Mediaboss Marketing

Let me stipulate some important things at the outset.

First, Judge Neil Gorsuch, from every indication, is a fine man, a fine judge, and would be a fine colleague for the eight Justices now on the Court. Jack Goldsmith of Harvard, a man of terrific judgment, tweeted last night that Neil Gorsuch is immensely qualified for the Supreme Court -- an outstanding lawyer, and judge, and person. Gorsuch is, on the question of qualification, nearly as good an appointment as was Judge Merrick Garland. So stipulated.

Americas Long History of Excluding Immigrants for Being Poor

Let me stipulate something else: the Gorsuch nomination breaks the emerging Trump pattern of appointments in a welcome way. Most of Trumps important appointments have gone to scary haters like Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Jeff Sessions, or to flagrant incompetents like Ben Carsons, Betsy Devos, and Rick Perry. A nomination that fit that pattern would have begun at the level of William Pryor and possibly moved down to the level of Peter Thiel or even to some wretched shyster who has spent his career screwing drywall contractors out of monies owed them by the Trump Organization. In this one area, thus far, grownups seem to be in charge.

Third, I disagree with his judicial philosophy. On issues like reproductive rights and choice, the proper role of religion in law, the environment, his presence on the bench would help propel this country in a retreat from freedom and liberty we cannot afford to make. Any progressive (no matter how mild his or her inclination) has ample evidence to, and should, oppose this nomination on the merits. The groups issuing anguished criticisms of his nomination have every reason to worry that his vote may move the Court to violate treasured constitutional values. (In particular, Gorsuchs views on the individuals bodily autonomyin reproductive choice and contraception and in end-of-life issuesare alarming and need to be aired thoroughly during a confirmation.)

Fourth, the vacancy that Gorsuch is being appointed to fill was procured by constitutional malfeasance of the worst kind. Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassleyand all those senators who enabled them by silencedishonored their constitutional oaths in a serious way. Worse yet, they persuaded the gullible that Article II 2 cl. 3, setting out the duty to offer advice and consent, means nothing more than nonny nonny boo boo. This was shameful, and has done lasting damage to the Constitution that will take decades to repairif repair is possible. Democratic Senators want revenge, and they have every reason to want it. So stipulated.

Finally, let me say this: each of the above considerations is of huge importance. But one issue stands above them all: the fate of democracy.

This nomination comes at a moment of unprecedented danger for the United States. After less than a month in office, President Trump has pushed executive authority far beyond its already broad boundaries. He shows little sign of slowing down. The Trump administration may be on the verge of taking our republic to what for lack of a better term we will call full banana.

That means that the fight against dictatorship should be our main focus now. No cause that progressives valuenot reproductive rights, not voting rights, not the environment, not public health and health carewill survive if the cabal in the White House achieves the power they covet. Even though the endgame is almost certainly going to be confirmation of Gorsuch, the Democratic and progressive effort against the nomination needs to use the battleas drawn-out as possibleto focus the national mind on the danger of crypto-fascism. That fight isnt advanced if the effort is framed as vengeance for Garland. If it is used to lay down clear markers for acceptable behavior by the administration, it may be an important chapter in the fight.

So heres an initial suggestion of some areas Senators should prepare to question Gorsuch onaggressively.

What are the limits of executive power in the context of immigration and the treatment of non-citizens? How long can immigrants be detained without bail hearings? What is the role of courts in supervising the conditions of detention of those who are allegedly undocumented or removable? When can lawful permanent residents and visa holders be excluded from return to the United States? What is the role of racial or religious classification in immigration policy? Do the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply to immigrants in the United States? Does the Equal Protection Clause cover classifications by religion?

Under what circumstances can the executiveor the executive and Congress togethersuspend the writ of habeas corpus? When can citizens be detained without trial? Without counsel?

What are the requirements of free speech and free press in time of crisis? What protection can the law allow against bullying by powerful politicians to silence voices of dissent?

What are the dimensions of the right to vote? How far can legislative efforts to regulate voting go before they become vote suppression? What role does voting play in keeping the country free?

What are the dimensions of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment? What about naturalized citizenship? Could the President, or President and Congress, under the Constitution as it is, pass a statuteor even create an administrative mechanism--to strip citizenship from disfavored individuals or groups?

