Opinion: Dishonesty all around on Gorsuch

In an op-ed for The Arizona Republic, Sen. Jeff Flake declared, “Even President Obama’s two Supreme Court nominees were recognized for their ability to do the job and confirmed without incident.” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas quoted The Wall Street Journal when he tweeted, “Never in U.S. history have we had a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Democrats of using “obstructionist tactics” to thwart the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Their hypocrisy is palpable.

In referencing President Barack Obama’s “two” Supreme Court nominees, Flake is conveniently forgetting to tell his readers that Obama made three nominations to the Supreme Court, not two: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, whom the Senate confirmed, and Judge Merrick Garland, whom Senate Republicans refused to consider even though Obama had almost a year left in his term.

Cornyn surely knows that Senate Republicans effectively engaged in a partisan filibuster of Garland’s nomination by refusing even to hold hearings.

And McConnell must recognize that he himself led “obstructionist tactics” to prevent Garland, as Obama’s nominee, from joining the court.

Regardless of the “alternative facts” the Republicans are peddling, we should all understand the GOP’s tactics last year in opposing Garland for what they were: a blatant power grab that ultimately worked.

For their part, Democratic senators who are opposing Gorsuch are not immune from this affliction. There is no principled reason to oppose Gorsuch beyond politics. On any objective measure he is qualified for the job. If Justice Antonin Scalia had passed away this past February, after President Donald Trump took office, then there would be little justification for Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination. The Republicans’ brazen action last year on Obama’s nominee clouds the current debate.
Both sides should acknowledge what is really going on: Republicans refused to consider Garland for purely political reasons; Democrats are going to filibuster Gorsuch for similarly partisan justifications.
This state of affairs shows that the Supreme Court confirmation process is broken. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself recognized, some Republican senators who voted to confirm her in 1993 “today wouldn’t touch me with a 10-foot pole.” The Senate voted to confirm Ginsburg by a 96-3 vote. That kind of bipartisanship on Supreme Court nominees is unfathomable today.

What can we do to fix the problem? For one, senators on both sides need to start telling the truth about their real motivations. Republicans should not hide behind a false claim that the Senate treated Obama’s nominees fairly.

Democrats should acknowledge that their filibuster of Gorsuch is directly related to the Republicans’ failure to consider Garland. Actually telling the truth — which should not be so unfathomable — will help voters discern whether to trust the current incumbents come the next election. Senators’ actions should have consequences, but it is difficult for average Americans to evaluate their senator’s activities without honest and accurate information.

In addition, Senate Republicans and the Trump White House should offer Democrats an olive branch. Perhaps it is an agreement to consider only names from a pre-approved list that the Democrats provide for the next vacancy. Maybe Republicans would agree to give Garland a vote if a liberal such as Ginsburg steps down. Or perhaps there is something else that would cause both sides to stand down.

And both because they are in the majority and because they were at fault last year by being so political with the Garland nomination to the Supreme Court, Republicans should be the first actors in a ceasefire. Although the confirmation process was already breaking down somewhat before last year, McConnell pushed it over the edge by refusing to consider Obama’s choice with almost a full year left in the presidential term.

Good leaders know how to compromise for the good of the country. McConnell should show his leadership skills. Both sides are obscuring their real motives for their partisan actions. Neither side’s spin is good for the country.

To get that message across to the Senate, let’s tell our representatives they must acknowledge what they are really doing and force them to account for their political power grabs. It would be the first step in fixing a truly broken process.

Exec linked to Madoff jumps to his death

Charles Murphy was found dead on the fourth-floor terrace of the Sofitel hotel on Monday, according to a police source.

“We are extremely saddened by this news,” said John Paulson, the president of Paulson & Co., a separate hedge fund where Murphy worked at the time of his death. “Charles was an extremely gifted and brilliant man, a great partner and a true friend.”

Murphy once worked for Fairfield Greenwich, which invested about $7 billion with Madoff and was later sued by investors who lost money. The fund agreed to an $80 million settlement.

Madoff was arrested in December 2008 for running the world’s largest Ponzi scheme and defrauding investors of $20 billion. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges. Now 78, he is serving 150 years in a federal prison in North Carolina.

One of Madoff’s two sons, Mark, hanged himself on the second anniversary of his father’s arrest.

Related: Madoff haunted by son’s suicide: ‘I live with that’

“I was responsible for my son Mark’s death, and that’s very, very difficult,” Madoff later told CNNMoney from prison. “I live with that.”

Shortly after Madoff’s arrest, a French businessman whose firm lost $1.4 billion to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme killed himself at his desk in his Manhattan office.

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 28, 2017: 2:47 PM ET

Selena Gomez opens up about her struggle

Story highlights

  • Selena Gomez spoke about her new Netflix series, ’13 Reasons Why,’ at a panel on Wednesday
  • The singer turned actress opened up about her life and why the show, which deals with a teenage girl struggling emotionally, ‘hits very close to home’
  • The show premieres March 31 on Netflix

“To be frank with you, I actually was going through a really difficult time when [the show] started production,” Gomez told CNN at a Netflix panel for the show on Wednesday. “I went away for 90 days and I actually met tons of kids in this place that we are talking about. A lot of the issues these characters are experiencing. I would say yes, I’ve had to deal with it on a different scale.”

The 90 days to which Gomez referred were the time she spent in a treatment center beginning last August. At the time she said part of the reason she did that was to deal with “anxiety, panic attacks and depression” which she said are side effects of her ongoing battle with Lupus. But other than one statement on the subject, she has until now largely been silent about her own struggles since then.

“Whether it was just kids or growing up in the biggest high school in the world, which was the Disney channel, it was also adults that had the audacity to kind of tell me how I should live my life,” Gomez continued. “And it was very confusing for me. It was so confusing. I had no idea who I was going to be and what I’m still going to become. It definitely hits home.”

“13 Reasons Why” is based on a young-adult novel by Jay Asher about a teenage girl who leaves behind 13 cassette tapes explaining why she committed suicide.

