The Wall Street Journal - USA (2020-12-07)

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Monday, December 7, 2020 |A

T

housands of angry pro-

testers gathered on Grand

Army Plaza in Brooklyn,

N.Y. Camped out in front

of Chuck Schumer’s

apartment building, the mob used

bullhorns and signs to jeer the Sen-

ate minority leader.

The activist left was sending a

message to Democrats: President

Trump was unacceptable. They ac-

cused Mr. Schumer and his col-

leagues of being soft. Signs urged

him to “show some spine” and to

resist “by any means necessary.”

Nearly every Democratic senator

eventually complied. Oregon’s Sen.

Jeff Merkley vowed to obstruct the

president’s nominees purely as “a

protest” against Republicans. Sen.

Chris Murphy of Connecticut prom-

ised to “shatter precedent” to sty-

mie nominations.

The result was unprecedented.

As had been tradition, Presidents

Clinton and Obama had nearly all of

their cabinet confirmed in January.

Mr. Clinton had 13 out of 14; Mr.

Obama, 11 out of 15. Senate Demo-

crats made sure Mr. Trump had

only three.

Because the Democrats abolished

the filibuster for confirmation votes

in 2013, they couldn’t ultimately

block any appointment without Re-

publican support. But nominees

faced a bombardment of endless

“questions for the record.” Demo-

crats voted en bloc against nomi-

nees in committee. They consis-

tently refused to consent to routine

floor votes, forcing the use of the

cloture procedure, then made sure

to use every minute of the 30 hours

of postcloture debate to delay the

confirmation vote as long as they

could.

Senate Democrats slowed down

and attempted to block the confir-

Who’ll Get the Covid Vaccine First?

A

remarkable achievement is at

hand: the introduction of two

vaccines that have been

shown in trials to be highly effec-

tive at preventing symptomatic

Covid disease. These vaccines will

arrive less than a year after the ini-

tial sequencing of the virus. For

several months the demand will

outstrip the supply. Doses will have

to be rationed. What’s the most eq-

uitable way to allocate this scarce

resource?

Once the vaccine is approved,

manufacturing will ramp up quickly

and distribution will start. By spring

there may be enough supply to vac-

cinate about 50 million people a

month. But initially, there won’t be

enough doses to vaccinate everyone

at risk of Covid complications. I am

on the board of Pfizer, which devel-

oped one of these vaccines. Policy

makers, ethicists and clinicians will

have to come up with a plan for

whom to vaccinate first.

Decisions on allocating vaccines

are up to the states, but their plans

must be approved by the federal

government. The vaccine supply will

be divvied up based on state popu-

lation size. The Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention will issue

guidelines outlining priority popula-

tions and the order in which to vac-

cinate them. The CDC’s guidelines

aren’t binding but will heavily influ-

ence state decision-making.

Goals include preserving human

life, reducing the size and scope of

the epidemic, and mitigating health

disparities, especially among low-in-

come Americans. Blacks, Hispanics

and indigenous communities are

bearing a disproportionate share of

the disease and death.

Many of those hardest hit are es-

sential workers who continued

working through the pandemic.

They couldn’t go without paychecks.

They couldn’t work from home. As a

result, they have died from Covid in

higher numbers.

The CDC’s advisory committee

has so far recommended that the

initial vaccinations go to some of

the nation’s 20 million health-care

workers and the three million resi-

dents and staff of long-term-care fa-

cilities. Every vaccine lot available

in December will likely go to these

groups. But will the next tranche in

January be given to older Ameri-

cans who are at higher risk of dying

from Covid or to essential workers

who face disproportionate risks

contracting infection?

Here’s a strategy to balance the

competing objectives: Allocate the

next batch to Americans over 65.

But also encourage states to take

aggressive steps to distribute the

vaccines to older people in under-

served communities, by, say, locat-

ing distribution sites in low-income

neighborhoods and offering options

for at-home vaccination for seniors

who can’t travel.

The CDC can also ask governors,

based on their states’ circum-

stances, to address other popula-

tions suffering more from the virus.

Some governors have told me they

may distribute the vaccine to home-

less shelters early in their process.

In Rhode Island, Gov. Gina Rai-

mondo may focus early on low-in-

come communities where crowded

housing and other hardships have

led to an especially high positivity

rate.

This will reduce death from Covid

while also creating a system that

can be rolled out easily. We know

who is over 65, and since most of

them are covered by Medicare,

these patients are relatively easy to

find.

It will take more time to decide

which younger essential workers

should qualify. But for the next sev-

eral months, while vaccines are be-

ing rationed, it is essential to make

sure this resource is used to pre-

serve as much life as possible.