What are the limits of the governments ability to use electronic surveillance on citizens? On other residents of this country? What role should the courts play in confining this to its lawful bounds? How far can Congress go in authorizing warrantless surveillance?

Is torture ever permitted under the Constitution? Can the executive instruct national-security personnel to ignore legislative limits like the Torture Victim Prevention Act?

When may officials of the governmenteven high officials who make policybe held accountable in court to citizens whose rights are injured by those policies? What protection in the courts should be afforded to citizens abroad? How extensive should the constitutional remedy be for violations of constitutional rights by federal agents, whether of Homeland Security, Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, or the Defense Department?

When if ever may the executive, with or without Congress, respond to emergencies by suspending the guarantees of the Bill of Rights and of statutes, or by claiming the power to insulate its decisions from judicial review?

Lastly, Judge, no fooling around: What is democracy to you? Do citizens have a right to dignity, to sexual and other autonomy, to racial and sexual equalitynot formal equality but real equality worthy of the name?

This list is far from exhaustive. But this class of questionsbasically, Judge Gorsuch, can and will you stand up to your benefactor Trump by voting to keep American a free country?is central.

I am no political strategist, and so I cant say what course of action will most benefit the Democratic Party. Should Democrats filibuster this nomination? Should they filibuster for a while, or try to use the filibuster to kill the nomination?

I dont know. But I do think this. Gorsuch should not be allowed to go on the Court until he has answered the kind of questions above. The standard dodgeI am sorry, Senator, but that issue may come before mecannot be allowed to cut it in 2017.

This will not be politicizing the Court. The politicizationthe demonstration that the Court is now simply an arm of the majority party, with qualification and merit wholly subordinated to the partisan imperativewas completed by McConnell and Grassley in 2016. Trump pushed the politicization further by suggesting that the Court vacancy was created by the assassination of Justice Antonin Scalia, by publishing his judicial list before the voting precisely to make the names campaign issues, and by proclaiming an anti-choice litmus test for any nominees. Remember his boast that Maureen Scalia, the justices widow, had a Trump sign on her lawn?

Politicization is where the Garland fight should come home to roost. You made this bed of nails, Republicans. Now lie in it.

If Senate Republicans can refuse to consider a nominee for political reasons, Democrats can refuse to confirm a nominee if he doesnt answer these fair questions.

There are no more rules: the Republicans shredded them.

Judge Gorsuch, you seem like a great guy, bless your heart, love you to death, we purely do.

Have a seat now and tell us how you feel about authoritarian government. Then well see about a vote.

Read more from the original source:
The Most Important Questions for Trump's Justice Are About Democracy - The Atlantic

As a new administration takes office in Washington, it is fitting that this months poll centers on democracy

Welcome to the 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll for February 2017. As a new administration takes office in Washington, it is fitting that this months poll centers on democracy. In Greece, where democracy was conceived, its literal translation was rule of the commoners but it may have been defined most succinctly by Abraham Lincoln as, government of the people, by the people, for the people. Americans have had a ringside seat for the last six years as a divided Congress and executive branch have largely talked past each other. This may be due to change as one party now has majorities in both houses of Congress as well as the White House for the first time since President Obamas first two years in office. As the Congress begins to collaborate on doing the peoples business they might refer to these words by Martin Luther King, Jr., Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. If you could make one change in the way American democracy works, what would it be? We look forward to your answers to this and many other questions. And now the results...

If they had to explain to someone from another country how democracy works in the United States, nearly four out of 10 Americans said they would describe their overall tone as being hopeful. Twenty-eight percent said their tone would reflect pride, 12 percent said embarrassment, 10 percent selected sarcasm and six percent chose disgust. Americans are almost always a hopeful and optimistic people and despite the rancor between our two major parties, two thirds of us still talk about our democracy with either hope or pride.

This one was surprisingly close. Forty-five percent of Americans said it would have been more surprising to our founding fathers that Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 and 42 percent said the election of Donald Trump in 2016 would have made them flip their wigs.