Gomez hopes that a younger generation will connect to this material like she has.

“It hits a very important part of me and I think this is what [kids] need to see,” she said. “They have to see something that’s going to shake them. They have to see something that’s frightening … I want them to understand it … I would do anything to have a good influence on this generation. It’s hard but I definitely relate to everything that was going on and I was there for the last episode, I was a mess just seeing it all come to life because I’ve experienced just that.”

“13 Reasons Why” premieres March 31 on Netflix.

Paralyzed man uses experimental device to regain hand movements

The early stage research has been tested in a lab with just one patient so far, yet someday it may change the lives of many with spinal cord injuries, said lead author Abidemi Bolu Ajiboye, an assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University.

Even though the system would not become immediately available to patients, Ajiboye believes that all the technical hurdles can be overcome within five to 10 years. “We actually have a handle on everything that we need. There are no significant novel discoveries we need to make for the system,” he said.

Ajiboye said that what makes this achievement unique is not the technology, but the patient. Unlike any previous experiments, a man who is nearly completely paralyzed — or tetraplegic — regained his ability to reach and grasp by virtue of a neuroprosthetic.

Cycling accident

Bill Kochevar, a resident of Cleveland, injured his spinal cord in 2006 prior to enrolling in the study.

“It was a bicycling accident,” said Ajiboye, who explained that Kochevar, 53, was doing a 150-mile bicycle ride on a rainy day. “He was following a mail truck and the mail truck stopped and he ended up running into the back of the truck,” said Ajiboye. As a result, Kochevar has paralysis below the shoulders.

“So he can’t walk, he can’t move his arms, he can’t move his hands,” said Ajiboye.

While the American Spinal Injury Association classifies him at the most disabled level of paralysis, Kochevar is capable of both speaking and moving his head. Prior to enrolling in the study, he often used head tracking software technology that relied on him moving his head to move a cursor on a screen. “But he had no ability to do any sort of functional activities,” said Ajiboye.

Kochevar underwent two surgeries fitting him with the neuroprosthetic. The first operation on December 1, 2014, implanted the brain computer interface, or BCI, in the region of Kochevar brain that is responsible for hand movement, called the motor cortex.

The BCI is an electrode array which penetrates the brain between one to one and a half millimeters, said Ajiboye.

Next, Kochevar underwent a second surgery to implant 36 muscle stimulating electrodes into his upper and lower arm. Known as functional electrical stimulation or FES, these electrodes are key to restoring movement in his finger and thumb, wrist, elbow and shoulders.

The Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center, of which Ajiboye is a part, first developed electrical stimulation technology for reanimating paralyzed function nearly 30 years ago. As Ajiboye explained, the technology is similar to a pacemaker in that it applies electrical stimulation to the muscles in order to stir movement.

After the separate technologies were implanted, the researchers connected Kochevar’s brain-computer interface to the electrical stimulators in his arm. At this point, Kochevar began learning how to use his neuroprosthetic and that process started with a virtual arm.

“We had him watch the virtual arm move, he attempted to move his arm in the same way, and that elicited some patterns of cortical activity — some patterns of electrical neural activity,” said Ajiboye.

This electrical activity was recorded and based on this recording, Ajiboye and his colleagues created a “neural decoder” — an algorithm specific to Kochevar — that could translate the patterns of Kochevar’s recorded brain signals into commands for the electrodes in his arm.

“Then we had him use our algorithm to control the virtual arm on the screen just using his brain signals,” said Ajiboye. “Very early on he could hit the target with 95 to 100% accuracy.” This ‘virtual’ step in the process helped Ajiboye and his colleagues refine the algorithm.

“Then, finally, we basically do the same thing with his actual arm. We manually move his arm, and we have him imagine he’s doing it,” said Ajiboye. Kochevar is then able to move his arm on his own by thinking the command (and so generating once again the same brain pattern when he imagined moving his arm) and this is then actuated through electrical stimulation.

Essentially, the technology circumvents the spinal injury feeding the electrical stimulation of his brain through wires to the electrodes in his arm.

After mastering simple movements, Kochevar was tested on day-to-day tasks, including drinking a cup of coffee and feeding himself. In all of these, Kochevar was successful.

“There were no significant adverse events, the system is safe, so as far as the clinical trial endpoint goes, he has met those,” said Ajiboye.

“Now he has opted voluntarily to continue working as a participant in our study for at least another five years,” said Ajiboye. Kochevar hopes to experience the benefits of the technology for himself while also seeing it advance to the point of becoming available for other people with spinal cord injuries, according to Ajiboye.

CNN attempted to contact Kochevar for comment.

‘Encouraging’ results

A previous unrelated study showed paraplegic people with spinal cord injuries using brain-machine interfaces to gain control of their brain activity and stimulate movement in their legs. A separate study used a brain-spine interface to communicate nerve signals and helped paralyzed monkeys to regain movement.
According to Andrew Schwartz, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh, the new study “shows the potential that [a brain-machine interface] can be used to reanimate a limb.” Schwartz was uninvolved with the current study.

While the “generated movements were somewhat rudimentary” with a rather limited range of action, “the attempt to use multiple degrees of freedom was encouraging,” said Schwartz.

“I liked the idea that movements were decoded first and then transformed to muscle activations,” he added. “For real movements in the real world, this transformation will be very difficult to calculate and that is where real science will be needed.”

In an editorial published alongside the study, Steve I. Perlmutter, an associate professor at University of Washington in Seattle, said the research is “groundbreaking as the first report of a person executing functional, multijoint movements of a paralysed limb with a motor neuroprosthetic. However, this treatment is not nearly ready for use outside the lab.”

Similar to Schwartz, Perlmutter noted that Kochevar’s movements were “rough and slow” and had limited range due to the necessary motorized device.

“Stimulation of nerves or the spinal cord, rather than muscles, and more sophisticated stimulation technology may provide substantial improvements,” wrote Perlmutter.

