The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
{{ site.specific_data.Twitter }}
Liberal Think Tank Urges  'Appropriate Restrictions' On Transgender Sports

Liberal Think Tank Urges  'Appropriate Restrictions' On Transgender Sports

"Ending the Backlash on LGBTQI+ Issues" is the title of the report out this week from the respected liberal think tank The Center for American Progress. As you might expect, the Center report urges Democrats to stand firm in supporting transgender soldiers and gender-transition care. But when it comes to girls' sports, it's not what you think.

This is what the liberal group has to say:

"The NCAA recently promulgated a restriction on transgender women playing in women's sports, a decision that it deemed appropriate for its level of competition and the sports it governs. Other associations, such as the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, have passed policies allowing students to participate according to their gender identity. This is where these decisions appropriately lie: with sports' governing bodies or schools themselves rather than with politicians. While local bodies and associations should minimize unnecessary exclusion, restrictions may be appropriate under some circumstances."

"Restrictions may be appropriate under some circumstances."

Hallelujah. Not that I'm in favor of restrictions. I'm just against losing elections over them.

"We hope that this lowers the temperature and lets us come out of this really scary moment for folks," said Caleb Smith, CAP's director of LGBTQI+ policy, who is transgender and a co-author of the paper.

Thank you, Caleb. You have, hopefully, given Democrats a place to stand without facing too much backlash.Americans are not voting based on transgender issues. They don't show up on the list with the war and the economy and affordability. But issues like transgender discrimination unfortunately play into that calculus of character, of whose side are you on, that has been wielded so effectively against Democratic candidates.

When Democratic Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton said last month that she does not "support boys playing in girls' sports," her statement prompted criticism from Democratic advocacy groups and liberal state lawmakers who accused her of dismissing the identities of trans people.

From what I've heard, Amy Acton is a great candidate. What are we doing attacking her? Of all the people to attack, she should not be one. Don't we want her to win?

An overwhelming majority of American voters don't think transgender girls should play girls' sports. I don't happen to be one of them. I feel bad for the handful of girls — and it's usually just a handful — who lose out most directly when a district adopts "appropriate restrictions."

But is it worth risking an election over?

Remember the ad of President Donald Trump's — the most effective of the campaign — using transgender care in prison to attack Kamala Harris for standing for they/them while Donald Trump stands for you. The Harris campaign said they had nothing to say to blunt it. That can't be right. Or it can't be right again.

Barney Frank of Massachusetts was the first openly gay member of Congress and a fierce fighter for gay rights. Before he died this past year, he gave a series of interviews, which I wrote about, in which he cautioned the party not to move too fast on transgender rights, and in particular girls' sports. Barney talked about how the gay rights movement moved toward marriage equality but didn't start there. We have work to be done, which starts with winning the election of people who are willing to recognize the full range of gender equality, even if it comes with some "appropriate restrictions."

The Center report concludes that "all athletes deserve fair competition and a level playing field." I believe that. And we shall achieve it one day. Caleb's report, and Barney's wisdom, will hopefully bring us closer to that day.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

In Mideast, Dropping Diplomacy For Bloodshed Is Bad Policy And Stupid Politics

In Mideast, Dropping Diplomacy For Bloodshed Is Bad Policy And Stupid Politics

Last Wednesday, President Trump offered a new word to describe our Iranian adversary's leaders: "scum."

"They are sick people. They're led by sick people, and they're vicious, violent people," he said, adding, "As far as I'm concerned, it's just a waste of time dealing with them."

So, what are we supposed to do?

What we did was hit Iran with two of the worst days of bombing since the war started.

And what has that accomplished? Brought us to the brink, or back from the brink, the brink being the place that mediators between us and Iran say we are on. The brink of all-out, endless war, which feels like it has never really stopped.

Instead of facing our own problems and addressing them, President Donald Trump leads us in an unpopular war while gas prices and grocery check-outs go up.

Unpopular wars make for unpopular presidents, which make for bad electoral outcomes.

Sooner or later, Trump is going to have to deal with the men he calls "scum," or some of them. Calling them names will not strengthen his hand. His version of diplomacy looks more like the moves of a weaker hand. Pursuing military strength without at the same time pursuing peace leads to a dead end.

That was, coincidentally perhaps, the message of former Chicago Mayor, Congressman, and Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, who went to Tel Aviv to bring home his criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.

"The prime minister and his government have led Israel into a dead end," Emanuel said. Citing the importance of pursuing both military strength and peace talks, he added, "Prime Minister Netanyahu has done the former to the exclusion of the latter, and as a direct result, support for Israel is plummeting around the world."

Emanuel was voicing the opinion of most American Jews when he made clear his criticism of Netanyahu and his endless wars. He criticized Netanyahu for playing partisan politics with the GOP rather than maintaining the bipartisan support for Israel of the past.

Netanyahu did not, of course, respond. Some of his allies reportedly claimed that Rahm was not important enough to respond to; on that, they are clearly wrong. Rahm should never be underestimated, and the movement he speaks for is only growing. Others tried to paint him into a corner: as one adviser to Netanyahu posted, "There will be a place for Rahm Emanuel in between Karl Marx and Bernie Sanders when the next edition of The Vanishing Jew is published."

But Rahm Emanuel is far from a self-hating Jew. His father was born in Jerusalem. He has strong ties to Israel. His opposition to Netanyahu is shared by a majority of American Jews, who also express concern about Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza and its engaging in war crimes; a significant minority thinks Israel engaged in genocide. Younger American Jews (ages 18 to 34) are less attached emotionally to Israel and more likely to be critical.

We need a negotiated solution with Iran. Israel needs a negotiated resolution with its neighbors. Name-calling has never been a preferred tactic of experienced negotiators, and Trump is hardly proof of a new lesson in that regard. Accuse Rahm Emanuel of many things, but no one has ever said that he's not a smart politician. What he's saying right now is smart, and it's smart politics. What Trump's saying is not.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Beyond Birthright Citizenship, Justices Prove Case For Supreme Court Reform

Beyond Birthright Citizenship, Justices Prove Case For Supreme Court Reform

He still hasn't given up. In the wake of the 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court tossing out his Executive Order abolishing birthright citizenship, President Donald Trump was back at it, insisting that Congress should act. He cared enough about the case that he took the unprecedented step of attending the oral argument. But he brushed off the historic loss in the Court.