From the list provided, three out of 10 Americans think that seeing a complete history of a candidates tax returns would give them the most insight into whether or not to vote for someone for president followed by their emails 23 percent, websites theyve visited 13 percent, their medical records eight percent and one out of five said none of the above. These are mostly modern inventions and do not pertain to a majority of past presidents. For future presidents it is a cautionary tale of things to come. Considering what happened during our most recent election, it should come as no surprise that Republicans were more interested in emails (29 percent) and Democrats were more focused on tax returns (50 percent).

According to Americans, the greatest threats to democracy in the United States are money in politics 29 percent, uninformed voters 23 percent, people who dont vote 15 percent, poorly prepared candidates for office 10 percent, the size of the federal government nine percent, and the two-party system eight percent. Despite the systemic and financial challenges noted, the surest way to preserve, protect and defend our democracy is through education. In his farewell interview on 60 Minutes, President Obama lamented the existence of fractious divisions between Americans and pointed at cable shows from both sides of the aisle as having slanted points of view that only support and affirm what their followers want to hear. Nobody said it better than Thomas Jefferson when he declared that the foundation of Democracy rests on an educated citizenry.

If they had to choose between the two options, two out of three Americans said it is more important for the United States to have freedom and democracy and one out of four said having security and prosperity was more important. Security and prosperity are very important to Americans, especially in times of turmoil and uncertainty, but Americans have never wavered in their devotion to our countrys bedrock values when it comes to freedom and democracy. JFK summed it up this way, the cost of freedom has always been high, but Americans have always paid it.

More than half of Americans find the rights enumerated in the First Amendment to be the most important to them personally including freedom of speech 31 percent, freedom of religion 20 percent and freedom of assembly three percent. Eighteen percent took a shot at the right to bear arms, 17 percent cast a ballot for the right to vote and nine percent said all of the above. Nothing is more important to Americans than their hard earned and cherished rights especially those found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is another right expressly granted in the First Amendment that is very important to many including everyone at 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair...the freedom of the press.

If you could make one change in the way American democracy works, what would it be?

This months featured question sparked a lot of interesting ideas and opinions. If Americans could make one change in the way American democracy works, many people said they would like to see term limits implemented and the Electoral College abolished in favor of the popular vote. Many others wanted to stop or curtail the corrosive effects of money in politics with emphasis on limiting lobbying and striking down the Citizens United decision. Many would like to shorten the election cycle and set time limits for campaigning. Finally, some would like to make voters take an IQ test before they vote while others said they would like to see Americans be required to vote.

This poll was conducted by telephone from November 30-December 4, 2016 among a random sample of 1,011 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones.Read more about this poll.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Continued here:
60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll: Democracy - CBS News

There is a direct line of inheritance from the Declaration of Independence to the marchers who are crowding the streets of America.

A view of the crowd at the women's march in Los Angeles on Jan. 21, 2017 in Los Angeles. (Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images)

This post originally appeared at Counterpunch.

On Saturday, Jan. 21, I joined somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 people in downtown Los Angeles as the city made its own unique contribution to the womens marches galvanizing more than a million people across the US and around the world.In LA, as elsewhere, activists fighting for a wide range of causes from reproductive rights to Black Lives Matter, from climate change to workers rights came together in a powerful display of unity.That is why, as organizers met after the march to maintain a unified momentum, I found it somewhat disconcerting to read Oregon Sen. Jeff Markleys statement that, Trump is the cure here; he brings everybody together.Yes, it is true that Trumps persona and actions have had a great deal to do with energizing and mobilizing the protests, and it is certain that he will continue to inspire resistance as he seeks to realize his agenda.

Yet in the long term, Trump can hardly sustain a movement as a cure or unifier. Something much deeper has to be involved, and that something is nothing less than the reclamation of our democracy and the democratic promise of the American experiment.

BY Harry Boyte | December 16, 2015

In saying this, I dont use the term democracy simply to refer to the formal institutions of representative government, nor to such practices as voting, nor even to the norms and unwritten rules that maintain the rule of law and the peaceful transition of power. Important as these elements are, they lack meaning without the presence of a living culture of democracy, a body of understandings and habits that bind us to one another in mutual responsibility and to a commitment to human equality and freedom. This is the vision of democracy powerfully expressed by political scientist Danielle Allen in her recent book, Our Declaration:A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality.This is a vision affirming that we are all not only entitled to the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but also to equality of access to government as the tool by which we secure those rights.