“The algorithms for this type of brain computer interface are very important, but there are many other factors that are also critical, including the ability to measure brain signals reliably for long periods of time,” Perlmutter said in an email. He added another critical issue is execution of movement.

Hurdles that all motor neuroprostheses must overcome have yet to be addressed, noted Perlmutter, including “development of devices that are small enough, robust enough, and cheap enough to be fully mobile and widely available.”

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

Ajiboye acknowledges the need for smaller technologies. Still, he said, his new study differs from previous work done in the field. Although other labs have worked with non-human primates or partially paralyzed participants, his study helped someone who is completely paralyzed.

“This is an exponentially harder problem,” said Ajiboye. “Our study is the first in the world, to my knowledge, to take someone paralyzed and give him the ability to both reach and grasp objects… so that he can regain the ability to perform functional activities of daily living.”

One other way the new study differs from previous research is Ajiboye and his colleagues built their neuroprosthetic from separate technologies, each of which had already been proven viable. This translates to the entire system, when refined, more easily gaining approval and becoming available to patients.

“The goal is to do much more than a cool science experiment,” said Ajiboye.

Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

“The Chair of the House Intelligence has a serious responsibility to the Congress and to the country,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement to CNN Monday evening. “Chairman Nunes’ discredited behavior has tarnished that office. (House) Speaker (Paul) Ryan must insist that Chairman Nunes at least recuse himself from the Trump-Russia investigation immediately. That leadership is long overdue.”

Her request came a little more than an hour after Rep. Adam Schiff, the committee’s top Democrat, requested Nunes’ recusal.

“We’ve reached the point, after the events of this week, where it would be very difficult to maintain the credibility of the investigation if the chairman did not recuse himself from matters involving either the Trump campaign or the Trump transition team of which he was a member,” Schiff told CNN on Monday.

“The questions are profound enough that I think we need to move past it, and ideally that would mean the chairman ought to recuse himself, not only from the investigation involving potential coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but also any oversight of minimization issues affecting the Trump transition since he was a member of that Trump transition team.”

Nunes, however, told CNN Tuesday morning he was “moving forward” with the investigation.

Pelosi and Schiff’s requests Monday followed a meeting of the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, a panel typically seen as more above the political fray than other committees in the House. Two sources on the committee told CNN the panel has scrapped all meetings this week amid the partisan rancor.

Ryan still supports Nunes, spokeswoman AshLee Strong said Monday, and will not ask him to recuse himself.

“Speaker Ryan has full confidence that Chairman Nunes is conducting a thorough, fair, and credible investigation,” Strong said.

The request for recusal marks a critical split between Schiff and Nunes, who had worked closely on the House investigation into ties between top aides to the campaign of President Donald Trump and Russian officials.

It comes just hours after CNN reported that Nunes visited the White House grounds one day before going to the President with evidence that his transition aides’ communications were picked up in surveillance by US intelligence.

“This is not a recommendation I make lightly, as the chairman and I have worked together well for several years; and I take this step with the knowledge of the solemn responsibility we have on the Intelligence Committee to provide oversight on all intelligence matters, not just to conduct the investigation,” Schiff said Monday.

Nunes defended his handling of the investigation as well as his relationship to the White House during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Monday.

“The Congress has not been given this information, these documents, and that’s the problem,” Nunes said on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” explaining why he went to the White House. “This is Executive Branch.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro, in an interview Monday evening with CNN’s Erin Burnett on “OutFront,” echoed Schiff’s call.

“Actions taken by the chairman have compromised the investigation,” Castro said. “Chairman Nunes at this point should recuse himself from this investigation.”

He said Nunes, who was a member of Trump’s transition team, was too invested in Trump’s political agenda, and acting in a partisan way.

“I understand that for members of Congress, there is of course an inclination to help a President who’s of your party,” Castro said. “You simply can’t do that. … You have to be able to separate yourself from that.”

Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain — two frequent critics of the Trump administration and Russia — joined in criticism of Nunes Tuesday morning, though they stopped short of calling for the chairman to recuse himself.

Graham told NBC’s “Today” show that Nunes “has to repair the damage,” though he added that “the House is off track and probably can’t get back on track.”

“If he’s not willing to tell the Democrats and the Republicans on the committee who he met with and what he was told, he has lost his ability to lead,” Graham said, “and the Democrats on the committee are becoming prosecutors.”

And McCain said Nunes needs to provide more answers.

“I think there needs to be a lot of explaining to do. I’ve been around for quite a while and I’ve never heard of any such thing,” the Arizona Republican said on CBS’s “This Morning,” referring to Nunes’ White House visit. “Obviously, in a committee like an intelligence committee, you got to have bipartisanship otherwise the committee loses credibility. And so there’s so much out there that needs to be explained by the chairman.”

This story has been updated to include breaking news.

CNN’s Deirdre Walsh, Manu Raju, David Wright and Eugene Scott contributed to this report.