He posted on Truth Social: "The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President ... No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!"

In fact, according to five of the six Justices in the majority, a long and unwieldy process would be required because Trump's Executive Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution specifically provides: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." All persons born in the United States are citizens. It couldn't be clearer, which hasn't stopped Trump from harping on it for the last decade.Two-thirds of both houses of Congress must pass a proposal to amend the Constitution, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. It is a cumbersome process and rightly so, certainly in this case.

The argument — or maybe the polemic — against birthright citizenship focuses on what are called the "anchor babies" — the children of illegal immigrants who are born here and then used to secure legal residence for their families. It's mostly a myth: the anchor babies have to wait until they are 21 to sponsor their parents for green cards, which then becomes a nightmare because they have to return to their home country and wait years to complete the process — and the fear that, if they leave, they will not be permitted re-entry into the country.

There will be bills introduced in Congress, but they should go nowhere. The constitutional obstacle, which had been assumed, has now been established. It's one of Trump's two big losses — the other being tariffs — before a conservative Court that has mostly done his bidding.

The Supreme Court also ended its term, ending the careers of transgender girls in school sports across the country and allowing political parties to pour even more money directly into candidate campaigns, taking the swamp that is electoral politics and just expanding it.

The issue of transgender girls in sports may be ahead of its time, as the late Barney Frank suggested, but the individual stories of girls being forced to give up their passion to satisfy politicians are compelling.As for the freedom of the political parties to pour more money into the process, is that even possible? The answer to the question is yes, and the reflecting pool turned green because that is the color of money, and since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, there is no stopping the corruption of the system.

The landmark 2010 decision struck down restrictions on independent political spending by corporations, labor unions, and other organizations, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. The Super PACs came next, and the expansion goes on. The Republicans went to the Court for this one because their party committees have more money set aside. This committee will spend hundreds of millions alone; no wonder so many people are voting to get the bums out, even the bums they agree with.

And no wonder constitutional law scholar and Congressional leader Jamie Raskin has his eye on restructuring the Supreme Court.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Hillary Is Right On Biden's Fatal Error, But Skips Troubling Questions About Harris

Hillary Is Right On Biden's Fatal Error, But Skips Troubling Questions About Harris

In a new interview this week, Hillary Clinton identified the key decision that resulted in President Donald Trump's election in 2024. It all boiled down, in her view, to a "terrible miscalculation" -- former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s decision to run for re-election. Mr. Biden made a "terrible mistake for himself, his legacy and for the country" in deciding to seek re-election at the age of 81. Had he decided to "pass the torch" and the Democratic Party had held a competitive nomination process, "whoever emerged from that contest — whether it was the vice president, or a governor, or a senator or anybody else — would have beaten Donald Trump."

Or, I would add, they would have had a better chance than Biden did.

Joe and Jill Biden clearly live in a state of denial with respect to Joe's unpopularity. In some respects, it's understandable: He wasn't a bad president and he left the country in better shape than it is now. So why shouldn't Jill think that even though she was afraid her husband was having a stroke during the debate with Trump, he should stay in the race and if he had, they both seem to believe, he would have beaten Trump. It's delusional thinking that must have been reinforced by the deep-seated loyalty of those who had been around him for so long. Sadly, the cost of that delusional thinking is being borne around the world.

Democratic Party is still struggling to figure out what went wrong. The unofficial official autopsy report, which the Party commissioned and then disowned, studiously avoided any criticism of Biden's decision to seek re-election, which cast doubt on the rest of the report.

Of course, the question remains: Was Kamala Harris the right candidate? That's the one that even Hillary avoided, pointing out that Kamala would have been a stronger candidate if she'd emerged from a competitive process. But would she have? Emerged from a competitive process, that is. Kamala Harris was the Vice President for an unpopular President. She was caught between defending the indefensible and attacking her own Administration. She never figured out how to walk that line in the general election and there's no reason to think it would have been easier in the primaries.

The Democratic Party is still struggling to figure out what went wrong. The unofficial official autopsy report, which the party commissioned and then disowned, studiously avoided any criticism of Biden's decision to seek re-election, which cast doubt on the rest of the report.

Of course, the question remains: Was Kamala Harris the right candidate? That's the one that even Hillary avoided, pointing out that Kamala would have been a stronger candidate if she'd emerged from a competitive process. But would she have? Emerged from a competitive process, that is. Kamala Harris was the Vice President for an unpopular President. She was caught between defending the indefensible and attacking her own Administration. She never figured out how to walk that line in the general election and there's no reason to think it would have been easier in the primaries.

The simple fact that Democrats need to accept is that Americans preferred the convicted felon to the vice president. They got to see them both, up close. Harris ran a better campaign than she gets credit for. She did put her best foot forward. She was well-financed. Experienced strategists surrounded her. She did not use a private email server, as Hillary did. She did not have investigators nipping at her heels, the way Hillary did. It was, considering everything, a smooth run. She just didn't win.

I have yet to hear any explanation for why she's a stronger candidate today than she was in 2024, and she would need to be a stronger candidate to defeat a Marco Rubio, for instance. Kamala is leading in most, although not all, of the early polls, but that is a matter of name recognition; perhaps more significant is the fact that a majority of Democrats, at this stage, favor candidates other than Harris. And Harris has done almost nothing since the election to distinguish herself as the party's leader.

Soon enough, we will be hearing more, not only from Gavin Newsom, who is already out there (and being investigated for it), but from J.B. Pritzker and Josh Shapiro and Pete Buttigieg, not to mention Jon Ossoff, Ro Khanna and AOC. The nomination process is flawed in many ways, but at least it's a test, one that Kamala will be forced to pass this time.


Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.


Trump's Stooge: Tainted Federal Prosecutor Stirs California Election Conspiracies

Trump's Stooge: Tainted Federal Prosecutor Stirs California Election Conspiracies

There he goes again. As Democrats predicted before the first votes were in, President Donald Trump is, as is his way, challenging the results of the elections in California. With absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing, he took to Truth Social twice on Wednesday.

"The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS," Trump posted

"There's BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California. Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. Why the vote counting DELAY???"

Trump knows exactly why the delay. It's because the state relies heavily on mail-in ballots, which must be postmarked by election day but may not arrive until days after. And then they are hand-counted, with signatures verified and corrected if necessary. It's part of making sure that as many people participate as possible, and that every vote is counted. Another word for it is democracy.