The writers who generated the Declaration of Independence did not compile their grievances against King George III by brainstorming their complaints in closed session, but by placing advertisements in newspapers across the country.

There is a direct line of inheritance from the Declarations writers to the marchers who crowded the streets of American cities on Jan. 21.The writers who generated the Declaration of Independence did not compile their grievances against King George III by brainstorming their complaints in closed session, but by placing advertisements in newspapers across the country.They relied on what Allen called the collective intelligence of ordinary citizens to build their argument for independence.As Allen said, In developing their list of complaints against King George and in coming to understand their situation, the colonists became the free people capable of self-government that, with their declaration, they asserted themselves to be.In other words, they were developing the habits of freedom even before the nation became formally independent.They reinforced this process by drafting constitutions for the future states even before signing the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

By the same token, the marchers of Jan. 21, 2017 didnt wait for a midterm election to enact a vision of what democracy is and can be.Despite the oligarchic, authoritarian nature of the Trump candidacy and presidency, the marchers moved boldly to reclaim their democratic heritage by reinterpreting it in the light of contemporary circumstances.The marchers I know understood that today the phrase, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness incorporates the unalienable right to decent, affordable health care.They equally understood that this powerful phrase includes the unalienable right to a healthful environment and the right to counter powerful economic interests that elevate short-term profit above the well-being of all.

Take A Look: Bill Moyers Essay: Thomas Jefferson's Betrayal

Moreover, the marchers I know understand that reclaiming democracy necessitates coming to terms with the tragic distortions and exclusions coiled within the DNA of the young American republic. They know that reclaiming democracy means coming to terms with the legacies of slavery, genocide and racism, and that democracy must now mean full inclusion of all people within the American polity.That is why, ultimately, we dont need a Trump as a cure or unifier.Certainly, resistance will and must continue.But it is democracy itself that is the unifier.The issues represented in the marches Black Lives Matter, immigrants rights, Standing Rock, reproductive rights, among others are all deeply connected by the sacredness and dignity of human life, and by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for this generation and all generations to come.

At one point in the LA march, I looked up in the blue, cloudless sky and saw a lone airplane trailing a banner proclaiming, Congratulations President Trump on Your Inaugural.A young woman standing next to me noticed my glance and said, looking up at the plane as well, That looks like one of Trumps tweets.But theres just one of him, and theres all of us. Looking down Hill Street at some of the hundreds of thousands of people that day, and perhaps with King George III in the back of my mind, I knew she was right.

Will the Real Journalists Please Stand Up?

Donald Trumps Mission Creep Just Took a Giant Leap Forward

Here is the original post:
Reclaiming Our Democracy - BillMoyers.com

Before this month, Seattles democracy vouchers were just an idea. Now candidates are knocking on doors to gather them up.

When a Seattle City Council candidate showed up at Carlos Garcias door on a Saturday last month and asked for his democracy vouchers, he was a little surprised.

Garcia recalled voting in 2015 for a ballot measure creating the vouchers, and a package from the city had just come in the mail. But he was fuzzy on the details.

I dont even really know how the program works, said Garcia, 46, standing on the front porch of his Beacon Hill home with the council candidate, Jon Grant.

Youre asking for my vouchers, and Im like, Do I have one? Do I have four? Do I tear it off like a coupon and hand it to you? Is that how it works? Garcia said.

His confusion was understandable. Seattle is the first city in the country to finance campaigns with taxpayer-funded vouchers, and the program is launching this year.

Voters authorized the program when they passed Initiative 122, authorizing a 10-year, $30 million property-tax levy to pay for the vouchers.

Last month, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission mailed each of the citys registered voters four $25 vouchers to distribute to candidates in 2017.

There are races this year for the councils two citywide seats and for city attorney. Theres also a race for mayor, but the vouchers wont be allowed in that contest this time around.

Voters can return their vouchers to the commission directly (by mail, email, fax or in person) or to candidates (by mail or in person) for relaying to the commission. Doing nothing with the vouchers is OK, too.

To become eligible to collect the vouchers, candidates must pledge to take part in debates, agree to lower campaign-contribution limits and agree to campaign-spending caps.

