[Julie Steiner]

Hoo, boy.

Several loyalists to President Donald Trump were promoted to top roles in the Defense Department on Tuesday after officials resigned following the unceremonious ouster of Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

The Pentagon confirmed the resignations of the department's top officials for policy and intelligence in a statement. The resignations include those of James Anderson, the acting undersecretary for policy; Joseph Kernan, the undersecretary for intelligence; and Jen Stewart, Esper's chief of staff.

[***]

Retired Army Gen. Anthony Tata, a frequent Fox News guest, will replace Anderson. Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who works in the Defense Department and was an aide to the disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn, will replace Kernan. Kash Patel, a former National Security Council official and former aide to Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who worked on the controversial House investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, will replace Stewart.

[***]

NBC News reported last week that Esper had prepared a letter of resignation, and it previously reported that Esper has long been at odds with Trump. The two disagreed, for example, about the use of active-duty troops to respond to protests across the country this summer.

[***]

Some of the officials promoted Tuesday are also seen as controversial picks.

Media reports linked Patel to efforts to discredit the Russian investigation and to discredit questions about whether there were ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to The Associated Press.

Trump nominated Tata this year to be the undersecretary for policy, but he quickly withdrew his name over bipartisan concerns from lawmakers. Tata expressed Islamophobic views publicly, and in 2018 he called former President Barack Obama a "terrorist leader" on Twitter. Tata in addition claimed that the Iran nuclear deal came about because of Obama's "Islamic roots" and that it was an attempt "to help Iranians and the greater Islamic state crush Israel."

He apologized and was placed in a role at the Pentagon that did not need Senate approval. His promotion to lead the Pentagon's policy shop while having an "acting" title circumvents the need for Senate approval.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...esign-n1247346

[Allen Tice]

It's about seventy days from today until the new administration takes control and can start to undo asinine things. Pay attention.

[Julie Steiner]

I'm actually surprised that Trump has been so slow to fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspell, who have pushed back against his past demands for them to use their agencies' power to advance his personal agendas. Maybe later this week.

[James Brancheau]

The best experience, for sure, I had in my short stint at law school, was when Justice Blackmun talked to our civil procedures class. Ultimately, it will be the courts that stop this nonsense. Even the supreme court with a 6-3 majority (no matter your politics on the left side of things, it would have been worth voting for Hillary to prevent that) won't get behind this. Blackmun is a good example of the uncertainty of politically appointed supreme court justices. They are lifers now and have nothing to gain from selling their souls. (Kavanaugh might uphold the affordable care act, for example. I heard, and sorry if I'm wrong about that.) But, yes, thank christ, Trump's finished.

[Roger Slater]

You're right that Kavanaugh looks like he'll join Roberts in "saving" the ACA, and I'm very happy about that, but the argument he is rejecting is so utterly frivolous and ridiculous that it's hard to give him all that much credit. The scary part will come when we find out that there may be four justices who agree with the argument. Clarence Thomas almost certainly will, as will Alito. There's a chance that Gorsuch will vote with the good guys on this one, though it's not at all clear. And Barrett? Her vote will be the interesting one and perhaps help define what to expect from her moving forward. If she's smart, she'll go with Roberts this time, since she needs him to like her if she wants to be writing important decisions when she and Roberts are in the majority (the Chief chooses who writes for the majority when he is part of it), and if she wants her ultimate decision striking down Roe v Wade to be at least somewhat respected it's a good idea to strike a more moderate pose before dropping the hammer.

[James Brancheau]

Roger, I'd like to respond more to that, but on abortion, they're going to go states' rights. I think. Which is a giant step back. Though when you have to drive 200 miles today to get care, now, in some places... but it does prevent litigation.

[Roger Slater]

What do you me "go states rights"? Sounds like another way of agreeing that they're going to overturn Roe v Wade, which would have the effect of allowing but not requiring states to ban abortion entirely . . . and possibly even ban IVF. They probably wouldn't go so far as to allow states to ban contraception, but who knows with these wackadoodles?

[James Brancheau]

My major point, I guess, is that what's in practice now is exactly what the court will affirm. Roe isn't being respected, treated as law, now.

[Roger Slater]

Roe isn't what it used to be, for sure, but it still does at least something. But beyond the practicalities, repeal of Roe would be the first time the Supreme Court ever explicitly took back a civil right. That alone would be a scary precedent, auguring possible retreat on such rights as same-sex marriage and contraception (as well as an array of privacy-based rights), not to mention criminal justice rights such as the right to counsel, Miranda rights, the exclusionary rule, and a host of other rights we take for granted but which are not expressly set forth in the Constitution in so many words.