Adele’s shocking news for fans

‘);$vidEndSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–active’);}};CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;var configObj = {thumb: ‘none’,video: ‘cnnmoney/2017/03/28/adele-might-quit-touring-orig-vstan.cnn’,width: ‘100%’,height: ‘100%’,section: ‘domestic’,profile: ‘expansion’,network: ‘cnn’,markupId: ‘large-media_0’,adsection: ‘const-video-leaf’,frameWidth: ‘100%’,frameHeight: ‘100%’,posterImageOverride: {“mini”:{“height”:124,”width”:220,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328113616-adele-o2-arena-small-169.jpg”},”xsmall”:{“height”:173,”width”:307,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328113616-adele-o2-arena-medium-plus-169.jpg”},”small”:{“height”:259,”width”:460,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328113616-adele-o2-arena-large-169.jpg”},”medium”:{“height”:438,”width”:780,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328113616-adele-o2-arena-exlarge-169.jpg”},”large”:{“height”:619,”width”:1100,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328113616-adele-o2-arena-super-169.jpg”},”full16x9″:{“height”:900,”width”:1600,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328113616-adele-o2-arena-full-169.jpg”},”mini1x1″:{“height”:120,”width”:120,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328113616-adele-o2-arena-small-11.jpg”}}},autoStartVideo = false,callbackObj,containerEl,currentVideoCollection = [{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/adele-might-quit-touring-orig-vstan.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/28/adele-might-quit-touring-orig-vstan.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/adele-might-quit-touring-orig-vstan.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/is-facebook-turning-into-snapchat-cnnmoney.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/28/is-facebook-turning-into-snapchat-cnnmoney.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/is-facebook-turning-into-snapchat-cnnmoney.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/recreational-marijuana-las-vegas-strip-cnnmoney.cnnmoney/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/28/recreational-marijuana-las-vegas-strip-cnnmoney.cnnmoney”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/recreational-marijuana-las-vegas-strip-cnnmoney.cnnmoney/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/steve-mnuchin-lego-batman-controversy-es-sot.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/28/steve-mnuchin-lego-batman-controversy-es-sot.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/steve-mnuchin-lego-batman-controversy-es-sot.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/27/bulletproof-clothing.cnnmoney/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/27/bulletproof-clothing.cnnmoney”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/27/bulletproof-clothing.cnnmoney/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/26/republicans-seek-unity-democrats-health-care-change-orig-llr.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/26/republicans-seek-unity-democrats-health-care-change-orig-llr.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/26/republicans-seek-unity-democrats-health-care-change-orig-llr.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/24/ripcord-robot-ai-scan-sort-digitize-paper-cnnmoney.cnnmoney/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/24/ripcord-robot-ai-scan-sort-digitize-paper-cnnmoney.cnnmoney”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/24/ripcord-robot-ai-scan-sort-digitize-paper-cnnmoney.cnnmoney/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/26/electronics-ban-the-scene-at-the-airport-cnnmoney.cnn-money/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/26/electronics-ban-the-scene-at-the-airport-cnnmoney.cnn-money”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/26/electronics-ban-the-scene-at-the-airport-cnnmoney.cnn-money/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/25/alexis-ohanian-serena-williams.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/25/alexis-ohanian-serena-williams.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/25/alexis-ohanian-serena-williams.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/17/lamborghini-suv-off-road.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/17/lamborghini-suv-off-road.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/17/lamborghini-suv-off-road.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/27/united-twitter-dress-code.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/27/united-twitter-dress-code.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/27/united-twitter-dress-code.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/27/3d-printer-robot-voodoo-manufacturing-jobs-cnnmoney.cnnmoney/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/27/3d-printer-robot-voodoo-manufacturing-jobs-cnnmoney.cnnmoney”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/27/3d-printer-robot-voodoo-manufacturing-jobs-cnnmoney.cnnmoney/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/26/melissa-mccarthy-sean-spicer-ellen-orig-vstan-bpb.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/26/melissa-mccarthy-sean-spicer-ellen-orig-vstan-bpb.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/26/melissa-mccarthy-sean-spicer-ellen-orig-vstan-bpb.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/27/bill-gross-pimco-settlement-cnnmoney.cnnmoney/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/27/bill-gross-pimco-settlement-cnnmoney.cnnmoney”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/27/bill-gross-pimco-settlement-cnnmoney.cnnmoney/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/bill-oreilly-maxine-waters-fox-and-friends-cnnmoneu.fox-news/index.xml”,”videoId”:”cnnmoney/2017/03/28/bill-oreilly-maxine-waters-fox-and-friends-cnnmoneu.fox-news”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/cnnmoney/2017/03/28/bill-oreilly-maxine-waters-fox-and-friends-cnnmoneu.fox-news/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/”}],currentVideoCollectionId = ”,isLivePlayer = false,moveToNextTimeout,mutePlayerEnabled = false,nextVideoId = ”,nextVideoUrl = ”,turnOnFlashMessaging = false,videoPinner,videoEndSlateImpl;if (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === false) {autoStartVideo = true;if (autoStartVideo === true) {if (turnOnFlashMessaging === true) {autoStartVideo = false;containerEl = jQuery(document.getElementById(configObj.markupId));CNN.VideoPlayer.showFlashSlate(containerEl);} else {CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = true;}}}configObj.autostart = autoStartVideo;CNN.VideoPlayer.setPlayerProperties(configObj.markupId, autoStartVideo, isLivePlayer, mutePlayerEnabled);CNN.VideoPlayer.setFirstVideoInCollection(currentVideoCollection, configObj.markupId);var embedLinkHandler = {},videoPinner,embedCodeCopy;function onVideoCarouselItemClicked(evt) {‘use strict’;var videoId,articleElem,videoPlayer,thumbImageElem,thumbImageLargeSource,overrides = {videoCollection: this.videoCollection,autostart: false},shouldStartVideo = false,playerInstance;try {articleElem = jQuery(evt.currentTarget).find(‘article’);thumbImageElem = jQuery(articleElem).find(‘.media__image’);videoId = articleElem.data().videoId;if (CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(configObj.markupId) === ‘fave’) {playerInstance = FAVE.player.getInstance(configObj.markupId);if (CNN.Utils.existsObject(playerInstance) &&typeof playerInstance.getVideoData === ‘function’ &&playerInstance.getVideoData().id !== videoId) {/* Remove videoobject metadata script.If the user click other than initial loaded video */jQuery(articleElem).closest(‘.cn-carousel-medium-strip’).parent().find(‘script[name=”metaScript”]’).remove();playerInstance.play(videoId, overrides);}} else {videoPlayer = CNNVIDEOAPI.CNNVideoManager.getInstance().getPlayerByContainer(configObj.markupId);if (videoPlayer && videoPlayer.videoInstance) {/** if videoPlayer.videoInstance.cvp is null that means it’s not initialized yet so* pass in the thumbnail, too.*/if (!videoPlayer.videoInstance.cvp) {if (typeof thumbImageElem !== ‘undefined’ && thumbImageElem !== null) {thumbImageLargeSource = thumbImageElem.data() && thumbImageElem.data().srcLarge ? thumbImageElem.data().srcLarge : ‘none’;}overrides.thumb = thumbImageLargeSource ? thumbImageLargeSource : ‘none’;shouldStartVideo = true;}if (videoPlayer.videoInstance.config) {if (videoPlayer.videoInstance.config.video !== videoId) {/* Remove videoobject metadata script.If the user click other than initial loaded video */jQuery(articleElem).closest(‘.cn-carousel-medium-strip’).parent().find(‘script[name=”metaScript”]’).remove();CNNVIDEOAPI.CNNVideoManager.getInstance().playVideo(configObj.markupId, videoId, overrides);}/* Video player isn’t autoplay, so init itif (shouldStartVideo && this.carouselClickAutostartsVideo) {try {videoPlayer.videoInstance.start();} catch (startError) {console.log(“error in initializing video player” + startError);}}*/}}}} catch (error) {console.log(“error in initializing video player” + error);}}function setInitialVideoEmbed() {}function initialize(){var carousel = jQuery(document.getElementById(‘cn-current_video_collection’)).find(‘.js-owl-carousel’),owl;if (carousel) {carousel.find(‘.cn__column.carousel__content__item’).find(‘a’).removeAttr(‘href’);jQuery(carousel).on(‘click’, ‘.cn__column.carousel__content__item’, onVideoCarouselItemClicked);}}if (CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(configObj.markupId) === ‘videoLoader’) {window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers = window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers ? window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers : [];window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers.push(initialize);window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers.push(setInitialVideoEmbed);} else {initialize();}CNN.INJECTOR.executeFeature(‘videx’).done(function () {var initMeta = {id:”cnnmoney/2017/03/28/adele-might-quit-touring-orig-vstan.cnn”, isEmbeddable: “yes”};CNN.Videx.EmbedButton.updateCode(initMeta);}).fail(function () {throw ‘Unable to fetch the videx bundle.’;});function updateCurrentlyPlaying(videoId) {var videoCollectionId = ‘current_video_collection’,videocardContents = getCurrentVideoCardContents(videoId),carousel = jQuery(document.getElementById(‘cn-current_video_collection’)).find(‘.js-owl-carousel’),domain = CNN.Host.domain || (document.location.protocol + ‘//’ + document.location.hostname),owl,$owlFirstItem,$owlPrevItem,showDetailsSpanContent = ”,gigyaShareElement,showIndex,whatsappShareElement,$carouselContentItems = jQuery(‘.carousel__content__item’, document.getElementById(‘cn-current_video_collection’));gigyaShareElement = jQuery(‘div.js-gigya-sharebar’);if (typeof gigyaShareElement !== ‘undefined’) {jQuery(gigyaShareElement).attr(‘data-title’, videocardContents.headlinePlainText || ”);jQuery(gigyaShareElement).attr(‘data-description’, videocardContents.descriptionPlainText || ”);jQuery(gigyaShareElement).attr(‘data-link’, domain + videocardContents.url || ”);jQuery(gigyaShareElement).attr(‘data-image-src’, videocardContents.media.elementContents.imageUrl || ”);}whatsappShareElement = jQuery(‘div.share-bar-whatsapp-container’);if (typeof whatsappShareElement !== ‘undefined’) {jQuery(whatsappShareElement).attr(‘data-title’, videocardContents.headlinePlainText || ”);jQuery(whatsappShareElement).attr(‘data-storyurl’, domain + videocardContents.url || ”);}if (carousel && currentVideoCollectionContainsId(videoId)) {owl = carousel.data(‘owl.carousel’) || {};showIndex = getCurrentVideoIndex(videoId);if (typeof owl.to === ‘function’) {owl.to(showIndex);}$owlPrevItem = CNN.Utils.exists(owl.$element) ? owl.$element.find(‘.cd.cd–active’) : $carouselContentItems.find(‘.cd.cd–active’);$owlPrevItem.removeClass(‘cd–active’);$owlPrevItem.find(‘.media__over-text’).remove();$owlPrevItem.find(‘.media__icon’).show();$owlFirstItem = CNN.Utils.exists(owl._items) ? jQuery(owl._items[showIndex]) : $carouselContentItems.eq(showIndex);$owlFirstItem.find(‘.cd’).addClass(‘cd–active’);$owlFirstItem.find(‘.media a:first-child’).append(‘

