On the menu today: My colleagues at NR have you covered on everything the Supreme Court did in recent days. The big birthright citizenship case is dissected by the editors, Dan McLaughlin, and Brittany Bernstein; I’m surprised that anyone else is surprised that this Court did not want to overturn a precedent that has been in place since 1898, and whose removal would have had far-reaching consequences. Elsewhere, Beth Parlato writes about how the Court saved women’s sports and a whole lot more; and John Yoo concludes that the Court’s decisions that expanded federal power are in line with the Declaration’s view of what the presidency should be.

But yesterday at the court, the decision that I found most surprising was the one by NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg to report, erroneously, that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito had announced his retirement. There’s a long overdue retirement at the Court, but it is not Alito’s. Read on.

The Story Behind Nina Totenberg’s Alito Error

If you’re wondering what was going on with that NPR report that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, here’s the explanation from the no-longer-government-funded radio network:

[NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina] Totenberg was reporting on the final day of the Supreme Court session on Tuesday. As she was leaving the court, Chief Justice John Roberts was announcing upcoming retirements. Totenberg misheard Roberts’ statement.

NPR had the lengthy story about Alito’s retirement already written, because that’s what newsrooms do in anticipation of significant retirements and even deaths.

Totenberg spoke with both her intern, who was at the court with her, and NPR Executive Editor Krishnadev Calamur and told them what she heard. Calamur surfaced the story that NPR had previously prepared for the day Alito did announce his retirement and published it. The information was also broadcast on NPR’s airwaves. NPR was offering special live coverage of the court’s decision on the birthright citizenship case. . . .

The story was published on NPR’s website at 10:51 a.m. ET and it was live for about 5 minutes. It was up for longer periods on some member station websites. It was taken down and replaced with an editor’s note by 10:57 a.m. The error was corrected on the broadcast at 11:07 a.m. ET.

No one else at NPR thought it was weird that no other news organization was running its own bulletins about Alito’s retirement, huh?

Then Totenberg appeared on NPR’s program All Things Considered and read aloud her note of apology to Alito:

Dear Justice Alito, there are no words to adequately apologize for today’s error in reporting your retirement. It was entirely my fault. I rushed out of the courtroom after the opinion announcements, and when I realized that the usual rush of folks, after a few minutes, had not happened, I asked somebody what was going on inside, to which the answer was retirement announcements. I didn’t hear the S on announcements and assumed — something no reporter should ever do — that you were retiring. It was the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism. I could go on, but I don’t know what else to say, except that I am so, so sorry, and I am eternally. You know, this was a rookie mistake.

She heard the word “retirement” and just assumed that it was Alito?

The explanation is so shocking that social media has plenty of Alito retirement “Truthers” who contend the justice is planning to announce his retirement soon and Totenberg simply erred by reporting it too early; but that theory doesn’t make sense, because if that were the case, she would simply clarify her story. Some others wonder if this was Alito trying to sniff out the Supreme Court employee who leaked the Dobbs decision. (Back in April 2023, Alito sat down for an interview with the Wall Street Journal and said, “I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody.”)

Totenberg is 82. She has covered the Supreme Court since I was born, and I have a kid in college. Also, in the 1970s, Totenberg became close personal friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and one might think that a close personal friendship with someone you cover professionally is a major conflict of interest that ought to be disclosed to listeners, but “her friendship with Ginsburg was almost never mentioned in the hundreds of news stories, interviews and features Totenberg has done about the court over the years.”

Another one of Totenberg’s greatest hits, this one targeted at the late Senator Jesse Helms (R., N.C.): “In 1995, on the syndicated political television program Inside Washington, guests including Totenberg turned to a proposal by the North Carolina senator that Congress reduce spending on AIDS research. Totenberg said, ‘I think he ought to be worried about the — about what’s going on in the good Lord’s mind, because if there’s retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it.’” Wishing painful death upon the family of people you disagree with is the kind of comment we’ve come to expect from unhinged hatemongers, like the attorney general of Virginia.

Apparently, nothing matters when you’re on the left side of the aisle. Just do whatever you want, and there will never be any consequences.

Anybody else think that maybe, just maybe, it’s time for Totenberg to enjoy a quiet retirement?

In other news, the president of the United States is 80. Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jim Risch of Idaho, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Angus King of Maine are all 80 or older. Twenty-four members of the U.S. House of Representatives are age 80 or older; 13 are running for reelection this year.

