In July 2019, all eyes were on Jeffrey Epstein as he entered a Manhattan federal courtroom in prison blues and orange sneakers. The reclusive multimillionaire, used to luxurious jaunts around the globe with powerful friends, appeared disheveled as he was charged with sexually abusing dozens of underage girls.Police had arrested the 66-year-old financier two days before, and a packed crowd of journalists, lawyers, and victims now watched him plead not guilty to child sex-trafficking charges—more than a decade after he avoided serious prison time for molesting scores of teenage victims at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida.But while the press focused on Epstein, one high-profile spectator apparently went unnoticed—at least, unnoticed by most. Two eyewitnesses say former White House lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler was at Epstein’s court appearance that day in his support, The Daily Beast has learned.Epstein Victim Claims He Showed Her Off to Trump When She Was 14Two people who separately attended the hearing said Ruemmler—who served as White House counsel during the Clinton and Obama administrations—had a “professional relationship” with Epstein and was seated behind his defense team.At the time, Ruemmler was a partner at Latham & Watkins and global co-chair of the law firm’s white-collar defense and investigations practice.“Epstein knew her,” one source with knowledge told The Daily Beast of her appearance in court in July 2019. “He had a professional relationship with her. I think he may have reached out to her to be involved in the case.” The source said Ruemmler’s appearance was “probably just a show of support.”“She worked for a large, prominent firm,” the person said. “There was some exploration of her joining the [defense] team, but it wasn’t going to happen.”Ruemmler did not return messages seeking comment. A spokeswoman for Latham & Watkins said neither the law firm nor Ruemmler represented Epstein; she did not return follow-up emails from The Daily Beast.Martin Weinberg, a lawyer for Epstein since 2008, said Ruemmler didn’t represent the financier and wasn’t a member of the defense team led by himself and Reid Weingarten. “I can state with certainty that Kathy Ruemmler did not represent Mr. Epstein and did not appear at any hearing at any time on his behalf,” Weinberg said in an email.Ruemmler has previously represented the Clinton Foundation and George Nader, a key witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation who was sentenced to 10 years behind bars for child sex trafficking.She left Latham & Watkins in April to become global head of regulatory affairs at Goldman Sachs. After the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month, Fox News reported Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden possibly put Ruemmler on the short list of nominees to fill a future SCOTUS seat.Indeed, Ruemmler and other Obama-era officials hosted a D.C. event for Biden last November as his fundraising waned before the primaries. According to the Washington Examiner, Ruemmler told the crowd the 2020 election came down to “character,” and “there is no one who has the strength and the quality of character, no one like Joe Biden.”Ruemmler has long traveled the revolving door between public service and Latham & Watkins, whose phalanx of former high-ranking government lawyers inspired a Wall Street Journal blog to call the firm “the DOJ’s home away from home.”At Latham, Ruemmler defended companies in high-stakes litigation, led internal probes into misconduct, and averted indictments through Department of Justice “declinations,” or decisions not to prosecute which are similar to non-prosecution agreements. (She did, however, secure a non-prosecution agreement for Microsoft Hungary, which last year paid $8.7 million in penalties to resolve a foreign bribery case.)Jeffrey Epstein Visited Clinton White House Multiple Times in Early ’90sHer career began with a clerkship under a federal appeals judge, followed by a job at litigation boutique Zuckerman Spaeder in Washington, D.C., before she was hired as a lawyer for President Clinton from 2000 to 2001.She then moved to the Department of Justice, where she made headlines as a lead prosecutor in the Enron financial fraud trial. (Weingarten, one of Epstein’s D.C.-based legal eagles, faced off with Ruemmler when he represented Richard Causey, Enron’s former chief accounting officer who pleaded guilty to securities fraud.)In 2007, she left government for Latham & Watkins. She joined the Obama administration two years later as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ. Ruemmler replaced her mentor, Bob Bauer, as White House counsel in 2011 and became one of President Obama’s closest confidantes. When she announced her resignation in 2014, Obama said, “Kathy has become one of my most trusted advisers over the past few years. I deeply value her smarts, her judgment, and her wit—but most importantly her uncanny ability to see around the corners that nobody else anticipates.”Later asked in an interview how she’d like to be remembered, Ruemmler paraphrased Bauer: “She told it like it was; she never put even light icing on the cake.”After the Obama White House, Ruemmler returned to Latham but was soon in the running to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. But she withdrew her name from consideration—reportedly because she feared her closeness to Obama, and her handling of matters including the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and the Secret Service prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, would make for a difficult confirmation process.