Now Playing

‘);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone) {$owlFirstItem.find(‘.media__icon’).hide();}}CNN.Videx.Metadata.init({dateCreated: videocardContents.dateCreated,descriptionText: videocardContents.descriptionText,duration: videocardContents.duration,sourceLink: videocardContents.sourceLink,sourceName: videocardContents.sourceName,title: videocardContents.headlineText},{videoCollectionDivId: ‘cn-76ilae’,videoDescriptionDivId: ‘js-video_description-76ilae’,videoDurationDivId: ‘js-video_duration-76ilae’,videoTitleDivId: ‘js-leaf-video_headline-76ilae’,videoSourceDivId: ‘js-video_sourceName-76ilae’});if (CNN.Utils.exists(videocardContents.showName)) {if (CNN.Utils.exists(videocardContents.showUrl)) {showDetailsSpanContent = ‘‘ + videocardContents.showName + ‘ | ‘;} else {showDetailsSpanContent = videocardContents.showName + ‘ | ‘;}}fastdom.measure(function getShowInfo() {var $show = jQuery(‘.metadata__show’),$isShowDetailsSpanExists = $show.find(‘span’).hasClass(‘metadata–show__name’),$showName = jQuery(‘.metadata–show__name’);fastdom.mutate(function updateShowInfo() {if (!$isShowDetailsSpanExists) {$show.prepend(‘

Inscrutable Gorsuch raises Democratic ire

Gorsuch declined to explain his legal views or offer an assessment of past Supreme Court cases. He said he decides disputes based only on the facts and the law.