You'd think that if Democrats were stealing the Governor's and Mayor's race, they'd be doing a more effective job of it; in fact, Trump's favored candidates are doing better than expected. But there is a method to Trump's madness: the popular theory, backed up by some practical evidence, that late-deciding mail-in ballots tend to break Democratic and progressive.

Four years ago, Rick Caruso, the popular developer, held a comfortable lead over Karen Bass on the morning after the election, only to see their positions reversed by the late ballots. Does that mean that Spencer Pratt and Steve Hilton, the TV hosts turned politicians, will lose their spots in the run-off? Probably not. But the feds are ready to prosecute, just in case.

More troubling than Trump's social media rants are the actions actually being taken by his ardent loyalist, who is the "first assistant U.S. Attorney" for the Central District of California — a loophole method of having a non-confirmed and non-confirmable appointee run the office. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, on Friday morning, said his office "has multiple election fraud investigations underway," in coordination with the FBI in Los Angeles. Essayli's office confirmed that Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Renner was at a Los Angeles County ballot processing center Friday "to observe the vote counting process."

Essayli's office has earned the reputation, under his "leadership," of losing. He has distinguished himself for his vigor in pursuing the Trump agenda, prosecuting protestors, immigrants and activists, with surprisingly little success. There is an old expression that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Essayli and his lieutenants are not, by that standard, very good prosecutors.

The judges of the Central District could select a new U.S. Attorney to fill the vacancy in the Central District, but they haven't moved to do so. One explanation is that they are simply letting Essayli and his team fall on their faces. Meghan Blanco, a former federal prosecutor and veteran defense attorney, suggested to the Los Angeles Times that the federal judges' inaction with Essayli might be a clever act of resistance. "If you're a judge and displeased with what DOJ is doing and the shenanigans they're pulling ... you let the Essayli appointment play out," Blanco said. "No one has seen a U.S. attorney's office lose the way this office is losing now."

Opening investigations to suit the president's partisan whims is the secret to success in the Trump justice system. It is what won Bill Pulte, the housing chief who, based on his willingness to scour the mortgage applications of Trump's enemies, the spot of Director of National Intelligence. It is all that Trump values, and it is a terrible abuse of power. In prior times, presidents could face impeachment for such abuses. In this world, we have come to accept it as business as usual. It should not be.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.


Vengeful 'Investigation' Of E. Jean Carroll Shows Justice Department Running Amok

Vengeful 'Investigation' Of E. Jean Carroll Shows Justice Department Running Amok

President Donald Trump may be the smallest, meanest and most vengeful man to serve in the Oval Office. Every time I think he and his minions could stoop no lower, they surprise me. There is simply no limit to Trump's hunger for vengeance, or the willingness of his minions to do his bidding, no matter how unethical.

The latest is Wednesday's news, first reported by CNN, that the Justice Department has launched an investigation of E. Jean Carroll, the woman who successfully sued Donald Trump for sex abuse and defamation. And won. And won on appeal.

So what does Trump do? Own up to his wrongdoing? Never. Accept the verdict and move on? Not Trump-like. No, when someone does something Donald Trump doesn't like, he sics the Justice Department on them for a pretextual investigation. If that doesn't amount to weaponizing the Justice Department for partisan political purposes, what does?

The "investigation," if you can call it that, reportedly centers on whether Carroll lied in a deposition four years ago when asked whether outside backers were funding her fight against Trump. Carroll later disclosed that billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman helped cover some of her legal expenses through a nonprofit with which she had no direct connection. So what? It doesn't change any of the facts. It is hardly the stuff that the Justice Department could be bothered to investigate. This is not a federal case. It is the latest act of petty vengeance by a man who has no limits to the grudges he keeps or the power he is willing to use to get even.

The reaction to the news of the Carroll investigation prompted outrage, as it should. Gavin Newsom, with his usual taste for understatement, called the president "sick." If this is an illness, it threatens all of us with its inherent corruption and its assault on the rule of law.

Said California's Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff: "First, Trump weaponized the DOJ to target his political enemies. Now, perversely, he's targeting E. Jean Carroll, the woman who credibly and successfully sued him for sexual assault. He's using the power of the DOJ to go after his own victims. It's a vile attack on the rule of law and a disgusting insult to victims everywhere."

This is not just about Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll. It is, as Sen. Schiff points out, "a disgusting insult to victims everywhere." It is a message to anyone who dares to take on Donald Trump that they will be subject to a criminal investigation. If he would do this to the woman who successfully sued him for sexual abuse, who would he not do it to?

Just for the record, Carroll defeated Trump in two separate civil cases. In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting and defaming Carroll.

A second jury later ordered Trump to pay additional damages for repeated defamatory statements attacking Carroll as a liar. Trump appealed both rulings and lost both times. So what? He is the king.

The Justice Department is not supposed to be doing the dirty work for a president who does not believe in the rule of law. Trump had his day in court — multiple days — and lost. Now he is abusing his power as president to get even.

There were times when the Justice Department would have refused to be dragged into an abyss like this. They would not have done the president's private bidding. Those days are past. So the question is, who is going to stop this? The press is doing its job. So are most of the courts. But that is not enough. Congress, with its oversight role, must investigate and rein in an out-of-control Justice Department.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.


What Went Wrong For Democrats In 2024 -- And What Must Go Right Next Time

What Went Wrong For Democrats In 2024 -- And What Must Go Right Next Time

For months now, Democrats argued about whether to release the "autopsy" the National Committee commissioned on what went wrong in 2024. The report was completed but then not released; under pressure, Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin released the report late last week, but only with the caveat that it didn't meet the Committee's standards, whatever that means.

In truth, the report finds plenty of blame. That's the problem with losing a close election — and 2024, no matter how many times President Donald Trump describes it as a landslide, it wasn't — is that almost everything you did "wrong" could have made the difference. Which doesn't necessarily tell you what to do right, the next time around, or address the very real divides inside the Democratic Party.

The report faults almost everyone. The Biden White House is faulted for not doing enough during the first term and the 2022 midterms to prepare Kamala Harris to lead the ticket, which, of course, would not have mattered so much had former President Joe Biden not waited so long to decide not to run, but that's another story.The Harris campaign is faulted for writing off rural voters, relying too much on identity politics and not being tough enough on Trump. When the other side runs a negative campaign and wins, as Trump did here, the response is always that you should have hit back harder. With what, is the question.