“She felt very strongly that it would not serve the department well, and that it certainly wouldn’t serve the president well, to have the confirmation process be a series of partisan attacks on the president rather than a reasoned approach to what the Department of Justice really needs right now,” one source told Politico.Under the Clinton administration, Ruemmler defended the White House in congressional investigations and “independent counsel issues, including those related to former Pentagon worker Linda Tripp, who famously taped colleague Monica Lewinsky,” according to one Washington Post profile on Enron prosecutors.But Ruemmler’s ties to the Clintons didn’t end with Bill's presidency. She’s mentioned in emails published on WikiLeaks, including those belonging to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chair John Podesta. One email attachment listed Ruemmler under a March 2016 list of possible campaign “vetters,” while several other emails indicated Ruemmler was a participant in more than one “Biweekly Hill Strategy Call.”In August 2016, Ruemmler was identified as “the Clinton Foundation’s principal lawyer” when Reuters, as well as the New York Post, reported the organization hired a security firm in the wake of suspected hacking. It’s unclear how long she represented the Clinton family charity or what other work she’s done for them.Ruemmler also recently defended the Democratic National Committee and Perkins Coie—the law firm representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign—in a defamation suit filed by Carter Page, a former campaign adviser to Donald Trump.Page claimed the parties developed the Steele dossier, which was “replete with falsehoods about numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” leading the feds to “wrongfully and covertly” surveil Page as an agent of Russia. (A federal judge in Chicago tossed Page’s suit in August, saying the court lacked jurisdiction; Page filed a similar suit in Oklahoma in 2018 but it was dismissed for the same reason.)Ruemmler’s alleged ties to Epstein raise further questions on the financier’s high-powered connections, including Bill Clinton. Clinton’s name has surfaced repeatedly in court filings related to Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and he took international trips with the perverted pair on Epstein’s private jet. The former president denies knowing anything about Epstein’s abuse of young women and girls and denies one victim’s claim that he visited Epstein’s Virgin Islands compound.Several Clinton staffers are listed in Epstein’s infamous rolodex, including Cheryl Mills, who was deputy White House counsel for Clinton during his 1999 impeachment trial. Mills was an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run and chief of staff when Clinton became Secretary of State. Along with Podesta, Mills oversaw Clinton’s search for a running mate in 2016 and was included in emails with Ruemmler.In years past, both Epstein and Maxwell donated thousands to the Clinton Foundation and “Clinton Library.” When Epstein’s lawyers secretly negotiated a plea deal for his abuse of minors in Florida in 2007, they plugged his friendship with former President Clinton and claimed he helped to create the Clinton Global Initiative.Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
The downfall of Richard Nixon, in the summer of 1974, was, as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein relate in “The Final Days,” one of the most dramatic in American history. That August, the Watergate scandal forced Nixon—who had been cornered by self-incriminating White House tape recordings, and faced impeachment and removal from office—to resign. Twenty-nine individuals closely tied to his Administration were subsequently indicted, and several of his top aides and advisers, including his Attorney General, John Mitchell, went to prison. Nixon himself, however, escaped prosecution because his successor, Gerald Ford, granted him a pardon, in September, 1974.
No American President has ever been charged with a criminal offense. But, as Donald Trump fights to hold on to the White House, he and those around him surely know that if he loses—an outcome that nobody should count on—the presumption of immunity that attends the Presidency will vanish. Given that more than a dozen investigations and civil suits involving Trump are currently under way, he could be looking at an endgame even more perilous than the one confronted by Nixon. The Presidential historian Michael Beschloss said of Trump, “If he loses, you have a situation that’s not dissimilar to that of Nixon when he resigned. Nixon spoke of the cell door clanging shut.” Trump has famously survived one impeachment, two divorces, six bankruptcies, twenty-six accusations of sexual misconduct, and an estimated four thousand lawsuits. Few people have evaded consequences more cunningly. That run of good luck may well end, perhaps brutally, if he loses to Joe Biden. Even if Trump wins, grave legal and financial threats will loom over his second term. [...]
