Although the hearings weren't remotely interesting, the most consequential development in Washington these days is the confirmation process for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, nominated to replace the late liberal hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the US Supreme Court. As President Donald Trump inches closer to possible defeat in the November 3 election, the Republican party finds itself poised for a massive generational victory, finally securing a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the high court.
This apparently unstoppable Senate confirmation realises a project that began in the 1970s. Outraged by 20 years of judicial hammer blows – beginning with Brown versus Board of Education, which effectively prohibited racial segregation in 1954, and culminating with Roe versus Wade's guarantee of abortion and privacy rights in 1973 – conservatives sought a right-wing court majority.
The gold standard for conservatives was Ms Barrett's mentor, the late justice Antonin Scalia, but she seems even more right-wing.
For example, Scalia, an ardent opponent of gun control, allowed that, perhaps, the government can bar convicted felons from owning weapons. Not so, says Ms Barrett. Gun ownership rights are so fundamental that the government must prove a significant, imminent public danger in every case. That puts her on the most extreme wing of an already extremely pro-gun constituency.
Mourners pay their respects as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose in front of the US Supreme Court building in Washington on September 24, 2020. AP Photo
Thousands of mourners queued to pay their respects to Justice Ginsburg, a champion of women's and civil rights, at the US Supreme Court building before her casket was taken to lie in state at the US Capitol on September 25, 2020. Bloomberg
AFP
Reuters
Reuters
AFP
Reuters
Reuters
Reuters
Reuters
Bloomberg
Pool via Reuters
AFP
Pool via Reuters
AFP
Bloomberg
AP Photo
Reuters
Reuters
Reuters
AFP
AFP
Reuters
Reuters
Both political parties are guilty of putting up nominees who refuse to discuss anything substantial on the ridiculous grounds that it might somehow compromise their independence. So, like all her recent predecessors, Ms Barrett declined any meaningful colloquy.
She refused to opine on whether the President could delay the election (he can't), or whether it is unlawful to intimidate voters (it is). If asked whether the sky looks blue, she would have probably cited the need to hear arguments and research relevant litigation before commenting.
But the Senators were little better.
Timorous Democrats avoided any mention of Ms Barrett's membership in a religious group that emphasises male supremacy, speaking in tongues, prophesying and other potentially relevant beliefs. Much as Mr Trump is counterfactually calling the moderate Mr Biden a "socialist", Senate Republicans denounced Democrats for attacking her faith though they never mentioned it.
All Senators burbled tinned speeches, generally totally unconnected to constitutional law.
It's a pity, because Ms Barrett is a champion of "Originalism", a specious doctrine central to the programmatic conservative legal agenda. She said that it means: “I interpret the Constitution as a law, I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.”
That’s plainly convenient for the political right. But it is absurd. It assumes there is a fixed or identifiable “public meaning" that is somehow defined during the ratification process (although by whom, precisely, and how, exactly, is undefined or contested) when obviously there almost never is.
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett departs during a break in a confirmation hearing in Washington. AP Photo
Democrats should have emphasised what Donald Trump openly says he wants from Amy Coney Barrett: support in rulings immediately after the election to affect the outcome
Clearly, even when different people agree on the same language, they typically have radically different motivations and understandings of what they want it to mean.
Moreover, such legal "Originalists" usually ignore historians, as if only their own legal scholarship provides a genuine grasp of mindsets from the distant past. Common sense and bitter experience strongly suggest otherwise.
It’s also unlikely that the “original” constitutional understandings of 1787 survived the post-Civil War reconstruction and amendments from 1866-1877 that, as president Abraham Lincoln vowed, redefined the country, enshrined equality for all citizens and made the federal government – and not the states – the guarantor of that equality.
Democrats didn't engage any of this, presumably because there aren't many votes in methodology. But there are in health care, so Democrats insisted she is being rushed through for a case against the popular Obamacare health insurance law scheduled for arguments on November 10. But that case is so ridiculous that she and a majority will probably reject it.
Instead, Democrats should have emphasised what Mr Trump openly says he wants from Ms Barrett: support in rulings immediately after the election to affect the outcome. If Mr Trump tries to use courts as the primary means to stay in power despite the voters, Democrats may regret not having highlighted it and pressed her more strongly to recuse herself from any 2020 election issues, as would be ethical.
In the long run, all eyes will be on the Roe ruling, which she has strongly denounced, and a set of potential coming liberal reforms.
Washington may soon find itself reliving the 1930s, where a leftover, pre-Depression, ultra-conservative Supreme Court majority consistently blocked president Franklin Roosevelt's economic restructuring until he threatened to expand its membership. Both sides ultimately backed down.
The potential for revisited "court packing" is the one campaign issue that Democratic nominee Joe Biden has severely mishandled. While "let's see if she gets confirmed" would have sufficed, he has been repeating: “I'll tell you my policy after the election" – a mystifyingly clumsy position.
Supporters of Amy Coney Barrett rally outside the Supreme Court building during the Women's March in Washington on Saturday. AP Photo
Republicans are focused on controlling courts not only because they remember the liberal gains accrued between the 1950s through the 70s, but also because that’s the least democratic and accountable branch of government. That is bound to appeal to the party mainly of white, non-college-educated, and non-urban Americans, a constituency that is transitioning from being a solid majority to much greater potential vulnerability.
Democrats already see several of the Supreme Court's conservative justices as illegitimate.