Moldova and Romania Contemplate a Reunion Tour

Elsewhere at NR, John Gustavsson argues the West should support a proposal to reunify Moldova with Romania:

Within Romania, support for unification is overwhelming, with a poll from May suggesting that 72 percent would like to see the country merge with Moldova. Within Moldova, opinions are more split; a March poll found 44 percent of citizens in favor of unification and 39 percent opposed. Among Moldovans living abroad — a group that makes up around a third of all Moldovan citizens — 61 percent favor reunification compared to just 24 percent who are opposed. Most notably, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, who was elected with strong support from the diaspora, stated in January that she would vote yes on unification in a hypothetical referendum. She is the first Moldovan president to hold this view. Her foreign minister, Mihai Popschiu, expressed the same view in May.

I am about 90 percent on board with the idea. However, allow me to spell out the issues that would have to be resolved.

Romania is a member of NATO; they have met or exceeded the alliance’s defense spending threshold of 2 percent of GDP for eight straight years. They spent 2.25 percent of their GDP on defense last year, are on pace for 2.5 percent this year, and have committed to investing 5 percent of GDP annually on defense by 2035. They take their defense seriously; you may recall that they have had Russian drones “accidentally” crash into apartment buildings on their sovereign territory.

Moldova is not a member of NATO or the European Union, and unless there’s a bottle of Moldovan wine on the table, most Americans don’t give the small southeastern European nation much thought. It is the least visited country in Europe.

Moldova merging with Romania would automatically make Moldovan territory part of NATO. NATO is not eager to admit a new member with a disputed border — and Moldova has the problem of Transnistria.

You won’t find Transnistria labeled on a lot of maps. In the eyes of almost the entire world, it’s not a real country; it’s just a rogue region of Moldova that has acted independently since 1992, and as a de facto colony of Moscow. Few in their right mind would choose to visit a pseudo-country that still has a hammer and sickle on its flag; the State Department urges potential visitors to “reconsider travel.” Of course, I checked it out back in August 2023.

On paper, Moldova is neutral. In reality . . . it’s more complicated:

Moldova’s constitutional neutrality is of a most bizarre kind: unilaterally declared and unrecognized internationally, much less guaranteed. It is protected by none, unarmed and practically demilitarized. Chisinau has no combat-capable army and no defense industry. Russian troops stationed in Transnistria have violated Moldova’s constitutional neutrality on a daily basis since 1994.

So, before Moldova and Romania get back together like Simon and Garfunkel, the issue of Transnistria must be sorted out, one way or another.

Gustavson writes, “The easiest strategy might be to give Russia an ultimatum upon unification: Fulfill its 2002 commitment to completely withdraw from Transnistria, or Russian bases will be placed under siege and blockaded until they eventually surrender.”

Now, folks, I’m always up for a good round of “how can we mess with the Moscow regime today?” (Check out this beautiful sunset!) But there are at least two problems here. First, what are NATO and Moldova willing to do if Russia says, “No, we’re not willing to completely withdraw”? What does that siege look like? All Moldova’s military personnel could hold a meeting in the basketball arena of the University of Utah and leave about 4,000 seats to spare. Sure, the Russian forces in Transnistria and Transnistria’s own army — “army”? — are pretty small, too. But are we absolutely certain that if push came to shove, Russia couldn’t airlift any forces into Transnistria, or get any air assets there through Ukrainian airspace? No ballistic missile strikes or strikes from Russian vessels in the Black Sea? You figure Russia has some additional unused gray zone warfare tricks up its sleeve.

Second, while I would find it ridiculous to live in not-quite-a-real country that is akin to if Epcot Center had created a country pavilion for the old Soviet Union, it’s not clear what percentage of the Transnistrian population feels that way. Getting a clear sense of what Transnistrian people think is not easy; the local ruling regime is predictably abysmal in its human rights record. But back in 1992, the pro-Russian Moldovans were willing to fight a war to remain separate, and did so.

Before anyone charges headlong into an endeavor like this, it would be a good idea to get a sense of whether the people living in Transnistria want to become part of Romania, right?

ADDENDUM: A line cut for space from yesterday’s Washington Post column about the celebration of the 250th on the National Mall: “Vanilla Ice’s planned performance on the National Lawn Friday night was canceled because of inclement weather. You can understand the disappointment; Mr. Ice assured us, many times, that, ‘if there was a problem, yo, I’ll solve it.’ Clearly, someone failed to stop, collaborate, and listen.”