LIKE A MISSING VERSE TO 'CAT'S IN THE CRADLE' — In the debate over taxing the rich, a powerful father and his son are duking it out in public on opposite sides of the issue. On the one side is ADAM WYDEN, the 37-year-old owner of ADW Capital Partners, "the kind of hedge fund that Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee would like to tax more heavily," NYT's Jonathan Weisman writes. Enter his father, RON WYDEN, who just so happens to chair that very committee. "'The issue is bigger than my father. I'm not interested in discussing anything personal,' [Adam Wyden] said in a brief phone call before declining to go further. … His father would like to avoid the subject all together. 'He doesn't talk to me about his business, and I don't talk to him about mine,' Senator Wyden, 72, said in an interview on Wednesday." SCOTUS' BUSY FRIDAY — This morning, the Supreme Court did three big things: 1) It declined to strike down S.B. 8, the Texas law that allows private citizens to sue anyone they suspect of having aided in the attainment of an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. 2) It opened the door for Texas abortion clinics to continue challenging the restrictive law, while deciding who abortion rights supporters can and cannot sue for relief. Can be sued: Some state licensing officials (an 8-1 vote). Cannot be sued: State judges (9-0), the Texas attorney general and state court clerks (5-4). 3) It rebuffed the Biden administration, turning aside an appeal by the Department of Justice that sought to block the Texas law. Josh Gerstein and Alice Miranda Ollstein have the details: "Though the court's conservative majority slammed the door on several legal avenues abortion clinics and doctors sought to use to nullify the statute, they said state courts could act to block the law, and federal courts may be able to limit some fallout from the statute, like the threat to doctors' licenses. That may be enough to obtain definitive rulings on the constitutionality of the law in federal court and dissipate the chilling effect that has dramatically reduced the availability of abortion in the state. "Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS and the court's three liberal justices partially dissented, saying the high court should have permitted the law's opponents to seek to block it more directly by suing local court clerks who accept the privately filed suits." — From the majority ruling, by Justice NEIL GORSUCH: "In this preliminary posture, the ultimate merits question — whether S.B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution — is not before the Court. Nor is the wisdom of S. B. 8 as a matter of public policy. … [T]he 'chilling effect' associated with a potentially unconstitutional law being 'on the books' is insufficient to 'justify federal intervention' in a pre-enforcement suit." — From Roberts' dissent: "The clear purpose and actual effect of S.B. 8 has been to nullify this Court's rulings. … Indeed, '[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,'" he wrote, quoting the ruling in 1809's United States v. Peters. "The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake." — From Justice SONIA SOTOMAYOR's dissent: "By foreclosing suit against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the Court effectively invites other States to refine S.B. 8's model for nullifying federal rights. The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government. … This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of JOHN C. CALHOUN , a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to 'veto' or 'nullif[y]' any federal law with which they disagreed. … The Nation fought a Civil War over that proposition, but Calhoun's theories were not extinguished. … [T]he Court leaves all manner of constitutional rights more vulnerable than ever before, to the great detriment of our Constitution and our Republic." — And that, from Sotomayor, prompted a rebuttal from Gorsuch: "That rhetoric bears no relation to reality. The truth is, many paths exist to vindicate the supremacy of federal law in this area. … Sotomayor's suggestion that the Court's ruling somehow 'clears the way' for the 'nullification' of federal law along the lines of what happened in the Jim Crow South not only wildly mischaracterizes the impact of today's decision, it cheapens the gravity of past wrongs." INFLATION HITS HISTORIC LEVELS — As we predicted this morning, President JOE BIDEN received pretty sour news today: a new consumer price index report showing that inflation rates spiked again in November. "Costs for key goods and services soared 0.8 percent for the month and 6.8 percent for the year, the highest since 1982, the Labor Department reported Friday," our own Ben White writes in his breakdown of the new numbers. "Prices for everything from food to automobiles have been surging as blistering demand from cash-rich consumers in a growing economy overwhelms a supply chain plagued by a lack of available workers." — That comes as inflation has overtaken the pandemic as voters' number-one issue, according to a new CNBC poll . "Biden's overall approval rating stabilized at a low level of 41%, about the same level as former President DONALD TRUMP's, compared to 50% who disapprove," writes CNBC's Steve Liesman. "But Biden's approval rating on handling the economy and dealing with the coronavirus both declined. At 46% approval to 48% disapproval, Biden's approval rating on the coronavirus is now underwater for the first time. His economic approval sank more deeply underwater, with 37% approving compared to 56% who disapprove, down from 40% approval to 54% in the second quarter survey." — Biden isn't the only Democrat getting hit over soaring inflation. Burgess Everett reports that "One Nation, a GOP group, is launching roughly $4.3 million in new ads aimed at a trio of incumbent Democratic senators: CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO of Nevada, MARK KELLY of Arizona and MAGGIE HASSAN of New Hampshire, according to a person familiar with the effort. The three ads, which begin airing on Friday, declare inflation is 'killing us' and direct viewers to lean on the senators to oppose the forthcoming $1.7 trillion legislation." — And that might affect Biden's entire agenda. As Ben notes, the political concern about the issue, plus the ugly new CPI numbers "could embolden conservative Democrats such as Sen. JOE MANCHIN of West Virginia to oppose the president's $1.7 trillion Build Back Better package, which the party hopes will clear the Senate by Christmas." Biden, perhaps anticipating this tension, issued a statement that focused on likely improvements that have been made since the data was collected. "For anyone who, like me, is concerned about costs facing American families, passing BBB is the most immediate and direct step we can take to deliver," Biden said. Speaking of which… TODAY'S OTHER BIG REPORT — The Congressional Budget Office also released a score of the fiscal impacts of BBB, assuming its programs are funded for a decade. The big takeaway, via CNBC's @ylanmui: "CBO finds BBB would add $3T to [the] deficit over the next decade if made permanent. Biggest driver is extending the enhanced child tax credit, which currently expires after one year." DOLE'S MEMORIAL SERVICE — Biden, eulogizing BOB DOLE this morning at the National Cathedral: "Bob was taking his final journey. He's sitting back now, watching us. Now it's our job to start standing up for what's right for America. I salute you my friend, your nation salutes you." The full service, via C-SPAN … Here's a shot of some of the congressional members who attended. (Most — but not all — are masked.) Good Friday afternoon. | 
