NPR has much better production values than commercial radio and they take an interest in stories with which commercial radio could hardly be bothered. In contradistinction to MacNeill / Lehrer, they never attempted to be a non-sectarian news service. Their founding director had been George McGovern’s campaign manager, and they have a long history of doing sketchy things (e.g. hiring political tourists to be their boots-on-the-ground reporters in Sandinista Nicaragua). Totenberg was the wife of a Democratic Senator. She’s also nearly 80 years old.

In contrast, NPR made no mention of the DETAILS of the ballot-harvesting (etc.) behavior that was the subject the Arizona lawsuit. The entire commentary was on a supposed CONTEXT of voter suppression, with racial overtones!

NPR and especially Nina Totenberg are execrable hacks!

When the left hit on the strategy of packing the electorate via uncontrolled immigration and ‘finding’ uncounted ballots after close elections.

…Realizing that she’s not to everyone’s, um, taste—but GO TULSI!!!

To her great, great credit, Tulsi Gabbard spoke out forcefully before the last election against this blatant abuse of the electoral process…
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/29/tulsi-gabbard-raises-the-alarm-ballot-harvesting-has-allowed-for-fraud-and-abuse-n984786

Same with the California case. The record showed that the California AG office, under Kamala Harris, ACTUALLY DID LEAK THE DONOR NAMES and that some of the leaked donors actually did suffer harassment as a result. The ACLU and NAACP submitted amicus briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs and still the three progressives voted for California and held that there was no harm to the plaintiffs. Again, bonkers.

The world has gone mad. Six non-progressives on the Supreme Court is a blessing, no doubt, but that alone won’t save us.

In my view, this should not have been a difficult case. But the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision [for the plaintiffs], and the vote in the Supreme Court was 6-3, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer dissenting. Justice Sotomayor made this very silly argument:

The same scrutiny the Court applied when NAACP members in the Jim Crow South did not want to disclose their membership for fear of reprisals and violence now applies equally in the case of donors only too happy to publicize their names across the websites and walls of the organizations they support.

Of course some donors are happy to publicize their support for a particular nonprofit, but others, fearing personal harassment or damage to business interests, are not. Which is why the nonprofits in this case did not want to give Kamala Harris their donor lists. It is unusual to see such a foolish argument in a Supreme Court opinion.

The fact that liberal judges were happy to side with California’s effort to pry donor lists loose from conservative organizations is a stark reminder of the importance of not losing control over the Supreme Court to the Left.