“There’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge,” he asserted. “We just have judges in this country.”

In countless ways, the man President Donald Trump has chosen to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia downplayed the judicial branch and the importance of a single justice appointed to a lifetime seat.

But that message belies the many 5-4 rulings in recent years that have changed American life and the reality that judges cannot always look simply to the facts and relevant law to resolve a dispute.

The Constitution contains concepts, not clear-cut formulas. And while justices resist characterization based on ideology or politics, their voting patterns can suggest policy preferences. The current four justices appointed by Republican presidents vote, by and large, for conservative results; the four Democratic appointees vote generally for liberal outcomes.

Gorsuch’s record on a Denver-based US appeals court indicates he would align with Scalia’s views as a fifth conservative justice. That would return the court to the 5-4 posture that produced such decisions as the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which lifted limits on corporate money in elections, and 2013 Shelby County v. Holder, which curtailed voting-rights protections for racial minorities and others who face discrimination at the polls.

Along the same 5-4 lines, the justices in recent years have restricted class-action claims by consumers and workers; allowed more religion in public life, such as prayer at local government meetings; and rejected challenges to the death penalty.

One major exception to that ideological pattern was the 5-4 ruling in 2012 that upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care law, which Trump and the House Republican leadership failed to repeal in a stunning legislative defeat last week.

Chief Justice John Roberts cast the decisive vote in the case, siding with the four liberals in preserving Obamacare based on his reasoning about federal taxing power. Roberts’ most vocal critics at the time, including Trump, viewed the move as political, not grounded in facts and law.

For his part, Gorsuch refused to explain his views of congressional authority and separation of powers or constitutional due process and equality in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. He did not tip his hand on how he would resolve disputes over a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, a key question for senators on both sides of the aisle.

To be sure, the 49-year-old federal appellate judge is not the first Supreme Court nominee to keep his views close to the vest, but he did it to a greater extent.

“What worries me,” said the committee’s ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, of California, “is that you have been very much able to avoid specificity like no one I have ever seen before.”

Rising stakes

The current Supreme Court is split 4-4 on many tough issues and has been cautious about taking up thorny new disputes while shorthanded. The bench has been without a ninth justice for more than 400 days, since February 13, 2016, when Scalia was found dead at a Texas hunting resort. The 79-year-old justice apparently died in his sleep.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland, chief judge of the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a year ago this month, but Senate Republicans refused to act on the nomination.

Within two weeks of taking the oath of office in January, Trump tapped Gorsuch. At the same time, the President has undertaken a series of initiatives, such as barring travelers from certain Muslim-majority countries, that have prompted a flood of legal challenges and raised the stakes at the high court.

Despite Democratic concerns about Gorsuch’s record and vague testimony, he is likely to be confirmed. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has threatened to block a vote on the nominee through a filibuster, which would require 60 votes to overcome, Republicans, who hold 52 seats, have threatened to get around the move by changing Senate rules to allow a simple majority of senators to cut off debate and allow a vote.

Some Democrats do not want to lose the filibuster tradition, especially considering that Trump could see more opportunities to alter the court’s ideological balance given the ages of some justices. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, turned 84 this month, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, the most centrist conservative and a key vote in favor of gay marriage and abortion rights, will be 81 in July.

Defining Judge Gorsuch

As a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2006, Gorsuch has narrowly interpreted constitutional rights and statutory benefits. He takes an “originalist” approach, reading the Constitution in terms of its 18th Century understanding.

Separately, the Harvard law graduate who studied at the University of Oxford, wrote a book, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” that argues against medical aid in dying and deems the intentional taking of human life by private persons “always wrong.”

Overall, he believes societal dilemmas should be left to Congress and elected lawmakers in the states.

“Sometimes we judges judge best when we judge least,” he told senators.

Two of his court opinions drew particular Senate scrutiny. In one, Gorsuch ruled against a truck driver whose trailer broke down in subzero temperatures. The brakes had frozen, and after becoming numb in the cold (the heat was not working in the cab), the driver unhitched the rig and temporarily drove away. His employer fired him for leaving the trailer.

The 10th Circuit ruled for the trucker, who claimed that under the circumstances he should have been protected by federal worker-safety law. Gorsuch dissented, noting that the truck company told the driver to sit and wait for help and finding that his claim fell outside the law’s plain meaning.

Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota mocked the result as “absurd” and pressed Gorsuch about what he would have done under the circumstances.

“Senator, I don’t know,” Gorsuch said. “I wasn’t in the man’s shoes.”

In another case highlighted by Democrats, Gorsuch narrowly interpreted a federal law that requires equal opportunity for children with disabilities in school instruction and services. In a decision for the 10th Circuit against an autistic child’s claim, Gorsuch said the law dictates that schools provide benefits “merely … more than de minimis.”

In a similar case that the Supreme Court resolved, as it happens, while Gorsuch was testifying Wednesday, the justices rejected that reasoning. By a unanimous vote, the court said in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts that the standard of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is “markedly more demanding” that the one adopted by Gorsuch.

“When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all,” Roberts wrote.

Gorsuch told senators he had adhered to 10th Circuit precedent. “If anyone is suggesting that I like a result where an autistic child has to lose, that’s a heartbreaking accusation,” he said.

“A good judge” follows precedent even if he does not favor the outcome, Gorsuch stressed during his three days of testimony before the senators.

But on the assertion that judges always set aside personal values, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “I don’t buy that.”

Durbin said decisions cannot be “so robotic, so programmatic that all you need to do is look at the facts and look at the law and there’s an obvious conclusion.”

Gorsuch said if he revealed his legal thinking, he could be seen as promising to vote a certain way and signaling to litigants that he lacked an open mind. Sitting at the plain desk he chose over the usual stately draped table, Gorsuch stuck to his opening theme: “Putting on a robe reminds us that it’s time to lose our egos and open our minds. … Ours is a judiciary of honest black polyester.”