To qualify to actually receive the funds that the vouchers represent, candidates must gather a baseline number of small donations.

Incumbent City Attorney Pete Holmes last week became the first candidate to qualify.

The commission will be releasing the funds to qualified candidates at least twice a month.

Proponents say the program will get more people involved in local politics and help less-known candidates compete against candidates backed by wealthy donors.

Thats what Grant is counting on. The housing activist, who lost in 2015 when he challenged incumbent Councilmember Tim Burgess, is running again for Position 8.

Burgess isnt seeking re-election this time around, but Grant considers himself an underdog still. He says he wont take any campaign contributions from corporations.

Were funding our campaign on small donations and democracy vouchers, the candidate told Garcia. Thats why were going door to door to ask for your support.

Grant is eligible to collect the vouchers but not yet qualified to receive the donations they represent.

Other Position 8 candidates collecting vouchers include Sheley Secrest, Teresa Mosqueda, Ryan Asbert, Mac McGregor and Roger Kluck.

Persuading voters to part with their vouchers so far ahead of time is challenging. The primary election isnt until August and the general election isnt until November.

Most voters are recovering from last years election rather than thinking about 2017. But Grant wants to snag as many vouchers as possible before too many are replaced and tossed away.

The commission is working on a replacement-voucher form, but it isnt ready yet.

Youre asking people to make a decision to support someone way before they normally have to make that decision, Grant said.

But these vouchers arent votes. Theyre a means to support grass-roots candidates. We need to get started early so we can build up the resources to go up against corporate-backed candidates.

Garcia didnt give Grant any vouchers, nor did his husband, James Harris.

The Pioneer Square business owner thanked the candidate for going door to door. But he expressed skepticism about the vouchers program, calling it provincial.

Im hoping it will work, get more people involved, Harris said. Well see how it plays out. But right now, it just seems hokey.

Grant is seeing some success, however. In his first week, he collected about $8,000 in vouchers, he says.

Kashina Groves, 32, and her husband, Apu Mishra, 40, assigned all eight of their vouchers to Grant. Theyd seen a reminder from him on Facebook.

So I didnt just dump them in the recycling, Groves said.

One of Grants strategies is to ask for at least one voucher, if not all four. Thats what worked with Rupert Berk in the same neighborhood where Grant visited Garcia.

The candidate is targeting areas he won in 2015, such as Beacon Hill.

Berk, 47, reacted positively when Grant described his views on affordable housing but initially balked when the candidate asked for his vouchers.

Im probably going to do more research, he said.

So Grant tried again: I know you want to do your research, but were just trying to get off the ground. Would you support us with just one just $25 at no cost to you?

Berk thought for a few beats. Then he relented, shrugging his shoulders.

Sure, he replied.

See more here:
Seattle candidates already on hunt for 'democracy vouchers' - The Seattle Times

Not long ago, Brazil was "ontop of theworld," as one 2010 headline described it.

With a steadily growing economy and expanding social programs thatlifted millions out of poverty, the South American nation was seen by many as an emerging global power and a shining example of good governance and inclusivity. Lula da Silva, Brazil's president from 2003 to 2010, was widely credited for his countrys remarkable success; President Obamacalled him"the most popular politician on Earth."

But over the last few years, Brazil's economic and political panorama has dramatically shifted. Recent news headlines include "Brazil in Free Fall" and "The Darkest Hour."

In early 2014, Brazil's economy began to tank. The causes included the Latin American and global economic slowdown, but also neoliberal economic policies favored by Brazil's powerful financial community, including budget and credit tightening at the wrong time andexorbitantly high interest rates.

Meanwhile, revelations surfaced regarding a vast bribery scheme commonly known as "Lava Jato" (car wash) involving state energy company Petrobras and numerous senior figures from Brazils major political parties. This perfect storm of economic and political setbacks contributed to a rapid decline in the popularity of da Silva's successor, Dilma Rousseff, and created a golden opportunity for right-wing sectors to unseat Rousseff and her left-leaning Workers' Party.

But rather than attempting to retake the presidency through elections, sectors of the right conspired to remove Rousseff by triggeringlegally unjustifiedimpeachment proceedings against her.