One of the most striking conclusions and the most troubling is about the efficacy of the ad Trump ran attacking Harris on transgender issues — in this case, on her previous statement of support for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgeries for prison inmates.

The report cites the ad as "very effective," and says that internal pollsters believed that "if the Vice President would not change her position — and she did not — then there was nothing which would have worked as a response."Are Democrats in fact too far out front of voters on transgender issues?

Do Democrats rely too much on identity politics, an argument that works better with the base of the Democratic party than it does with more moderate, independent voters, whom they need to attract?

According to the report, "Harris wrote off rural America, assuming urban/suburban margins would compensate. The math doesn't work ... You can't lose rural areas by overwhelming margins and make it up elsewhere when rural voters are a significant share of the electorate. If Democrats are to reclaim leadership in the Heartland or the South, candidates must perform well in rural turf. Show up, listen and then do it again."

As for male voters, the report argues that "Male voters require direct engagement. The gender gap can be narrowed. Deploy male messengers, address economic concerns and don't assume identity politics will hold male voters of color."

The release of the autopsy and all the discussion about why it took so long to release it coincides with a new New York Times/Siena College poll showing Democrats with a strong advantage going into the midterms, but also with deep divides and disillusionment within the party. While the left is the loudest force on the Democratic side, it may not be the most popular: a majority of Democratic supporters said that they were generally happy with the party's ideological positioning, but 52 percent said the next Democratic presidential candidate should move the party to the center in order to win. Only a quarter said the next candidate should move the party to the left.

The Times found that more than half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents expressed frustration with the party: "unhappiness spanned almost every part of the party's coalition — including young, white, Black and college-educated voters — and was especially strong among Democrats least attached to the party, who are the most likely to swing elections."

The real issue for Democrats is not why they lost the last election, but how they are going to avoid losing the next one.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

What Republicans Really Mean When They Accuse Democrats Of 'Election Cheating'

What Republicans Really Mean When They Accuse Democrats Of 'Election Cheating'

The Republicans are determined to pass it. It's their Hail Mary pass for the midterms. If you can't win an election fair and square, then suppress the votes. Disenfranchise those who aren't likely to vote for you. Create a phony problem that you then have to solve. It's an outrage. And it's happening in real time.

"The cheating is rampant in our elections," President Donald Trump told Congress last month. That's a lie. It isn't. The liberal Brennan Center reached the same conclusion as the conservative Heritage Foundation. Noncitizen voting is ridiculously rare. The Brennan Center found exactly 30 instances of noncitizens voting out of 23.5 million votes it reviewed in the 2016 election. The Heritage Foundation found 24 instances of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections between 2003 and 2023.

Results from the states confirm these numbers. A sample from Reuters: Florida has prosecuted two people for voting as noncitizens since 2022, out of 13.5 million registered voters. In Kansas, a 2018 court case found that 39 noncitizens registered to vote between 1999 and 2013, out of roughly 1.8 million registered voters. Nevada found that three noncitizens voted in the 2016 election, out of more than 1 million ballots cast.

"You gotta win the midterms," Trump told House Republicans in January, "because if we don't win the midterms, they'll find a reason to impeach me." And how do you do that when the country is turning against the president? The answer Trump gave last week was simple. Pass the SAVE Act. "It'll guarantee the midterms ... If you send it up there, you will win the midterms and you will win every election for a long time."

By disenfranchising women voters, young people and poor Americans. By making it more difficult for people to vote, you make it easier for Republicans to win. It is shameful.

Here's how it works, or rather doesn't work. The bill requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. A real ID isn't even enough; only five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — even offer a special "enhanced" driver's license that indicates citizenship and those cost extra. For everyone else, you'd need a U.S. passport or a birth certificate paired with a photo ID to register to vote.

But wait. Who has a valid passport? About 146 million Americans don't. And the birth certificate won't work for the 84% of married women who change their last name and so would also need a copy of their marriage license, in addition to the birth certificate and photo ID, just to register, or re-register to vote. That's some 69 million American women whose birth certificate no longer matches their legal names.

Under the SAVE Act, any of them who need to register, re-register, or update their address would have to show up in person at an election office — which only six percent of voters currently do — with three separate documents: a birth certificate, a photo ID and a marriage certificate to bridge the gap between the two. Those who fail to do so or who are swept up in the bill's mandatory voter-roll purges could lose the right to vote.

What are Republicans so afraid of? How can they tie up the Senate on this? Have they no shame?

They are afraid of women voters. They are afraid of new voters. They are afraid that the more people vote, the worse they will do. They are doing nothing less than undermining the democratic process. It is simply indefensible.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

MAGA Debate Over Iran Conflict Degenerates Into 'Micropenis' Flame War

MAGA Debate Over Iran Conflict Degenerates Into 'Micropenis' Flame War

Megyn Kelly, the former Fox News Host turned podcaster, is in the business of getting attention. This week, it worked. She got the attention of the President of the United States in her attack on fellow conservative talker Mark Levin, not to mention the support of fellow bomb thrower Marjorie Taylor Greene.

At the center of the attack is the question of the size of Mark Levin's member.

Levin is for the war with Iran, Kelly is against it. But they aren't debating the war like we teach children to do, using their words to make a point rather than calling names. No, the way you get attention is by going on the attack.

"Poor Megyn Kelly. An emotionally unhinged, lewd, and petulant wreck. She's completely revealed and destroyed herself," Levin wrote in on social media post on Sunday. "She's everything people say she is, but much worse. Never an intelligent, thoughtful, or substantive comment. Utterly toxic."

Kelly responded to Levin, calling him "micropenis Mark," writing that he "thinks he has the monopoly on lewd."

"He tweets about me obsessively in the crudest, nastiest terms possible," Kelly wrote. "Literally more than some stalkers I've had arrested. He doesn't like it when women like me fight back. Bc of his micropenis."

That's when Trump got involved. He took to social media on Sunday to defend Levin and attack Kelly.