Democrats seemed more concerned about what he might have promised, even implicitly, to Trump and the conservative advocates from the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation who vetted him. Trump has vowed to appoint judges who would overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal nationwide.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, asked the nominee what he would have done if Trump had asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“I would have walked out the door,” Gorsuch answered. “That’s not what judges do.”

How much sex should you be having?

In what might be welcome news for everyone exhausted from work and frazzled from kids, research suggests you don’t have to get down every day to reap the rewards of sex, at least in terms of happiness and relationship closeness.

“I do think couples can end up feeling pressure to try to engage in sex as frequently as possible,” said Amy Muise, a postdoctoral researcher studying sexual relationships at Dalhousie University in Canada. Once a week “is maybe a more realistic goal to set than thinking you have to have sex everyday and that feels overwhelming and you avoid it,” said Muise, who is lead author of the study, which was published in November in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The study found that sex could boost happiness because it makes people feel more satisfied in their relationship, based on survey data from two separate cohorts, including 2,400 married couples in the U.S. National Survey of Families and Households.

“For people in relationships, their romantic relationship quality is one of the biggest predictors of their overall happiness,” Muise said. “Having sex more than once a week might not be enhancing that (relationship connection), although it is not bad.”

However, there are a couple of rubs with this research, Muise said. One is that it is not clear which came first, sex or happiness. It may be that people who have sex once a week or more were happier in their relationship and life to begin with, and not that the sex helped make them happy. Or both may be true: Sex enhances happiness and happiness enhances sex.

The other catch is that, although a weekly romp might be just what some people need, it might be too much or too little for others. “Certainly there are couples for whom having sex less frequently will be fine for their happiness, and there are couples who will get increases in happiness if they have sex more than once a week,” Muise said.

What’s the right number for you?

“One of the best effects of an article like this (by Muise and her colleagues) is that it opens up conversations with couples” about their sex life, said Vanessa Marin, a sex therapist based in Berlin. For some couples, the question of how often they should have sex might not have come up, which could be a sign they feel sufficiently close and satisfied — or that they are just too busy or disconnected to think about it.

“Most couples want to be having more sex and I think this is really a result of how busy and full most of our lives are,” Marin said.

Marin avoids prescribing an amount of sex that couples should have, because every couple is different, and instead recommends couples test it out for themselves. “I’m a big fan of having clients experiment, like, one month try to have sex twice a week and see how that goes, or once a week, try to play around with it,” Marin said.

As for those lucky couples that are content with how often they get busy under the sheets, one study suggests they may not want to change a thing. Researchers asked couples that were having sex about six times a month to double down on getting down. Couples that doubled their sexual frequency were in worse moods and enjoyed sex less at the end of three months than couples who had stuck to their usual level of bedroom activity.

“Being told you should do something always makes it less fun,” said George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University and lead author of the study. That is another reason Marin does not make recommendations to couples about sexual frequency — for fear they could worry they are not living up to expectations and lose their mojo.

However, there’s a far bigger relationship problem than couples worrying they aren’t having quite enough sex — “couples that have pretty much stopped having sex,” Loewenstein said. For these couples, “I think once a week is a good final goal. … It is almost like a natural constant to do it once a week,” he said.

Even if these abstinent couples want to be having more sex, they may lack the desire for their partner. These couples can try conventional strategies, such as scheduling more quality time together or trying a change in scenery. “What couple has not had the experience that you go to a hotel in a new location in a new environment and the person you’re with seems different, and different is good when it comes to sex,” Loewenstein said.

But if these tricks aren’t enough, couples may have to appeal to their rational rather than lustful side and tell themselves to just do it. “These couples might be surprised how enjoyable it would be if they restarted,” Loewenstein said.

Should you schedule your sex?

It might sound like the least romantic thing in the world to pencil in sexy time with your partner. But if you and your partner are game to try, there is no reason not to make a sex schedule.

“For some couples, scheduling sex works really well, it gives them something to look forward to, they like the anticipation, they like feeling prioritized,” Marin said. “Then other couples (say) scheduling sex feels horrible to them, like sex is transactional and just another item on their to-do list.”

Again, Marin recommends couples experiment with scheduling sex to see if it helps them, as long as neither is opposed to it.

A good idea for all couples, whether they like the idea of scheduling sex, is to plan for quality time together — just the two of them. Ideally, this would be about 20 minutes a day with the TV off and cell phones away, but for extra busy couples, it can help to reserve just five minutes a day for a tete-a-tete, Marin said. This time is also the “container for sex,” the time and privacy when sex can be initiated, but you don’t have to feel pressure about it, she added.

Although scheduling sex can help couples that want to be having sex but just can’t find the time, it can make things worse for some. “If there are relationship issues or psychological issues such as stress or anxiety, then scheduling sex might just add to the pressure,” said Acacia Parks, associate professor of psychology at Hiram College.

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

As for when to schedule the sex, the best time is probably the time when you are least likely to be pulled away by life’s obligations. One of the perks of rise-and-shine sex is that testosterone levels are highest in the morning, and this hormone drives sexual desire. On the other hand, tuck-you-in sex could help lull you to sleep, as hormones released during orgasm could help you relax and feel tired.

According to Muise, the participants in her research typically reported having sex at night before going to sleep, which is not that surprising. But it has to work for both parties. “This is another point of negotiation between partners,” Muise said. “One of them is just too exhausted. That might be something to play around with, is there a time on the weekend that we could try instead.”

White House denies it tried to keep Yates from testifying

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday the White House did not seek to block Yates’ testimony and denied that the White House had pressured the House Intelligence Committee to cancel her scheduled testimony.

“I hope she testifies. I look forward to it,” Spicer said during the White House briefing. “We have no problem with her testifying, plain and simple.”

The letter was sent on the same day that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes canceled a previously scheduled hearing where Yates was scheduled to testify about ties between Trump advisers and Russian officials. Yates briefed Trump’s White House counsel on former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s meeting with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

The White House Counsel’s office did not weigh in on the matter of Yates’ testimony, a White House official said.