There is a much stronger case today against Clarence Thomas than in 1991, when a former subordinate named Anita Hill stood alone accusing him of improprieties during his confirmation hearing. Many believe Brett Kavanaugh similarly perjured himself. Neil Gorsuch is only on the bench because Republicans blocked Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, claiming that it would be "improper" given a mere 10 months left in the president's term.
Protesters wearing handmaid costumes stands in front of City Hall during a pre-election Women's march in Los Angeles on Saturday. EPA
Now Ms Barrett's nomination is being rammed through while voting is already under way. And all of it is being done by a President and Senate majority elected without majority support.
What the Barrett hearings suggest is that a huge American train wreck over the Supreme Court, and other federal appellate courts, is likely if – as many suspect – Democrats consolidate elected executive and legislative authority in coming years.
If Ms Barrett enters the arena of power as Mr Trump exits it, perhaps even bringing down the Republican Senate majority down with him, she and her conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court may be the most politically powerful and relevant Republicans in Washington for many years.
Hussein Ibish is a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute and a US affairs columnist for The National
Pox that threatens the Middle East's native species
Camelpox
Caused by a virus related to the one that causes human smallpox, camelpox typically causes fever, swelling of lymph nodes and skin lesions in camels aged over three, but the animal usually recovers after a month or so. Younger animals may develop a more acute form that causes internal lesions and diarrhoea, and is often fatal, especially when secondary infections result. It is found across the Middle East as well as in parts of Asia, Africa, Russia and India.
Falconpox
Falconpox can cause a variety of types of lesions, which can affect, for example, the eyelids, feet and the areas above and below the beak. It is a problem among captive falcons and is one of many types of avian pox or avipox diseases that together affect dozens of bird species across the world. Among the other forms are pigeonpox, turkeypox, starlingpox and canarypox. Avipox viruses are spread by mosquitoes and direct bird-to-bird contact.
Houbarapox
Houbarapox is, like falconpox, one of the many forms of avipox diseases. It exists in various forms, with a type that causes skin lesions being least likely to result in death. Other forms cause more severe lesions, including internal lesions, and are more likely to kill the bird, often because secondary infections develop. This summer the CVRL reported an outbreak of pox in houbaras after rains in spring led to an increase in mosquito numbers.
Frankenstein in Baghdad
Ahmed Saadawi
Penguin Press
Muslim Council of Elders condemns terrorism on religious sites
The Muslim Council of Elders has strongly condemned the criminal attacks on religious sites in Britain.
It firmly rejected “acts of terrorism, which constitute a flagrant violation of the sanctity of houses of worship”.
“Attacking places of worship is a form of terrorism and extremism that threatens peace and stability within societies,” it said.
The council also warned against the rise of hate speech, racism, extremism and Islamophobia. It urged the international community to join efforts to promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
Mercer, the investment consulting arm of US services company Marsh & McLennan, expects its wealth division to at least double its assets under management (AUM) in the Middle East as wealth in the region continues to grow despite economic headwinds, a company official said.
Mercer Wealth, which globally has $160 billion in AUM, plans to boost its AUM in the region to $2-$3bn in the next 2-3 years from the present $1bn, said Yasir AbuShaban, a Dubai-based principal with Mercer Wealth.
“Within the next two to three years, we are looking at reaching $2 to $3 billion as a conservative estimate and we do see an opportunity to do so,” said Mr AbuShaban.
Mercer does not directly make investments, but allocates clients’ money they have discretion to, to professional asset managers. They also provide advice to clients.
“We have buying power. We can negotiate on their (client’s) behalf with asset managers to provide them lower fees than they otherwise would have to get on their own,” he added.
Mercer Wealth’s clients include sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and insurance companies among others.
From its office in Dubai, Mercer also looks after Africa, India and Turkey, where they also see opportunity for growth.
Wealth creation in Middle East and Africa (MEA) grew 8.5 per cent to $8.1 trillion last year from $7.5tn in 2015, higher than last year’s global average of 6 per cent and the second-highest growth in a region after Asia-Pacific which grew 9.9 per cent, according to consultancy Boston Consulting Group (BCG). In the region, where wealth grew just 1.9 per cent in 2015 compared with 2014, a pickup in oil prices has helped in wealth generation.
BCG is forecasting MEA wealth will rise to $12tn by 2021, growing at an annual average of 8 per cent.
Drivers of wealth generation in the region will be split evenly between new wealth creation and growth of performance of existing assets, according to BCG.
Another general trend in the region is clients’ looking for a comprehensive approach to investing, according to Mr AbuShaban.
“Institutional investors or some of the families are seeing a slowdown in the available capital they have to invest and in that sense they are looking at optimizing the way they manage their portfolios and making sure they are not investing haphazardly and different parts of their investment are working together,” said Mr AbuShaban.
Some clients also have a higher appetite for risk, given the low interest-rate environment that does not provide enough yield for some institutional investors. These clients are keen to invest in illiquid assets, such as private equity and infrastructure.
“What we have seen is a desire for higher returns in what has been a low-return environment specifically in various fixed income or bonds,” he said.
“In this environment, we have seen a de facto increase in the risk that clients are taking in things like illiquid investments, private equity investments, infrastructure and private debt, those kind of investments were higher illiquidity results in incrementally higher returns.”
The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, one of the largest sovereign wealth funds, said in its 2016 report that has gradually increased its exposure in direct private equity and private credit transactions, mainly in Asian markets and especially in China and India. The authority’s private equity department focused on structured equities owing to “their defensive characteristics.”