Dr. Gottlieb is a resident fellow at

the American Enterprise Institute

and was commissioner of the Food

and Drug Administration, 2017-19.

He serves on the boards of Pfizer

and Illumina.

By Scott Gottlieb

The best option may be

to inoculate those over

65 with a focus on low-

income communities.

Holocaust

Survivors

Deserve Their

Day in Court

By Akiva Shapiro

Schumer’s Wages of ‘Resistance’

mation of 24 of Mr. Trump’s cabinet

and cabinet-rank nominees. None

faced similar roadblocks during the

first terms of Mr. Clinton, George

W. Bush or Mr. Obama.

When lower-level nominees are

included, Democrats attempted to

block 79 executive-branch appoint-

ments in the first two years of Mr.

Trump’s administration. His six pre-

decessors combined faced the same

obstruction only 18 times in their

first two years.

While nominees were confirmed

in the end, the Democrats’ actions

hamstrung the new administration.

Cabinet nominees were stuck in a

holding pattern while national and

international issues waited. Succes-

sive cloture votes and harassment

prevented the Senate from doing

much of anything else in the early

days of the 115th Congress. Ob-

struction for the sake of obstruc-

tion preoccupied the president and

the Senate at a time when focus

could have and should have been

elsewhere.

Mr. Schumer sent a signal on

Jan. 31, 2017, the day of that mas-

sive protest outside his home, when

he voted against the confirmation

of Elaine Chao as transportation

secretary. Expertly qualified and

highly respected by both sides, Ms.

Chao had previously served as labor

secretary for eight years and had

been vetted by the U.S. Senate for

other confirmable posts. No reason-

able argument was made during

Senate hearings to oppose her.

As uncontroversial and experi-

enced as she was, Mr. Schumer

voted against her confirmation. She

was confirmed 93-6, but Mr.

Schumer’s colleagues soon followed

his lead. Mindless opposition to Mr.

Trump’s nominees became a test of

party loyalty. The only goal was to

prove how strongly Senate Demo-

crats could resist.

Opposing Trump nominees

spilled over into the 2020 Demo-

cratic presidential primaries. Some

senators running for president

were accused of going too easy on

Trump nominees. The “hell no”

caucus took pride in rejecting any-

one and everyone. Mr. Schumer’s

New York colleague, Sen. Kirsten

Gillibrand, boasted that she had

“the best voting record against

Trump nominees of anyone else

running for president.”

Joe Biden has begun to name the

men and women he wants to serve

in key positions. The U.S. Senate

will have something to say about

every one. Don’t expect Senate Re-

publicans to forget how the Demo-

crats treated Mr. Trump’s nominees.

Don’t expect the tens of millions of

Americans who voted for Mr.

Trump in 2016 and 2020 to forget

it either.

If Republicans hold the majority

in the Senate next year, we will

have the ability to reject Mr. Biden’s

nominees. Unlike the Democrats, we

will use that power responsibly. A

Republican Senate will treat main-

stream nominees fairly.

Yet Mr. Schumer has blown away

the old custom of giving a president

wide latitude to pick his team.

Those who are out of the main-

stream will face a gantlet, not a

garden party.

The unprecedented obstruction

of the previous administration will

have lasting consequences for fu-

ture administrations. Senate Demo-

crats put in place new standards

and norms. They won’t be easily

washed away.

Mr. Barrasso of Wyoming is

chairman of the Senate Republican

Conference.

By John Barrasso

SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES

Senate Democrats did

everything they could to

delay Trump’s nominees.

Republicans won’t forget.

Protesters at Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn, N.Y., Jan. 31, 2017.

OPINION

PUBLISHED SINCE 1889 BY DOW JONES & COMPANY

Rupert Murdoch

Executive Chairman, News Corp

Matt Murray

Editor in Chief

Robert Thomson

Chief Executive Officer, News Corp

Almar Latour

Chief Executive Officer and Publisher

EDITORIAL AND CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS:
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y., 10036
Telephone 1-800-DOWJONES

DOW JONES MANAGEMENT:

Ramin Beheshti,Chief Technology Officer;

Kamilah Mitchell-Thomas,Chief People Officer;

Edward Roussel,Chief Innovation Officer;

Christina Van Tassell,Chief Financial Officer

OPERATING EXECUTIVES:

Jason P. Conti,General Counsel;

Frank Filippo,Print Products & Services;

Kristin Heitmann,Chief Commercial Officer;

Nancy McNeill,Corporate Sales;

Thomas San Filippo,Customer Service;

Josh Stinchcomb,Advertising Sales;

Suzi Watford,Chief Marketing Officer;

Jonathan Wright,International

Professional Information Business:

Ingrid Verschuren,Deputy Head

Neal Lipschutz Karen Miller Pensiero
Deputy Editor in Chief Managing Editor
Jason Anders,Chief News Editor;Louise Story,Chief
News Strategist, Product & Technology Officer
Thorold Barker,Europe;Elena Cherney,Coverage;
Andrew Dowell,Asia;Anthony Galloway,Video &
Audio;Brent Jones,Culture, Training & Outreach;
Alex Martin,Print & Writing;Michael W. Miller,
Features & Weekend;Emma Moody,Standards;
Shazna Nessa,Visuals;Matthew Rose,
Enterprise;Michael Siconolfi,Investigations;
Stephen Wisnefski,Professional News
Gerard Baker,Editor at Large
Paul A. Gigot,Editor of the Editorial Page;
Daniel Henninger,Deputy Editor, Editorial Page

WALL STREET JOURNAL MANAGEMENT:
Joseph B. Vincent,Operations;
Larry L. Hoffman,Production

O

n Monday’s anniversary of the
Pearl Harbor attack, the Su-
preme Court will hear argu-
ments in two cases that provide an
opportunity to protect America’s en-
during role in securing justice for
the victims of the Axis powers.
The cases arise out of Nazi Ger-
many’s well-documented campaign
to seize art and other property.
Federal Republic of Germany v.
Philipp was brought by heirs of
Frankfurt-based Jewish art dealers
who were coerced by Hermann
Goering into “selling” a collection
of medieval Christian devotional
objects—called the Guelph Trea-
sure, or Welfenschatz—to the state
of Prussia in 1935. Goering gave the
trove to Hitler as a gift.Republic of
Hungary v. Simonwas brought by
14 Holocaust survivors seeking
compensation for the seizure of
their property as they boarded cat-
tle cars to Auschwitz.

At issue is whether U.S. courts
should evaluate these claims for ex-
propriation on the merits, as Con-
gress has directed, or whether—as
Germany and Hungary urge—courts
are free to refrain from doing so
out of “international comity.”
The answer is clear. As the jus-
tices explained inVerlinden B.V. v.
Central Bank of Nigeria(1983), Con-
gress has the “undisputed” preroga-
tive and power “to decide, as a mat-
ter of federal law, whether and
under what circumstances foreign
nations should be amenable to suit
in the United States.” In 1976 Con-
gress passed the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act, which commands
that “a foreign state shall not be im-
mune from the jurisdiction of courts
of the United States” when, among
other things, claims involve “rights
in property taken in violation of in-
ternational law.” In the Holocaust
Victims Redress Act of 1998, Con-
gress expressly found that “the Na-
zis’ policy of looting art was a criti-
cal element and incentive in their
campaign of genocide”—a clear in-
ternational-law violation.
Congress has passed numerous
laws specifically to facilitate re-
dress for Holocaust victims, includ-
ing the Holocaust Expropriated Art
Recovery Act of 2016, which ex-
tended the statute of limitations
for such claims. Congress unambig-
uously intended for Holocaust vic-
tims and their heirs to be able to
bring these claims against foreign
sovereigns in U.S. courts.
Germany and Hungary urge the
Supreme Court to endorse a policy
of judicial abstention based on in-
ternational comity. But allowing
courts to throw out the very types
of claims that Congress has said
are redressable in U.S. courts would
do violence to the separation of
powers. The Supreme Court
shouldn’t sanction such an abroga-
tion of the constitutional order.
Holocaust victims and their heirs
won’t necessarily win every case,
or even these cases. The merits are
for another day, and Germany and
Hungary will have plenty of oppor-
tunities to make their arguments.
But the Supreme Court should give
these victims of Nazism their day
in court, as Congress has directed.
Doing so would honor and preserve
the abiding legacy of the Greatest
Generation.

Mr. Shapiro is a litigation part-
ner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
in New York and counsel to mem-
bers of the U.S. House as friends of
the court in the Philipp and Simon
cases.

Congress has made clear

that Nazi expropriation

victims can bring lawsuits.

The U.A.E. Needs U.S. Arms to Ward Off Iran

S

enate opposition to the pro-

posed U.S. arms sales to the

United Arab Emirates reflects

a dangerous reversion to the

Obama-era understanding of the

Middle East. While opponents of

the deal claim that the Emirates

have misused other U.S. weapons in

Yemen, the real issue is much

broader.

A Senate vote on legislation to

halt the $23 billion arms deal is ex-

pected in days. While opposition

will likely fail—even if the bill

passes, supermajorities would be

needed to override the expected

presidential veto—the thinking be-

hind it foreshadows an ill-advised

Biden administration policy toward

Iran.

