“…The Biden side is banking on a relapse — a new, big spike in deaths. They’ll have to guard against letting their macabre enthusiasm show. If they don’t get that horrible wish, then they’re hoping people will want to maintain an inert holding pattern and accept delaying the economic comeback. Trump is planning to emphasize his contrast with that depressing position. And presumably the Democrats will portray his optimism as dangerous idiocy…”

Original

The CDC’s New ‘Best Estimate’ Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%

That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.

Will anyone in the media inquire from: Judge Sullivan, John Gleeson, Beth Wilkinson, and the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and ask:

If Gleeson’s work and Wilkinson’s work is pro bono or paid?

If paid, then paid by whom?—Sullivan or the Treasury (or other)?

If the Treasury, then through what fund or under what specific legal authority?

Original

As near as I can tell, Judge Sullivan hiring a lawyer to represent him before the circuit court and explain his actions is highly unusual. This does not appear to be an amicus situation and the circuit court specifically requested that Judge Sullivan himself appear before them. This seems to me like Sullivan has hired an attorney because he feels personal exposure over his handling of the case including his antics in the court room. It also seems like Judge Sullivan has some personal involvement in the outcome of the case and does not trust himself to go before the circuit court and argue his position without getting emotional and revealing his bias.

This is a black eye for our legal system and hints at larger problems lurking below the lens of public observation.

JOHN FUND:

“…In 1996, Californians voted to end racial preferences at state universities. The Left has been fighting to restore them ever since.

Rather than focus on COVID-19 or the economic recovery, California liberals insist on pushing their pet issues. The “stimulus” bill rammed through the House this month by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco was a liberal wish list of subsidies and spending. Now other California Democrats are ramming through an effort to repeal the state’s ban on racial preferences.

Two things often happen when a single political party dominates a state the way Democrats dominate California. First, an echo chamber of the dominant party convinces its leaders they can steamroll over any opposition. Second, that conviction leads to political overreach.

Caucasian Americans are now only 19 percent of UC students, down from 38 percent a quarter century ago — this change reflects the increasing ethnic diversity of Californians .

Next month, Golden State Democrats plan to use the two-thirds control they have in the legislature to push through a November ballot measure asking voters to end the ban on racial preferences.

They should remember what happened when this was attempted before. Last year, liberals in Washington State used a similar route to repeal that state’s version of Proposition 209, which had passed with 58 percent in 1998. Liberals vastly outspent opponents and won endorsements from leading establishment figures. But they still lost, as voters rejected preferential treatment 51 to 49 percent. Retrying that strategy in a highly visible California referendum would be dicey…

…The alternative — racial discrimination — is a sordid business. A lawsuit filed by Asian Americans against Harvard University has revealed just how arbitrary and subjective its admissions process really is. Asian-American voters are well aware their children face a rigged system at universities that don’t have Proposition 209 protections. Preferential treatment for some groups necessarily means discrimination against others…”

Original

Trump campaign now selling ‘Biden, you ain’t black’ t-shirts

Related:

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1264300585282605061

1) Judge Sullivan’s hiring of private counsel to represent him in the DC Circuit’s proceedings on @SidneyPowell1 ‘s writ of mandamus has made a rare, unusual situation even more rare and unusual, possibly unprecedented. #appellatetwitter

2) As I noted in my thread two days ago, by ordering (not requesting) Judge Sullivan (and not amicus) to personally respond to the writ petition, the DC Circuit took the most extreme and rare of options available. #appellatetwitter

3) So far as I have been able to determine, this is the first time the DC Circuit has ever ordered (not requested) a district judge to personally (and not through amicus) respond to a writ petition. #appellatetwitter.

…..

13) And like the Third Circuit in In re School Asbestos, here the DC Circuit has ordered the district judge to personally, and not through amicus, respond to the writ petition. #appellatetwiter

14) But UNLIKE the district judge in In re School Asbestos, who responded himself to the writ petition, here Judge Sullivan has hired outside, private counsel to respond for him (which is not the same as amicus). #appellatetwitter

15) The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure do not explicitly address such a situation, and it is far from clear whether a district court judge ordered to respond to a writ petition may do so by hiring private counsel. #appellatetwitter

16) What does seem to be clear is this…….(cont) #appellatetwitter

17) Judge Emmet Sullivan appears to be the first-ever federal judge who, having been ordered to personally respond to a writ petition, has hired outside private counsel as an attempted means of doing so. #appellatetwitter

18) I originally predicted this was going to be far from dull going forward. This is certainly appearing to be the case. #appellatetwitter

Original

Flynn update via WaPo:

Judge Sullivan – ordered to explain his reasons for not granting the DOJ motion to dismiss – has hired a lawyer to apparently do his work for him. pic.twitter.com/7kGeolVRn4

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 23, 2020

What is the phrase the media love, “the walls are closing in.” This judge apparently thinks he has personal exposure in this case relating to his actions?

President Trump: ‘I have a chance to break the deep state’ ‘It’s a vicious group of people. It’s very bad for our country,’ the president says