Barbara Res, whose new book, “Tower of Lies,” draws on the eighteen years that she spent, off and on, developing and managing construction projects for Trump, also thinks that the President is not just running for a second term—he is running from the law. “One of the reasons he’s so crazily intent on winning is all the speculation that prosecutors will go after him,” she said. “It would be a very scary spectre.” She calculated that, if Trump loses, “he’ll never, ever acknowledge it—he’ll leave the country.” [...]
Data Disappeared, by Samanth Subramanian, Michael Hobbes, Jonathan Cohn, Kate Sheppard, Alex Kaufman, Delphine D’Amora, Chris D’Angelo, and Emily Peck. Data is the lifeblood of a functioning government. Over the past four years, the Trump administration has destroyed, disappeared, or distorted vast swathes of the information the nation needs to protect the vulnerable, safeguard our health, and alert us to emerging crises.
Remember What They Did, by Hamilton Nolan. One day soon, the most visible phase of this nightmare will end. The current occupants of the White House will leave, and all of their assorted enablers will disperse back into the world like fungus spores floating on the wind, all hoping for a cozy spot to flourish anew. It is our job, as a society, to deny them that. To deny them acceptance, peace, and the unearned sheen of respectability. To always, always, remember what they did.
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” ~~Elie Wiesel, Nobel lecture (Dec. 11, 1986)
At Daily Kos on this date in 2016—Democrats point out Comey's 'blatant double standard' as Justice clamps down on further news:
FBI Director James Comey believed that early October was too close to Election Day for the government to announce that the Russian government was trying to interfere in our elections, a second source has confirmed to Huffington Post. Weeks later, of course, Comey relied on much more speculative information in announcing that the FBI had come across emails possibly relevant to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server. As Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says, “It is impossible to view this as anything less than a blatant double standard.” And, as Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon says, “Director Comey owes the public an explanation for this inconsistency.”
It’s unlikely the public will get that explanation any time soon, though, both because Comey doesn’t seem inclined to make his actions make any sense whatsoever and because the Justice Department is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, saying it will move quickly on investigations but will not give out any further information while it does so.
Democrats, meanwhile, continue to pressure Comey over Trump’s possible Russia ties
Monday through Friday you can catch the Kagro in the Morning Show 9 AM ET by dropping in here, or you can download the Stitcher app (found in the app stores or at Stitcher.com), and find a live stream there, by searching for "Netroots Radio.”
Rather than any legitimate interpretation of constitutional law, all of the outcomes you can expect from the Supreme Court will now be solely based on how the decision will affect Republicans getting elected. It’s disturbing, because as I read and watch media figures discuss Biden’s lead, they bring up the Republican's lock on the judiciary as if overturning votes is just established precedent now. The federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have essentially been turned into an arm of the GOP. For the sake of the rule of law and its integrity, Democrats cannot allow this to stand.
This disaster was in the making for many years before Mitch McConnell made up a rule in order to prevent the first African American president from appointing a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of his two-term presidency. McConnell blocked every single judicial appointment for the two years he had control of the Senate. This allowed him to turn 200 right-wing ideologues into federal judges during Donald Trump’s only presidential term. Trump named one-quarter of the appointments to the federal bench, including 53 Appellate Court appointees and now, a whopping three Supreme Court Justices.
Besides many of these appointees being rated “unqualified” by the American Bar Association, some picks were outright bizarre. Even Republican senators, like John Cornyn and John Kennedy, expressed Susan Collins-like concern. (Didn’t stop them from voting to confirm, though.) Yet Democrats, assuming they have the spine the American people are demanding, can use several mechanisms available to rebalance the courts this upcoming January. The next two years will likely be our only window. There has been a lot of talk about expanding the courts, which we should absolutely do in order to negate McConnell’s illegitimate court packing scheme. But there are other options to consider.