The Iranian threat to regional

peace and security has altered the

strategic reality of the Middle East

since the misbegotten 2015 nuclear

deal. Arab states increasingly fear

Tehran’s nuclear weapons and bal-

listic missiles, but also its support

for terrorism in Yemen, Lebanon,

Syria and Iraq, as well as its con-

ventional military activities. The

decision by Bahrain and the U.A.E.

to establish full diplomatic rela-

tions with Israel shows how Iran’s

increased—and largely unchal-

lenged—belligerence has realigned

the Middle East’s correlation of

forces.

Many of these shifts stem from

the nuclear deal, which released be-

tween $120 billion and $150 billion

in frozen assets and freed Iran from

arduous economic sanctions, pro-

viding Tehran the resources to ex-

pand its military and clandestine

capabilities. Iran’s Quds Force used

its share of the windfall to beef up

support for Iraqi Shiite militias,

Syria’s Assad, and Hezbollah in

Lebanon and Syria. In response, the

Emirates and other U.S. friends

rightly want more-advanced arms.

Less reported, but of vital im-

portance to the Gulf Cooperation

Council’s six Arab member states,

was Iran’s dramatic expansion of

support for Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

Previous Iranian aid to the Houthis

had been intended to stalemate

Saudi and Emirati efforts to install

a stable, pro-GCC government in

San’a, but in 2017 Tehran ramped

up shipments of sophisticated

weaponry that could strike far be-

yond Yemen’s borders. This threat-

ened Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastruc-

ture; important civilian airports in

Riyadh, Dubai and Abu Dhabi; and

commercial shipping in the Red Sea

and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, criti-

cal sea lanes to the Suez Canal.

The Gulf Arab states are entirely

justified in resisting Tehran’s intru-

sion into their backyard. Yemen’s

conflict has had more than its

share of brutality, much of it

caused by the Houthis’ inhumanity

and ruthless exploitation of food-

aid programs. Iran’s intervention

and cynical manipulation of the dis-

array has compounded the humani-

tarian problem.

Blocking arms sales to the U.A.E.

or Saudi Arabia wouldn’t amelio-

rate conditions in Yemen. The Emi-

ratis have scaled back their involve-

ment, and the Saudi-led coalition

has taken much-needed steps to

avoid civilian casualties. U.S. weap-

ons are needed more urgently to

defend against Iran’s threat in the

Gulf. U.S. vacillation could thwart

the emerging Israeli-Arab template

for regional peace and stability. The

Arabs are deeply concerned by

President Trump’s policy gyrations,

including troop withdrawals from

Iraq and Afghanistan. They fear

that under Joe Biden the U.S. pres-

ence will recede further, leaving

them increasingly vulnerable to

Iran’s aspirations for hegemony.

Unlike in years past, Israel

doesn’t object to the proposed

arms deal. While it is too early to

call Israel’s ties with the Arabs “al-

liances,” such relations could arise.

In any case, they are all U.S. allies.

Strengthening these links benefits

America.

Other than virtue signaling, what

conceivable reason is there to op-

pose arming a vulnerable ally, the

U.A.E.? The most troubling possibil-

ity is that Mr. Biden and Senate

Democrats cling to the romantic

notion that Tehran’s ayatollahs long

to join “the international commu-

nity.” If only America and its re-

gional allies dropped their hostility

and Washington rejoined the 2015

deal, the argument goes, Iran’s nu-

clear-weapons and ballistic-missile

programs would cease to be prob-

lems. Other issues could be negoti-

ated and the Middle East would be

at peace. This was nonsense in 2015

and still is.

The Biden team stresses con-

stantly the need to strengthen rela-

tions with allies—conventional wis-

dom for all but Mr. Trump. But not

every ally thinks alike. America’s

Middle Eastern friends, who live

well within range of Tehran’s mis-

siles, drones, terrorist proxies and

conventional forces, don’t buy the

“peace in our time” theory. U.S. al-

lies in Europe want to revitalize the

nuclear deal, but does it tell us

anything that Russia and China

agree?

This is an early test: Does Mr.

Biden know that Iran is the biggest

threat to regional security? Will he

realize how dramatically the

ground in the Middle East has

shifted?

Mr. Bolton is author of “The

Room Where It Happened: A White

House Memoir.” He served as the

president’s national security ad-

viser, 2018-19, and ambassador to

the U.N., 2005-06.

By John Bolton

Misguided opposition in

the Senate bodes ill for

U.S. Mideast policy in the

Biden administration.

wsj_ 20201207 _a 017 p 2 jw 342000 0 a 01700 1 ____xa 2020 .crop.pdf 1 07 - Dec- 20 07 : 06 : 19