this world,” said one Amish man about not voting. “As followers of Jesus, we don’t believe in political power.”
“As followers of Christ,” another man told the publication, “they believe they should strive to live in the kingdom of God rather than deal with earthly matters.” York Daily Record did not that the Amish who do vote are typically Republican, and 90 percent of the Amish community who are registered to vote are Republican. Only one percent of the Amish community who are registered to vote are Democratic.