Judges are supposed to rule fairly and impartially on the laws before them. Before I get into Amy Coney Barrett, let’s review the batch of judges you don’t hear about. Trump and McConnell used over 200 of them to flood our judiciary; let’s see if they seem likely to rule fairly or impartially.
Trump-appointed District Judge Thomas Farr
Fourth Circuit Judge Allison Rushing has ties to a right-wing hate group. Lawrence VanDyke received a stunning rebuke from the ABA, saying he was “lacking in knowledge,” and didn’t have “a commitment to being truthful.” He now sits on the Ninth Circuit.
Jeff Mateer said transgender children were part of “Satan’s plan.” Ryan Bounds wrote that there was nothing “inherently wrong with the University failing to punish an alleged rapist—regardless of his guilt—in the absence of adequate certainty.” McConnell pushed his 37-year old former intern, Justin Walker, to the DC Court of Appeals despite his utter lack of experience and unqualified rating by the American Bar Association. Nonetheless, he was rushed through. His predecessor, Judge Thomas Griffith, retired so suddenly and unexpectedly that an advocacy group filed a complaint to see if McConnell pushed him out. In the meantime, Walker’s decisions have been so bad that they’ve been compared to Breitbart screeds.
And then there’s the newest Justice, Amy Coney Barrett. She’s never tried a case, never argued an appeal, and only became a judge in 2017 thanks to Trump. She is so far to the right that she criticized former Justice William Brennan for saying his oath to uphold the law trumped any obligation to his Roman Catholic faith. She stated that judges don’t need to listen to precedent if they don’t like the ruling. She wrote that calling someone the n-word at work doesn’t make it a hostile work environment. She reversed a rape lawsuit because the rape of a teenager by a prison guard fell outside “the scope of his employment.”
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas
Sounds like she’ll feel right at home with the two sexual predators the GOP has already put on the Supreme Court.
Facing far less scrutiny, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham just broke committee rules again and advanced five more lower court nominees. One is Trumpist Kathryn Mizelle, a 33-year old who graduated law school just a few years ago. She doesn’t even meet the fundamental standard for consideration as a district judge, which requires practicing law for 12 years. Yet McConnell is running out of ideologues and time, so she’ll likely be confirmed as well, rules be damned.
There are many others, but suffice it to say, we need to do something. I’ve compiled a list of options from legal scholars that Democrats need to consider—the sooner the better.
Investigate and remove the judges who committed perjury
In McConnell’s rush to ram through judges, investigations were pushed aside. Investigations that need to happen. Further, legal analyst Glenn Kirschner is convinced that several unqualified judges lied under oath, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The FBI was expressly forbidden to complete its investigation of Kavanaugh, including multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. But Kavanaugh exposed clear discrepancies in his testimony when he first learned of the sexual assault allegations brought against him. He claimed that he had only learned of one of his accuser’s allegations after it was published in The New Yorker, butthat changed after NBC News published text messages he sent apparently discussing the accusations. He was also criticized for giving clearly inaccurate definitions to slang terms in his yearbook, and inaccurate details about his tenure in the George W. Bush White House.
There is absolutely no reason for Democrats to excuse perjury with Kavanaugh—or with any other judge—just because Republicans excused it. There’s also no excuse for ignoring the blatant corruption of Clarence Thomas either. Some might worry that Republicans will try to launch impeachment proceedings against Democratic-appointed judges as retaliation when they reclaim majorities.
Go for it, GOP.
Democrats nominate the most qualified, vetted judges possible. Obama refused to even consider a judge who received an “unqualified” rating from the ABA. The Republicans, on the other hand, will nominate clueless monsters, because the right ideology trumps actual qualifications. And so Democrats need not be timid about the mandate they are going to be handed. They need not be afraid to investigate, impeach, and have bad apples removed. That’s not punishment, it’s justice.