“There is no letter from the White House because Yates attorney’s letter clearly states a non-response will be seen as the White House not asserting executive privilege,” the official said. “So our non-response clearly allows her to freely move forward with testifying.”

Yates’ attorney David O’Neil said in a letter Friday to White House Counsel Don McGahn that Yates would go forward with her testimony and “conclude that the White House does not assert executive privilege” if he did not receive a response by Monday.

Spicer said the White House does not believe executive privilege should be an issue in Yates testifying, which is why McGahn did not respond.

Nunes spokesperson Jack Langer told CNN that neither Nunes nor any intelligence committee staffers spoke with the White House about Yates’ scheduled testimony.

“The only person the committee has spoken to about her appearing before the committee has been her lawyer. The committee asked her to testify on our own accord and we still intend to have her speak to us,” Langer said.

O’Neil, Yates’ attorney, declined to comment or provide the letter he sent to the White House Counsel’s office when contacted by CNN Tuesday.

Yates served as acting attorney general in the early days of the Trump administration until she was fired for refusing to implement President Donald Trump’s order barring travelers form seven Muslim-majority countries.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he was “aware that former AG Yates intended to speak on these matters and sought permission to testify from the White House.”

“Whether the White House’s desire to avoid a public claim of executive privilege to keep her from providing the full truth on what happened contributed to the decision to cancel today’s hearing, we do not know,” Schiff said in statement Tuesday morning. “But we would urge that the open hearing be rescheduled without further delay and that Ms. Yates be permitted to testify freely and openly.”

Rep. Mike Turner, a Republican on the committee, defended Nunes’ decision to postpone the hearing on Tuesday, saying that Nunes needed to hear from FBI Director James Comey in a classified setting before he could hear from Yates publicly.

“That came well before any of this controversy,” Turner told CNN’s Erin Burnett on “OutFront.” “She will voluntarily come. We asked her to. It was the Chairman’s request she be there. The White House isn’t stopping her.”

CNN’s Evan Perez, Theodore Schleifer, Kevin Liptak and Tom LoBianco contributed to this report.

United Airlines was right to bar leggings

The reality is a bit more complicated.
The controversy began when Shannon Watts, who founded Moms Demand Action to fight gun violence, tweeted that she saw a United staff member bar girls in leggings from boarding a flight. She wanted to know if it was because “spandex is not allowed.”

Actress Patricia Arquette quickly followed up, tweeting to her followers: “Leggings are business attire for 10 year olds. Their business is being children.”

And United scrambled to explain itself, eventually saying that the travelers were on “company benefit travel,” for which there’s a dress code that doesn’t apply to all other travelers.

United’s tweet was correct. Arquette’s tweet was also clever, and correct — about ten-year-olds in general, but not in this situation.

Of course, the “Internet” did not really “erupt.” People were angry on Twitter. And there’s a huge difference.

Only 21 percent of all adults online in the United States even use Twitter. And that 21 percent? They don’t always represent the public at large. Sometimes they just represent what really vocal people think.

Think of the angriest, most opinionated guy in your office. Does he speak for you and your colleagues? Probably not.

The point is, sometimes the people who erupt on Twitter aren’t representative — they’re reactive. That’s what happened here.

As a general rule, are leggings improper attire? For shopping at Target, no way. For ten year olds? Generally, no. For anyone — adult or child — attending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner? It might be inappropriate. It depends. Context matters.

For airlines? Leggings are on the high end of what people wear nowadays. People used to dress up for air travel, even for vacations. Now adults routinely dress like they’re going to a slumber party when they fly. So people initially learning of the leggings story had to know there was more to the story, before anyone “erupted” on Twitter.

Here’s the rest of the story: the passengers were “Pass Riders.” United employees or their dependents can fly standby on a space-available basis. They pay a fraction of what the rest of us pay. But there are tradeoffs. Pass Riders are prioritized last on standby.

Plus, “non-revs,” short for “non-revenue,” are subjected to a dress code, which only they can access on the United website with a password; it’s not publicly available.

United’s code bans, among many other things, form-fitting and lycra/spandex clothing, or anything inappropriately revealing. Non-revs are perceived as a kind of unidentified representative of the airline, sometimes known only to the flight crew. Pass Riders — even a ten-year-old child — are treated more like United employees than members of the public.

Was a United employee a little overzealous in this case? Probably. But denying boarding to Pass Riders was within the employee’s discretion. Airline employees have a lot of discretion, if you haven’t noticed.

When it comes to non-revenue passengers, airlines have even more discretion. The airline, at its sole discretion, may cancel pass travel privileges for conduct deemed “detrimental” to United.

I once flew “non-rev,” in college, thanks to the kindness of others, who took pity on a twenty-year old with a negative account balance. I naively wore jeans and was almost denied boarding. I should have known better. They cut me a break. That was back in 1999. The point is, this system has been around for a while.

Nowadays, it’s not an oppressive dress code either — it’s well below the “business casual” that people with actual jobs wear to work. Pass Riders can apparently even wear jeans and sneakers now, too. The airline just asks that they dress in a way that, at a minimum, raises the bar of air apparel on the flight. The idea appears to be this: the other passengers may not know who you are, but we know, and we want you to help us with the aesthetics, not be part of the problem.

In this case, people on Twitter simply didn’t understand the Pass Rider system, and instead saw what they wanted to see: a nationwide ban on yoga pants, or misogynist, ageist policies of discrimination against women and children. And just like that, an outrage was born.

Frankly, the real controversy should be more about improving dress code standards on airplanes, not relaxing them. Have you flown lately? People are allowed on planes barefoot and shirtless these days.

Where’s the Twitter outrage when that happens?

If you want to push a candle through a paper plate and hold a vigil, protesting the bare-chested old guy in the exit row is a noble cause. There’s no reason to erupt over a dress code that is part of an agreed-upon contract between airline and Pass Rider. All the airline is trying to do is raise the standards of those under its control. The general public should try to do the same.