The former president is regularly vilified in Brazil's conservative media, which dominates the nation's airwaves and press. The telegenic federal Judge Sergio Moro, elevated to near-superhero status by much of Brazils major media, has been leading abiased and politicized investigationtargeting da Silva, and has repeatedly violated the former president's due process rights.

The Obama administration has failed to speak out against these assaults on Brazil's democracy, but U.S. congressional members have taken notice since Rousseff's impeachment trial began in May 2016, and have been forcefully appealing for the respect of rule of law and human rights in Brazil.

In July 2016, 43 Democratic members of the House of Representatives senta letterto then-Secretary of State John KerryJohn KerryCongress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously Take it from Italy's past, don't tinker with US electoral systems Trumps dangerous move to politicize the National Security Council MORE expressing "strong concern" regarding Rousseff's impeachment and noting that its main promoters faced corruption charges, including Romero Juc, a key political ally of current President Michel Temer caught on tapeplottingRousseff's removal. The objective, Juc said, was to prevent corruption investigations from moving forward.

Temer, Rousseff's replacement, promptly appointed an all-white, all-male Cabinet that embarked on far-reaching reforms, including drastic cuts to social programs.

In early August, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersEllison tops Perez in DNC race fundraising Congress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously Biden endorses Perez for DNC chair MORE (I-Vt.) issueda statementarguing that: "The United States cannot sit silently while the democratic institutions of one of our most important allies are undermined."

Kerry ignored these appeals. OnAug. 5, as the impeachment trial was still underway, he held a friendly joint press conference with Temer's foreign minister and made no mention of the unconstitutional efforts to remove Rousseff. The signal to Brazilians was unmistakable: Washington supported what many considered an illegal coup d'etat.

Though Brazil has largely disappeared from the news in the U.S., the dire political and social situation there is still of great concern to a number of members of Congress.

On Jan. 18, 12 members of the House, including four of the five top Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, and leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, sent aletter to Brazil's ambassadorin Washington, denouncing the repression of peaceful protests in Brazil and the criminalization of the Landless Workers' Movement and other groups opposed to the Temer government. The letter also denounces the ongoing judicial persecution of da Silva:

"Since the beginning of [2016], Lula has been targeted by a judge Sergio Moro whose biased and unwarranted actions have severely jeopardized Lulas due process rights. For instance, Moro ordered the arbitrary arrest of the former president simply to serve a subpoena, although there was no indication that the former president was unwilling to provide testimony.Media outlets were on site as the arrest occurred, suggesting that the primary purpose of the detention was to create the perception that Lula was implicated in criminal activity despite the lack of charges against him at the time."

The letter describes Moro's open participation "in political events opposing Lula" and his endorsement of a sensational book lionizing him and presenting da Silva as guilty of alleged criminal charges. It notes that Moro leaked phone intercepts to the media,a violation of Brazilian law.

The letter, led by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and endorsed by the AFL-CIO, Friends of the Earth and other organizations, goes on to say:

"Even following testimony against Lula obtained through plea bargains, there is not yet any credible evidence implicating Lula in criminal activity. We are concerned that the true goal behind the proceedings is to severely tarnish Lulas image and disable him politically by any means, as occurred with former President Rousseff."

Despite these attacks, the Workers' Party announced on Jan. 17 that da Silva would be its candidate for president in Brazil's 2018 elections. Two days later, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Teori Zavascki died in a plane crash seen by many assuspiciousgiven that Zavascki had been analyzing testimony implicating many powerful Brazilian politicians in corruption.

Zavascki had been widely considered to be the most independent and principled member of the court. He had been identified in the leaked Juc tape as the one justice "closed off" to making a deal to help remove Rousseff. And he had firmly objected to Moro's leaks of tapped phone recordings of da Silva in early 2016, earning him vicious attacks in the right-wing press and protests in front of his home in So Paulo.

With Zavascki gone, it appears unlikely that any higher judge will step in to counter the excesses of Moro and others who use their judicial or political power to arbitrarily target opponents.

Given this alarming situation, it's more important than ever for members of Congress and others in the international community to shine a bright light on the attempted demolition of democracy and basic rights that is taking place in Brazil.

Alexander Main is senior associate for international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Here is the original post:
Congress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously - The Hill (blog)