Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Justice Alito lets us know how he really feels

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.

We begin today with Michelle L. Price and Michael R. Sisal of the Associated Press reporting that the shoe salesman and his lawyer, Todd Blanche, completed a 30 minute resentencing interview while New York City public defenders criticized the favorable treatment Trump received from the court.

The city’s public defenders on Monday criticized what they said were “special arrangements” for Trump and urged the probation department to “ensure that all New Yorkers, regardless of income, status, or class, receive the same pre-sentencing opportunities.”

“All people convicted of crimes should be allowed counsel in their probation interview, not just billionaires,” four of the city’s public defender organizations said in a statement. “This is just another example of our two-tiered system of justice.” [...]

A spokesperson for the city, which runs the probation department, said defendants have had the option of conducting their presentencing interviews by video since before the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020. Ivette Dávila-Richards, a deputy press secretary for Mayor Eric Adams, said all defendants can also request to have their lawyers present for the interviews, as long as the judge in their case signs off.

Harry Litman writes for The Atlantic saying that now that Trump is a convicted felon (according to the laws of New York) that status will remain with him for the rest of his life even if he is reelected.

In the federal system, a person is not technically a felon or a convict until sentencing. But Trump was convicted in New York, and that state imposes this designation at the time of the jury verdict. That already entails privations. The New York City Police Department is seeking to revoke his license to carry a concealed weapon. Thirty-seven countries—including Canada and the United Kingdom—have laws prohibiting felons from entering (though they can, of course, make exceptions). [...]

Probation officials are likely to emphasize Trump’s incorrigibility in the report they provide to Justice Juan Merchan, who has a reputation of being tough on white-collar offenders. Personally, I don’t think Trump will serve prison time in 2024 for this particular conviction. If Merchan does impose a sentence of jail followed by probation, my guess is he will then stay the sentence to permit Trump to pursue his one mandatory appeal. Many factors will weigh in favor of a prison sentence at some point, including the 10 violations of Merchan’s gag order, the recent criminal conviction of the Trump Organization, and possibly the finding in the E. Jean Carroll defamation trials that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll (which Trump continues to deny).

Assuming Merchan does impose, and then stay, a “split sentence” of prison plus probation, it will not be the game changer Trump hopes. A stayed sentence does not imply freedom from court oversight. The very best Trump can hope for is the same measure of oversight Merchan already exercises over him, which is the source of authority for the gag order that remains in place. Trump’s conditions of release would remain within Merchan’s discretion, and that’s where they would remain should the appeals court reverse the judgment, assuming the district attorney elects to retry the case, as I think he would.

Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post says that media alarms should be been sounded about the shoe salesman’s wildly nonsensical rantings long ago.

We in the media have failed by becoming inured to Trump’s verbal incontinence — not just the rapid-fire lies and revenge-seeking threats, but also the frightening glimpses into a mind that is, evidently, unwell. In 2016, Trump said outrageous things at his campaign rallies to be entertaining. In 2024, his tangents raise serious questions about his mental fitness.

His rally on Sunday in Las Vegas offered a grim smorgasbord of examples, but the obvious standout (and not in a good way) is the story he told about being aboard a hypothetical electric-powered boat. He posits that the battery would be so heavy that it would cause the craft to sink, and he relates his purported conversation with a knowledgeable mariner about this scenario. [...]

The White House press corps would be in wolf pack mode if Biden were in the middle of a speech and suddenly veered into gibberish about boats and sharks. There would be front-page stories questioningwhether the president, at 81, was suffering from dementia; and the op-ed pages would be filled with thumb-suckers about whether Vice President Harris and the Cabinet should invoke the 25th Amendment. House Republicans would already have scheduled hearings on Biden’s mental condition and demanded he take a cognitive test.

The tendency with Trump, at 77, is to say he’s “just being Trump.” But he’s like this all the time.

Tessa Stuart and Tom Dickinson of Rolling Stone report on journalist Lauren Windsor’s secret recording of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s comments about extreme political polarization.

The justice’s unguarded comments highlight the degree to which Alito makes little effort to present himself as a neutral umpire calling judicial balls and strikes, but rather as a partisan member of a hard-right judicial faction that’s empowered to make life-altering decisions for every American.

The recording, which was provided exclusively to Rolling Stone, captures Windsor approaching Alito at the event and reminding him that they spoke at the same function the year before, when she asked him a question about political polarization. In the intervening year, she tells the justice, her views on the matter had changed. “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”

“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

Paul Krugman of The New York Times says that the ultimate mission of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation is exactly the same as Republicans overall mission: tax cuts for the wealthy. But Krugman also wonders if billionaires really think that those lower taxes it worth the risk of electing Trump.

But Heritage’s embrace of what amounts to an attack on democracy is a useful symbol of one of the really troubling developments of this election as it heads into the final stretch. Heritage presents itself as a defender of freedom, but its real mission has always been to produce arguments — frequently based on shoddy research — for low taxes on rich people. And its tacit endorsement of lawlessness illustrates the way many of America’s plutocrats — both in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street — have, after flirting with the crank candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., been rallying around Trump. [...]

So billionaires aren’t wrong in thinking they’ll pay less in taxes if Trump wins. But why aren’t they more concerned about the bigger picture?

After all, even if all you care about is money, Trump’s agenda should make you very worried. His advisers’ plans to deport millions of immigrants (supposedly only the undocumented, but do you really believe many legal residents wouldn’t get caught up in the dragnets?) would shrink the U.S. labor force and be hugely disruptive. His protectionist proposals (which would be very different from Biden’s targeted measures) could mean an all-out global trade war. If he’s able to make good on them, his attacks on the independence of the Federal Reserve risk much more serious inflation than anything we’ve experienced in recent years.