"Mark Levin, a truly Great American Patriot, is somewhat under siege by other people with far less Intellect, Capability and Love for our Country. Mark is Tough, Strong and Brilliant. When you hear others unfairly attack Mark, remember that they are jealous and angry Human Beings, whose "sway" is much less than the Public understands, and will, now that they know where I stand, rapidly diminish."

Megyn was not cowed. I'm sure she was delighted. The exchange was getting lots of attention. So she piled on. Kelly wrote on Monday that Levin is "such a SMALL MAN he had to go beg the president for a pat on the head (in the middle of a war!) to make himself feel better about ... well, you know ... Just like all feckless, weakling bullies Micro can dish it out but he can't take it. After just one post putting the so-called 'great one' in his place, he ran crying to Daddy," she wrote.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), once a staunch Trump ally, offered her support to Kelly, writing: "I wholeheartedly support Megyn Kelly telling the world that Mark Levin has a micropenis. It's the most deserved insult and I don't care if it's vulgar. And Trump's gigantic defense of Levin only enraged the base more. People are DONE. MAGA destroyed by micropenis Mark Levin."

These are our opinion leaders? Our public intellectuals? The people getting all the attention in what should be a serious discussion of our goals and our mission in Iran? This is what MAGA has devolved to.

And in the midst of this, you have the president and his FCC chair complaining about how the mainstream media is covering the war and threatening broadcast licenses. The mainstream media is a model of restraint compared to the screamers on the right. The threats clearly violate the First Amendment. If the coverage comes out to be mixed, at best, that's because this administration has so completely failed at messaging this war: stating a rationale, defining the engagement, outlining the endgame. Theirs is an invitation to skeptical coverage.

The way to deal with that skeptical coverage is to answer the underlying questions about mission and duration, not to blame the people who are asking. But MAGA is too busy throwing mud at each other to answer the fundamental questions about this war that still have not been addressed. President Donald Trump has no one to blame but his own friends for the coverage he doesn't like. They deserve it.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert, Equal Time And The True Public Interest

Stephen Colbert was right to be mad. His bosses at CBS put the kabosh on an interview he wanted to do with a Texas Senate candidate on his late-night talk show. But you can't just blame CBS. The fault lies, as it so often does these days, in the Trump administration, which last month announced new "guidance" from the Federal Communications Commission requiring "equal time" on entertainment-oriented talk shows.

The guidance was clearly aimed at Trump's targets on late-night TV, including of course, Jimmy Kimmel of ABC, who has been targeted as well by Trump's FCC chair, Brendan Carr. It grows out of the longstanding conservative complaints about the late-night liberal conspiracy and the tendency of liberal hosts and guests to dominate. So what do you do? This is not the small government/libertarian crowd. These are big government conservatives. Regulate the hell out of them is what they are doing.

Until now, the broadcast industry — following the FCC's lead — had taken the position that talk shows, like news shows, were exempt from the "public interest" requirement that stations must give rival candidates equal opportunities to buy time and appear on tv. Indeed, the FCC ruled explicitly in 2006 that interviews on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno were exempt. Then came the new guidance. "This major announcement from the FCC should stop one-sided left-wing entertainment shows masquerading as 'bona fide news,'" Daniel Suhr, the president of the Center for American Rights, said at the time the guidance was issued in January.

Or, as Carr himself put it on X: "For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late-night & daytime talk shows qualify as 'bona fide news' programs — even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes. Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities."

Or no opportunities at all. Forget the banner of free speech. As the Colbert example clearly demonstrates, the consequences of guaranteeing equal time for all candidates are most likely to be no time for any of them. What you're really telling talk shows to do — including daytime shows like The View — is to stay away from politics, which is absolutely the last message that government should be sending.

The FCC has one Democratic member. She issued a statement when the new guidance was issued calling what her fellow Commissioners were doing "an escalation in this FCC's ongoing campaign to censor and control speech. Broadcasters should not feel pressured to water down, sanitize or avoid critical coverage out of fear of regulatory retaliation."

Clearly, that is what happened at CBS. While Colbert said he expected the network to do more to protect him, CBS itself told The New York Times that it had offered him "guidance" (clearly, the word of the day) on how to comply with the new version of the rule, including by offering equal airtime to the two other Democrats in the race.

The larger question — whether the public interest is in fact served by a rule adopted in 1927 to protect against then-powerful radio networks exerting undue influence on politics — is not one CBS alone can easily address. Brendan Carr knows his answer. He's all in for regulation in what he sees as the public interest. Whether the courts and Congress will go along remains to be seen.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Before Trump Sends Troops To Minnesota, Will Republicans Tell Him No?

Before Trump Sends Troops To Minnesota, Will Republicans Tell Him No?

President Donald Trump made the threat, where else, on Truth Social:

"If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don't obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State."

The Insurrection Act was signed into law in 1807. It was last invoked by former President George H.W. Bush in 1992, at the request of the California Governor, to deal with the Los Angeles Riots. Unlike deploying the National Guard, which Trump has also done, the Insurrection Act allows armed forces to carry out law enforcement functions for which they may or may not be trained.

You would have the military protecting not only federal buildings but immigration enforcement efforts, whatever form they might take. Talk about turning the streets — and parking lots — into battleground stand-offs. For what?

There is, of course, no insurrection, much less one led by professional agitators. ICE's job is not to kill anyone. If anyone is to blame for the overheated situation in Minnesota, it is Donald Trump, who thrives on it.

Unlike other presidents, who might see this as a time to bring the nation together, to express grief at a tragic loss, to vow to do better, this president does just the opposite. He doesn't want to turn the temperature down. He wants to turn it up. He investigates the widow instead of the officer. The pot boils, prosecutors quit, so what, he'll send more agents in. And if that inflames things further, then he can invoke the Act, which is what he really wants to do and what he views as a means to throttle a city and state he perceives as his opponent.

That's how he plays and that's how his team plays and if that's not how you play, then you shouldn't have voted for him, because he shows no sign of changing. Trumpism has never been about unity; it has always been us against them. Only now it is more so.

So what does everyone else do? Of course, they'll sue; the state's Attorney General has already brought suit regarding the ICE deployment and told the press that if Donald Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, he's prepared to challenge that in court.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, there are three ways the president can invoke the Act. The first is at the request of a state legislature or the governor, facing an "insurrection," which is not the path here. The second is when "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion" makes it "impracticable" to enforce federal laws — a much more likely path — and the third is to suppress an insurrection that "hinders the execution of the laws" or "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

You don't have to be Stephen Miller in the White House to knit together the Insurrection Act with the enforcement of immigration/deportation law into an unholy manifesto. Or to think that they already have.