Citizens’ Brigade
Another idea from Kirschner: As mentioned, several of the judges picked weren’t just unqualified, but like Trump, are really bad and just can’t help stop themselves from doing bad things. A citizens’ brigade could be put together that would observe all of these judges in action. When one of these judges engages in misconduct, such as displays open hostility or enjoys "making inappropriately partisan statements,” they can be referred for discipline and even removal.
Filing a complaint for judicial misconduct is as simple as filling out a form that anyone can use. If anything, this brigade could serve as a watchdog to curb egregious abuses.
Require supermajority for cases involving federal statutes
Yale Law School professor Samuel Moyn and University of Chicago law professor Ryan Doerfler suggested a powerful optionfor Congress: Pass a law that requires a Supreme Court supermajority for certain cases. There shouldn’t ever be a partisan split on federal statutes. The all-too common 5-4 rulings that we have grown used to with all conservative Justices voting against the liberal bloc made it clear that politics was influencing the decision. (Now it will be 6-3.) Congress can require federal statutes to have unanimous or nearly unanimous decisions from the Justices involved. Moyn and Doerfler’s paper outlines the reasoning.
Proposals to require a supermajority to declare federal legislation invalid would, for instance, preserve but severely constrain the Supreme Court’s ability to intervene in federal policymaking. Barring an unusually lopsided bench, the Supreme Court would remain able to step in in cases of uncontroversial constitutional violation. In more closely contested cases, though, it would fall upon members of Congress and the president to decide what the Constitution permits. In this way, a supermajority rule for judicial review would effectively implement a Thayerian “clear error” standard for judicial review.
Jurisdiction Stripping
Congress has the power to specify that certain legislation is exempt from judicial review. It’s called "jurisdiction stripping." Under two articles of the Constitution—the congressional powers clause and the judicial vesting clause—Congress can create and place limits upon federal courts. Congress also has the power to limit certain appeals to the Supreme Court under the Exceptions Clause.
Congress has no power to limit original jurisdiction, but it can explicitly limit appellate jurisdiction. In English, this means that Congress can essentially eliminate judicial review of certain federal legislative actions. Congress can also require that such review goes through the state courts as opposed to the federal courts. Congress has the power, if it chooses to use it.
Defying the court
When Antonin Scalia died, McConnell made up a rule that no justice could be appointed in a presidential election year … a rule he enforced right up until Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. When the Trump administration was ordered to continue the census until the end of October, it decided it wouldn’t. The administration ignored any and all rulings against them on returning migrant children it had kept in cages. The administration ignored Congress’ role in determining the budget and announced it would allocate the money however it damn well pleased. The administration violated the Hatch Act with impunity. No one was punished. Democrats need to take note: There isn’t a game if only one side plays by the rules.
Here’s the deal: the Supreme Court derives its authority from people’s belief in its impartiality. It has no armed forces and no enforcement mechanism. Yet if the justices are seen as an extension of a political party, there is no moral reason and no legal consequence for ignoring hyper-partisan rulings. If statehood is granted to Washington, D.C. under the laws set by the Constitution, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas don’t get to take it away. Ignore them. If Amy Coney Barrett strikes down the ACA, ignore her. A President Joe Biden could use the Treasury to continue making subsidies. After all, that’s what Republicans would do. Biden could pardon anyone he wants with impunity. That’s what Trump is going to do.
There’s even a name for ignoring the Supreme Court: Departmentalism. This is defined as the theory that each branch of government has an equal and independent authority to interpret the Constitution for purposes of guiding its own actions. We’ve all ceded to the Supreme Court that five unelected Justices will be the final say in the land—but these five? Hell no.
Will this cause a constitutional crisis? Maybe, but it’s better than the alternative, and it also might finally motivate some real reform. Like the next proposal.
Establishment of Inter-Branch Disputes Court
Reality check: Our government is dysfunctional. The fact that I’m even writing this article proves it. Congressional dysfunction prevents the legislative branch from legislating, unless one party dominates both houses of Congress. As a result, we’ve seen lawmaking authority slowly being ceded to the executive branch, which undermines our Founding Fathers’ intentions. McConnell and Trump have wheeled out a huge spotlight and shone it upon the Founders’ shortsightedness on the Judiciary, which has been manipulated by a determined executive and complicit legislative branch. As a result, we now have a hopelessly partisan Supreme Court, which will primarily side with the party who put them there.