Chris Geidner of LawDork reports an exclusive that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office has be receiving free legal help from the Stephen Miller-led America First Legal.

Do not for a second be confused about the goal of this group: This is MAGA in quasi-legal clothes. The group makes it clear from its mission statement, which concludes: “With your support, we will oppose the radical left’s anti-jobs, anti-freedom, anti-faith, anti-borders, anti-police, and anti-American crusade.”

For the past 16 months, that extreme ideological group has served as “co-counsel” with the Texas Attorney General’s Office for the state of Texas on an increasing number and range of cases. And America First Legal has been doing so under a “$00.00” contract.

That contract, obtained by Law Dork in response to a public records request, was signed by America First Legal Executive Director Gene Hamilton and Grant Dorfman, the deputy first assistant in the Texas Attorney General’s Office, on the morning of Valentine’s Day in 2023.

It was the start of an apparently wonderful and mutually beneficial relationship for them.

For the public, however, the arrangement raises several ethical questions.

Romain Brunet writes for France 24 that French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for an early snap election in response to far-right gains in European parliamentary elections is forcing the French left to unify. And fast.

Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure, Greens leader Marine Tondelier, French Communist Party (PCF) chief Fabien Roussel and La France insoumise (France Unbowed or LFI) lawmaker François Ruffin all called for unity on Sunday after projections showed that the far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally or RN), led by Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, would win 31.5 percent of the vote. This was a 15-point margin over Macron’s centrist group and 16 points better than the third-place Socialists. Leftwing voters later gathered spontaneously at the Place de la République in Paris to protest the RN.

The leaders’ calls for union were accompanied by messages addressed to LFI leader Mélénchon and his party. “We need a coalition that brings together people capable of agreeing in a democratic way. There will be no alignment with anyone,” said Faure. “A coalition is not a leader deciding for everyone else, it’s a permanent dialogue, a democratic and fraternal way of working.” [...]

The prospect of a united left recalls the New Ecological and Social Popular Union (NUPES) which emerged in the run-up to the last legislative elections in France in 2022. The Socialist Party, the PCF and the Greens had all agreed an accord with LFI, which included LFI policy proposals such as a €1,400 monthly minimum wage, a price freeze on basic necessities, a rollback of the retirement age to 60 and a shift in institutional power from the president to parliament.

Howard J. Shatz POLITICO Europe notes that things are now beginning to look better for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Spearheaded by the U.K., a growing number of Ukraine’s allies are now allowing the weapons they’ve supplied the country to be fired into Russian territory, giving Kyiv a potential boost on the battlefield amid hopes of blunting Russia’s offensive on Kharkiv.[...]

Overall, Western allies are finally making good on their declaration to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” handing Kyiv substantial economic assistance, weapons, security deals and command freedom on the battlefield. Ukraine’s prospects look better now than they have since early 2023 — prospects that will likely get a further boost at this week’s Ukraine Recovery Conference in Berlin.

So far, Ukraine’s skillful economic policymaking has maintained macroeconomic and financial stability in the country, despite the toll of the war. After a crash of 29.1 percent in 2022, Ukraine’s economy grew 5 percent in 2023 — faster than all other large European economies — and strong growth is expected over the next three or more years. Moreover, by holding its economy together, Ukraine’s now better prepared for a postwar reconstruction period.

Umair Ifran of Vox cites Japan’s earthquake early-warning system as a way to save lives.

Right now, we get scarily little notice before the ground below starts to tremble. Earthquakes create a potent threat even in places that are well prepared — and they’ve proven catastrophic in places that aren’t. One of the deadliest disasters of the 21st century is the January 12, 2010, 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Haiti, which killed more than 220,000 people, with some estimates topping 300,000. Another is the magnitude 9.1 earthquake and ensuing tsunami on December 26, 2004, which claimed about 230,000 lives. As populations grow in seismically active areas, many more people will be at risk.

The World Meteorological Organization observed that between 1970 and 2019, the number of disasters, mostly related to weather, increased fivefold, but deaths fell by two-thirds. Even as climate change worsens downpours, floods, fires, and heat waves, improvements in weather forecasting, longer lead times for warnings, more resilient infrastructure, and better responses in the aftermath have continued to save more lives. [...]

But there are ways to save lives, and Japan presents an important example.

Finally today, we return to The Atlantic and M. Nolan Gary’s explanation for American loneliness: the lack of separate dining rooms.

The dining room is the closest thing the American home has to an appendix—a dispensable feature that served some more important function at an earlier stage of architectural evolution. Many of them sit gathering dust, patiently awaiting the next “dinner holiday” on Easter or Thanksgiving.

That’s why the classic, walled-off dining room is getting harder to find in new single-family houses. It won’t be missed by many. Americans now tend to eat in spaces that double as kitchens or living rooms—a small price to pay for making the most of their square footage. [...]

According to surveys in 2015 and 2016 by the National Association of Home Builders, 86 percent of households want a combined kitchen and dining room—a preference accommodated by only 75 percent of new homes. If anything, the classic dining room isn’t dying fast enough for most people’s taste.

Interesting.

My hometown of Detroit is, by a large, a more residential city than, say, Chicago. I mostly grew up in rented or bought houses. Most of the houses had separate dining spaces and, as a child, I and every other kid almost always had to eat at the table. Adults could eat their meals wherever they wished and frequently did with the exception of Sundays, holidays, and when guests were over. 

I think that Mr. Nolan has something of a point. But I also remember that in a few of those homes that I grew up in, the TV was in eyesight of the dining room table, so one could do both at the same time. 

I’ve had one apartment with a separate dining space and I enjoyed eating meals at the table.

Have the best possible day, everyone!