Republican leaders are reportedly asking Trump to exercise restraint and not further inflame the situation by sending in the military. Are there enough Republican "leaders" to go to him and actually say something that almost sounds like "no"? And will he listen to them and care? Our military was not trained to march in Minneapolis. This is not what they signed up for. We should not send them there. Enough is enough.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

As RFK Jr. Shatters The Promise That Got Him Confirmed, Who's Calling The Shots?

As RFK Jr. Shatters The Promise That Got Him Confirmed, Who's Calling The Shots?

The news that a Centers for Disease Control panel is now recommending that newborns not be vaccinated for Hepatitis B is frightening. As The New York Times put it, "the divisiveness and dysfunction surrounding the decision raised questions about the reliability of that process — and the future of the C.D.C." Not to mention questions about the result of that process, and how many children will pay for this political theatre.

The shots for newborns have been recommended for 30 years now. No new scientific breakthroughs since then have come along to replace them, or changed the calculus in favor of them. Hepatitis B has been eliminated in newborns. Half the cases in children before 1991 were not due to an infected mother; hepatitis B can also be spread by the use of the same household objects — like combs or toothbrushes — of infected persons.

"We know it's safe, and we know it's very effective," Dr. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, and one of the panelists, said on Friday, warning that if the vote passed, "we will see more children and adolescents and adults infected with hepatitis B."

But the panel was stacked with the anti-vaxxers whom RFK Jr. has brought to the table and empowered; he fired and replaced all the prior members of the panel, and I suppose we should be impressed that there were any dissenting votes. Or maybe it should scare us even more.

In another divided vote, the panel recommended that parents who choose to have the three-shot series of vaccinations be advised to have an antibody test after the first shot to see if it is effective — even though there is no scientific evidence that antibodies show up that early. According to Dr. Meissner, it was "kind of making things up, I mean, it's like Never Never Land."

Except there are real lives on the line. Public health reports suggest that as many as 70 percent of the adults with hepatitis B in this country don't know they have it and could be exposing loved ones through shared objects in the house. If those loved ones are unvaccinated.

In the hours after the vote was made public, the panel was roundly denounced by public health experts. A number made the point that this marks the end of the day when you can rely on the government for public health information. And raises questions as to insurance coverage, particularly for the unnecessary antibody test, much less for the vaccines themselves.

One of the authors of the prior guidelines, Dr. Noele Nelson, a hepatitis expert at Cornell, said the panel did not "follow the scientific evidence, and risks undoing decades of progress in hepatitis B prevention, eroding vaccine confidence, and causing confusion among parents and health care providers."

Kennedy made some kind of commitment to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), himself a doctor and supporter of vaccines, to win his deciding vote for confirmation. Whatever commitment it was, if it included a promise to rein in the anti-vaxxers and protect America's children, it is not being kept. We look to the government to protect our public health. Robert Kennedy Jr. is not doing that. I don't care if he had an affair with a Vanity Fair editor. I care that he is cutting clinical trials and scientific research and pandemic preparation, that I can't trust him to cure any diseases or advance any research because he's too busy playing politics with kids' lives.

It's time for Sen. Cassidy to call in the chit. It's time for him to start drawing the line. This is not what we want or need, and Dr. Cassidy knows that. Someone else needs to be calling the shots here — or at least exercising clear oversight over the ones who are.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Sorry, Pete: 'The Fog Of War' Is No Alibi For Your High Seas Homicides

Sorry, Pete: 'The Fog Of War' Is No Alibi For Your High Seas Homicides

The "fog of war" is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's latest explanation for what was going on with the second strike on the boat in the Caribbean. He told a Cabinet meeting, "I did not personally see survivors. The thing was on fire. It exploded, there's fire, there's smoke. This is called the fog of war."

Not exactly, according to military experts. The term has reportedly come to be used by military experts to describe the incomplete and imperfect information that officers and troops must process in the thick of battle. "Officers in training learn the term almost instantly," Professor Derek Grossman of USC told the New York Times. "That's part of warfighting, to adapt on the fly."

It is not a defense to war crimes.Maybe I'm in a fog, too, but something about this administration's posture leaves me very confused. It seems that someone knew there were survivors and someone gave an order for a second strike, an order which, depending on what a full investigation shows, never should have been authorized, given, or followed.

Bipartisan lawmakers in both the House and Senate have vowed to get to the bottom of this. Make no mistake. This is serious stuff. These look very much like classic war crimes, with no extenuating circumstances that would mandate leaving no survivors. It will be a test of Republicans' loyalty to President Donald Trump, and Trump's to Hegseth.

This comes, of course, against the backdrop of growing criticism of this administration's undeclared war on Venezuela that has targeted boats in the area supposedly carrying drugs and has cost dozens of lives.

Who declared a war to be carried out by execution-style hits on these boats? Are we, as the first of what will surely be many such lawsuits filed claim, targeting innocent fishermen instead of drug traffickers?

And suppose we're really concerned with drugs flooding our country. What in the world is the Trump administration doing pardoning the ex-president of Honduras, who is credited with flooding America with cocaine?Why him? Why now? We pardon the kingpin and execute two surviving crew members clinging to the side of the boat?

How do you explain that? What fog of what war?

A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds, but what do you call this? Our hypocritical drug war, subject to the exception that presidents we like can do no wrong. With Trump wielding the Pardon pen, every day is King's Day.

Maybe it's a reflection of the tough week he and Pete are having, but Trump has been off on especially crazy rants this week, which can only make you wonder. The craziest, perhaps, was his repurposing of a conspiracy video from the thoroughly discredited Alex Jones that had Michelle Obama stealing former President Joe Biden's autopen to grant last-minute pardons to key officials — this among some 160 posts from the president on Monday night going strong until midnight. He may fall asleep in Cabinet meetings, but when the bile starts coming, there is no stopping him.

Among his other targets on Monday night was Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), the decorated former Navy officer and astronaut, who was one of the six Democratic veterans who made the now infamous videotape telling military members that they have a duty not to follow unlawful orders. That is, of course, the law; nothing controversial about it.