To restore the integrity of the court and faith in our government, Congress should create a completely nonpartisan Inter-Branch Disputes Court (IBDC) to handle the conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. A panel of judges could be selected by both major parties and require a supermajority confirmation. There have been so many lawsuits, for example, between President Trump and the Democratic House of Representatives; an IBDC could have quickly resolved all of them.
Moreover, next year, we are headed for clashes with a Democratic Congress and White House against a very right-wing Supreme Court. We will be facing many real scenarios where the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 partisan ruling, will be attempting to undo major Democratically passed legislation and block attempts to expand rights.
For example, SCOTUS will likely rule that no votes may be counted after Election Day. In Pennsylvania, the GOP made the ridiculous argument that counting votes after Election Day was somehow akin to giving people extra time to vote. If Barrett had been on the court, that decision would have likely ended differently.
Imagine if SCOTUS starts making decisions that ban all states from counting votes early but also bans them counting votes after Election Day. Imagine if the next Congress made a law that banned partisan-gerrymandering only to have SCOTUS throw it out. Heck, imagine a Supreme Court that bans early voting—or just curbs early voting for young people, like Florida did. Right-wing partisans cannot be the final arbiters of our democracy. An arbiter can only be effective if both sides believe they will be given a fair hearing. With an IBDC, the panel would always be balanced.
Expanding the courts
This is the money shot. For the counter-argument that this would allow Republicans to do the same, Aaron Belkin, a political science professor, put forward the best case for Democrats.
“If your wallet is stolen, you don’t forgo efforts to recover it just because it might be stolen again.”
For each of the three justices Trump illegitimately appointed, you need two to nullify. This expands the Supreme Court to 15. But we really should start by fixing the lower courts. We need to add seats to the district courts and the 13 appellate courts. At the very least, Democrats need to add one seat for every unqualified judge pushed through.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
Democrats need to get serious about the courts. If Democrats choose to do nothing next year, we will never be allowed to govern, no matter how much we win at the ballot box. We must take action over these stolen court seats. It may be another decade or two before we have a Democratic trifecta, and let’s face it, if we are ruled by the hundreds of unqualified disasters who Trump placed on the courts—who will obstruct us and make it their mission to limit Democratic victories—it may be decades more. Considering the fragile state of democracy in our country, not to mention the sad state of our planet, we do NOT have that kind of time.
Despite winning the legislative and executive branches, we will never get laws enacted on voting rights, gerrymandering, campaign finance, health care, or police reform. We won’t ever get representation for the disenfranchised citizens of Washington, D.C. or the right of self-determination for Puerto Rico. We won’t ever get any action on climate change. Meanwhile, we will lose rights that generations have fought so hard to achieve. The new conservative bloc is determined to revisit and overturn all kinds of precedent, involving everything from reproductive rights to same-sex marriage.
These solutions are fair and necessary. Naturally, all of these solutions are opposed by the right-wing, because they have the advantage on the courts. The hypocritical flip-flop on Amy Coney Barrett shows they are not above changing rules to suit them. They decry any solution that promotes balance on the courts, such as letting an even number of judges be selected by party, as promoting “partisanship.” No, best we keep the status quo of allowing conservative partisans to strike down laws they don’t like.
Any of the actions I’ve outlined need to be taken soon: if we wait until the GOP recaptures the Senate, it will be too late. The liberal justices can help by forcing votes on major issues early next year to spark action. It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case. Feinstein and Manchin won’t go for expansion unless there is an outcry, which won’t happen if the liberal bloc allows Roberts to only hear softballs for two years. After that, it will be too late.
Naturally, Republicans are opposed to doing anything to ensure fairness in our judicial system. Fixing the courts is the top issue facing the Biden administration we’re all working to install, and should be its top priority. If Democrats ever needed to fight for something, this is it. If we lose, we will need ever-increasing supermajorities just to be able to win elections. Even then, it will be at least a generation before we are allowed to govern again.