When I first decided to write about the attacks on Kelly and the others, I wondered if I was taking it too seriously; clearly anyone could see that their speech was protected. That was before the president accused them of treason and Hegseth's Defense Department announced an investigation of Kelly. And that was before we knew about someone ordering a second strike.

That was clearly on the president's mind. "Mark Kelly and the group of Unpatriotic Politicians were WRONG to do what they did, and they know it!" Trump wrote on Truth Social. "I hope the people looking at them are not duped into thinking that it's OK to openly and freely get others to disobey the President of the United States!"

Nobody is trying to get soldiers to disobey the President of the United States when he gives lawful orders. What they are trying to do is make sure that the orders that come from this administration are indeed lawful, and not simply a product of the "fog of war."

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

'Get The Word Out': Trump Promotes Neo-Nazi Fuentes And Wingman Carlson

'Get The Word Out': Trump Promotes Neo-Nazi Fuentes And Wingman Carlson

It took three weeks for President Donald Trump to speak up. In the meantime, Tucker Carlson's chummy interview with white nationalist and outspoken anti-Semite Nick Fuentes was tearing Trump's MAGA crowd apart. And when he finally did speak up, it was to defend Tucker Carlson — and Nick Fuentes.

"We've had some great interviews with Tucker Carlson, but you can't tell him who to interview," Trump told the press this week. "I mean, if he wants to interview Nick Fuentes — I don't know much about him, but if he wants to do it, get the word out, let him. You know, people have to decide. Ultimately, people have to decide."

"I don't know much about him ... " Really. You had dinner with him at Mar-a-Lago. Did he not share with you and Ye his thoughts on Nazis and Jewish conspiracies? "Kanye asked if he could have dinner, and he brought Nick," Trump said. "I didn't know Nick at the time." Now you do.

"Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise. It's that simple." That simple. That's what Fuentes said on his podcast in March. Is that the word we need to get out? There are not two sides to every question. There are some things people don't have to decide.

The day after Trump went out of his way to defend Carlson, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (who Karoline Leavitt tastelessly attacked as having gone "Palestinian") pointed out the silence from so many mainstream Republicans about Fuentes. On X, New York Democrat Schumer posted: "Donald Trump dined with Nick Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago. Now he refuses to condemn Tucker Carlson's appalling interview of Nick Fuentes. Too much of Donald Trump's Republican Party is Nick Fuentes's Republican Party. And they must all be roundly condemned by anyone who wishes to combat antisemitism and all forms of hate."

Not by Donald Trump. "Meeting people, talking to people — like for somebody like Tucker, that's what they do," Trump said. "You know, people are controversial. Some are; some aren't." No. Some people are despicable. And there is no reason to get the word out so people can decide for themselves.

Presidents sometimes have to deal with people they don't like and don't agree with. When, four years ago, U.S. intelligence officials concluded that the Saudi prince had ordered the killing of a Washington Post columnist, the Biden administration held off on punitive sanctions of him for fear that it would harm American interests. I understand that, painfully. I understand the White House meeting and the State Dinner. I don't understand Nick Fuentes.

There is no good reason in the world for Donald Trump to be associating with Nick Fuentes or defending him. There are no national security or economic interests. The only reason to defend Nick Fuentes is to appeal to people who share his racism and anti-Semitism. There is no other explanation. That is what Trump is doing. That's where he clearly thinks his base is.

Donald Trump is willing to tear American universities apart in the name of fighting anti-Semitism, but he won't distance himself from one of the most outspoken anti-Semites participating in our politics. Fuentes already has more than a million followers on X. With Donald Trump's help, he'll have more. Fuentes understood the significance of Trump's support, and he went out of his way to make sure everyone knew the president was on his side. On his own X page, for his million-plus followers, he shared the clip of Trump defending him with a note: "Thank you Mr. President!"

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

President Trump

How Trump's Drive For Personal Revenge May Backfire On MAGA

President Donald Trump wants revenge. He has made getting even the centerpiece of his administration, as if vengeance is a popular or attractive response. It isn't.

Last week, Trump asked Attorney General Pam Bondi on Truth Social why "nothing is being done" about James Comey, California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James. What's to be done? Schiff's only offense was his leadership of the Trump impeachment effort; James' offense, if you can call it that, was successfully prosecuting Trump. Since when is that a crime? Since when does a member of Congress deserve the attention of the attorney general for doing his job?

"They did it with me for four years," Trump said Friday, repeating his familiar criticism that the Biden Justice Department was weaponized against him. "They went after me." Frankly, the most troubling criticism I've heard of my friend and former Attorney General Merrick Garland is that he was too cautious and waited too long before appointing Jack Smith to independently investigate the president, leaving no window for a trial on the January 6 charges before the 2024 election. Garland did everything he could as attorney general to protect the independence of the Justice Department. The Trump Justice Department doesn't even make a pretense of independence. Trump says, "Jump" and the only acceptable answer is, "How high?"

That is precisely what happened in Comey's case. Two career prosecutors, experienced in applying the accepted Justice Department charging guidelines, found insufficient evidence to justify an indictment of Comey. So Trump brought in a new U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, a woman who was his personal lawyer and has zero prosecutorial experience. So much for the judgment of the career prosecutors.

The Justice Department, acting in response to more bullying demands from Trump, has reportedly launched an investigation of George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who has long supported democratic movements around the world. He has also contributed generously to U.S. Democrats. For this he should be prosecuted? Trump has demanded that Soros be thrown in jail.

Comey was indicted Thursday on one count of making a false statement and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding in connection with his testimony before a Senate committee in September 2020.

"He's a dirty cop," Trump said of Mr. Comey. "He's always been a dirty cop." The flimsy two-page indictment, signed only by Trump's personal lawyer and not, as usual, also by the prosecutors who gathered the evidence, hardly reads like an indictment of a "dirty cop." What an irony. Ask any Hillary Clinton supporter about James Comey and they'll probably remind you that Comey's handling of Hillary's email server, particularly in the closing days of the campaign, cost her the election. We all thought that Trump should thank him.

Comey is going to be tough to beat. He seemed almost to welcome the opportunity to take the fight to Trump. "We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn't either." He referred to his daughter, who was removed from her own post at the Justice Department last summer: "Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant, and she's right, but I'm not afraid, and I hope you're not either."

The younger Ms. Comey is right. Trump turned the Eastern District of Virginia into the "tool of a tyrant" just as he is doing to the Justice Department. Being a tyrant is clearly what Trump wants and relishes. But whether it will wear well politically remains to be seen. Trump clearly does not believe that living well and outlasting the James Comeys is the best revenge. His taste for pure vengeance is insatiable, and he is willing to dwell in the gutter to get it. Trump was reportedly elated by the charges against Comey and insisted that there would be "others." Beware what you wish for. Whether the public wants to dwell in that gutter with him — rather than address the people's many legitimate worries — remains to be seen.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shunning Schumer And Jeffries, Trump Earns Blame For Looming Shutdown

Shunning Schumer And Jeffries, Trump Earns Blame For Looming Shutdown

"The way this country works, you've got to sit down with people you may not agree with and come to an agreement, come to a negotiation," Sen. Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said on Tuesday after President Donald Trump canceled his meeting with Democratic leaders. "Donald Trump is not a king. He's the president, and he has his responsibility to work to avoid the Trump shutdown, and time is of the essence."

It's a matter of simple arithmetic. Even when you control Congress and the White House, you still need 60 votes in the Senate to fund the government. Unless they come up with those votes by Tuesday, the government shuts down and real people suffer. Will they blame Trump? They should.

Trump reportedly canceled the meeting with Democrats not after talking to Democrats but after a call with Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. According to news reports, both of them encouraged Trump not to speak to the Democrats. Johnson had told reporters before the meeting was canceled that he was "not certain" it was "necessary." Indeed, Trump said earlier this month that Republicans should not "even bother" negotiating with Democrats, suggesting that Republicans can fund the government without any Democratic votes. How?

This is no way to run the country. It's Trump's way or the highway. So far, it has worked, sort of. Trump got his big, beautiful bill. The rich are getting richer. Working people will pay for it, but not until after the midterm elections. Clever?

Of course, Democrats have an agenda here. They have publicly stated that any measure to extend spending also include more than $1 trillion to continue Obamacare subsidies and reverse cuts to Medicaid and other health programs that Republicans made last summer. So, at least at this point, Democrats are positioning themselves as fighting for health care while Republicans are positioning themselves as going it alone.

That is clearly the place where Trump is most comfortable. He openly hates his opponents — and I don't mean Vladimir Putin. He said it out loud at Charlie Kirk's funeral. Why should he have to work with people he hates?

The answer — which he seeks to avoid at all costs — is because this is a democracy, and this is how a democracy works. There are times for division and times for bipartisan unity. Keeping the government open should be a time for unity. No one wants to be responsible for Social Security checks getting delayed or for the IRS not answering the phones. For Trump to think he can go this one alone and not be blamed for it, or better yet, blame the Democrats, is pure folly. Everyone will be blamed, starting with Trump.

We are as divided and polarized as a nation as we have not been in recent history. Our politics are toxic. It infects our families almost as much as it infects Washington. I can't believe this is what a majority of Americans want or what they voted for when they cast their ballots for Trump. Trump voters also have a big interest in protecting Obamacare and Medicaid, as Trump surely must know. How can a meeting with Democrats not be a useful way to at least show that you are trying to pull this country together and do right by it?

"No one wants a shutdown, but agreeing to a deal that can be revoked whenever Trump demands it isn't responsible," Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, said. "It only teaches the other side that they can do it again and again."

And they have. In 2018, what were supposed to be private meetings morphed into a televised airing of grievances roughly a week ahead of the shutdown deadline. Trump reportedly was optimistic about working with Democrats to come up with a compromise. It didn't happen. The government shut down for 34 days, the longest in our history. No one wins with a repeat of that.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Behind Those 'Good Government' Flyers Lies Another GOP Deception

Behind Those 'Good Government' Flyers Lies Another GOP Deception

I used to be a real do-gooder. National Board of Common Cause under Archie Cox and Fred Wertheimer; chair of the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission; professor of election law. I did these things after working in the trenches because I really believed in the possibility of cleaning up the system. Until the Supreme Court got in the way. And, of course, then we happened into a constitutional crisis.

"Gerrymandering is Wrong — No Matter Who Does it," the flyer screamed from my mailbox. Now, that would have had my name on it in 2010, when California did the good-government thing and gave line-drawing to an independent commission. I'm sure I supported it then. But now? With Texas proposing to show up for this knife fight with a sledgehammer, we're going to come with a butter knife?

Who, I wondered, cared enough about good government in the midst of a knife fight to be taking that side?

Or maybe, said the political hack in me, it was just the Republicans playing tricks?

The mailer was sent by ProtectFairElections.org. No leads there. Takes you to a clean website to join the "coalition," but no information on the other coalition members. But in small print — always look for the small print — "Paid for by Right Path California."

What is Right Path California? Its website offers as little insight as ProtectFairElections.org, but with one big difference. Somebody chose to identify herself as the President and CEO of whatever it is, and that someone is Jessica Millan Patterson — and here's the pay dirt — whose most recent job was Chair of the Republican Party of California.

And that, of course, is the problem with the flyer. It's not about good government. This is not a "Sacramento Power Grab"; California's Landmark Election Reform is not "Under Attack by Sacramento Politicians," who everybody loves to hate in the abstract.

Our government reform is under threat by Donald Trump and the states, starting with Texas, that have agreed to his plan to try to subvert the midterm elections. Does he get to change the rules mid-census, as he tried to do last time? If the states won't block him, then California has threatened to match him, or at least match Texas. If their plan doesn't go into effect, neither does Sacramento's. Who is grabbing power from whom?

Texas is poised to keep the House — wrongly — in Republican hands. Two more years like this? And California is supposed to sit silently and let it happen? I don't think so.

Voters are dissatisfied with an opposition party that can't seem to find its footing to oppose an increasingly unpopular president. Who can blame them? My mailbox is filled with deceptive flyers like the one I received, financed by Trump supporters who want to keep Congress his. According to my research, millions are being quietly spent to support the Trump position by groups you and I have never heard of. Where is the Democratic response?

I'm glad California Gov. Gavin Newsom is playing games with Trump's head, but it can't just be Newsom. The Democratic team desperately needs leadership. Right now, like it or not, the leaders are Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). What does that say about Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)? Sorry, but they're ineffective. It's not the Sacramento politicians I'm worried about, but the ones in Washington.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.