A tortured bad-faith reading of the Constitution

I had lunch today with my friend and debate partner. He opened with a debate he had with others. He and they rejected tomorrow as the founding of the country because in 1776 we were just a bunch of argumentative colonies, not a united country. So when can we claim the start of America the country? How many states were needed to ratify the Constitution? Yeah, the version with the Bill of Rights. Three-quarters of the original colonies? Two-thirds? So I looked it up. New Hampshire was ninth when it ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788. Virginia was tenth four days later on June 25, 1788. That was enough for either threshold. Rhode Island, the last, didn’t get to it until May 29, 1790, well after George Washington started his term as president on April 30, 1789. The Supreme Court ended its term and released its rulings on some big cases. A week ago Thursday Lisa Needham of Daily Kos reported the Court was very good at supporting the nasty guy’s racism. Which means non-white immigrants will get the shaft. The decisions were: First, remove due process protections for green card holders. That will lead to deporting people who have come legally. Second allow the elimination of a way to apply for asylum. Refusing entry for people fleeing for their lives (which is why they are seeking asylum) is just cruel. Third, allow the nasty guy to eliminate Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians. TPS for these countries was set up because the countries are not safe and they aren’t any safer now than when TPS was granted. And Venezuela, likely next on the nasty guy’s list, just suffered a double earthquake that has killed at least 2,500 people. Needham wrote on the Mullin v. Al Otro Lado decision about asylum claims (though it could apply to all three) written by Justice Alito:

In the ruling, Justice Samuel Alito goes through a tortured bad-faith reading of immigration statutes to get to his decision that the administration doesn’t need to process asylum claims if it doesn’t feel like it.

In this case Alito wrote that an asylum seeker must actually enter the US and if a US agent prevents them from stepping a foot across the border, oh well, too bad.

On its face, this is a dispute about how to interpret statutes. In reality, it means that the United States is free to refuse to ever let anyone apply for asylum for any reason—which was always the goal of the Trump administration. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in her dissent, this is an abandonment of the policies adopted by the United States and other countries following World War II.

Needham points out additional ways all three rulings are absurd. Alito had a goal in mind and reasoned his way to it no matter what law or the Constitution says.

It’s all disingenuous bigotry dressed up as even-handed, rational, sober-minded statutory interpretation. But it’s anything but. This is straight-up racism—and under this Supreme Court, it’s increasingly the law of the land.

Needham and colleague Alix Breeden review the TPS and asylum cases in more detail. They first give the legal view, then the human impact. In addition to tossing out a lot of Haitians and Syrians, on which many companies such as nursing homes depend, the ruling allows the nasty guy to end TPS for several other countries. On Tuesday this week Needham wrote about a couple more rulings by the Supremes. These two cases are about whether the nasty guy has the ability to fire at will the heads of agencies that Congress set up to be independent of the president. One case is about the Federal Reserve, the other about all the other agencies. For all the other agencies the ruling, written by John Roberts, says the nasty guy is free to fire who he wants to without supplying a reason. For the Federal Reserve Roberts said it is special and the nasty guy must show cause before firing.

Why is the Federal Reserve special here? You won’t find a genuine answer in the opinions, both of which are written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It’s honestly nothing more complicated than that Roberts is perfectly thrilled to give the most worm-brained toddler of a president free rein to remake the administrative state in his image, but not to give the most worm-brained toddler free rein to destabilize monetary policy. Gotta know what’s really important here.

The nasty guy certainly shouldn’t be allowed to destabilize the economies of the billionaires that give so lavishly to the Court’s conservative members. Of course, the nasty guy shouldn’t want his billionaire donors to be destabilized, but his thinking probably isn’t rational.

How does Roberts square this? He doesn’t, really. And why should he? This isn’t about what the law actually is. It’s what Trump and Roberts want the law to be.

The ruling says that though the Constitution gives Congress the power create independent agencies, that really isn’t true. The Court is simply restoring balance. Which means:

Indeed, that’s exactly what Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent: “Today, this Court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of Government have been acting in open defiance of the Constitution all this time.”

I’m sure Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are getting mighty tired that a major portion of their job is to call out the BS of the six conservatives.

What Trump now gets is nothing less than a return to the spoils system, where the whole of federal jobs are filled with allies, cronies, and failsons and faildaughters who need jobs, regardless of any actual qualifications.

As for the Federal Reserve and the nasty guy’s target Lisa Cook, the ruling says he can’t simply fire her. But the ruling does not say in any detail what he does have to do to legally get rid of her. The big case before the court was whether the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees whether a person born in America is a citizen of America. Kos of Kos wrote the ruling by the Court looked at the plain reading of the Amendment and said, yes, that’s what it says. But the decision was not unanimous. That’s scary. Kos quoted Alito’s dissent, in which Alito described a case of birth tourism in which the baby grows up to plot against the US. Then Kos wrote Alito’s argument is about policy, wishing the Amendment was written differently than the way it was. The Constitution asks whether they were born here, not whether they’re patriotic. The First Amendment says Americans are free to hate their government. If someone plots against the country, that’s what intelligence and law enforcement are for. And Alito’s hypothetical hasn’t “posed the constitutional crisis he imagines during the 158 years since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.”

What makes Alito’s dissent so striking isn’t simply that he reaches a different conclusion. It’s that he barely attempts a textual defense at all. His objection is that the Constitution produces a result he finds unacceptable. That’s a perfectly legitimate argument for amending the Constitution. It’s a terrible argument for pretending the Constitution already says something else. Every day, this hyper-partisan, hyper-ideological court proves that it has lost the moral authority that should accompany its constitutional role. More than ever, it is in dire need of reform.

The number of views this blog got in June didn’t quite top that of May, though for much of the month it looked likely. The number of views in May, not quite doubling the previous monthly record, was 313,818. For June the total was 298011. For three weeks in June the daily number of views was mostly near or above 12,000 with some days going up to 20,000. Then in the last week the daily number of views dropped to 2,000 and went down from there to about 1,200. I have no idea why there was a dropoff.

No recordings, no paperwork, no oversight

Eli Hager, in an article for ProPublica posted on Daily Kos, reported the full story of what happened when the Department of Government Efficiency (remember DOGE?) came to the Social Security Administration. Much of that story comes from Leland Dudek, who was the SSA administrator for about four months last winter and spring. The story opens with Dudek posting a scroll 4 feet by 20 feet on the wall. In tiny print and diagrams it describes what SSA does. But that’s not yet entirely reflected in the agency’s computer systems. The SSA is 90 years old. It’s software dates back to the 1980s and has more than 60 million lines of code. Many things are still done on paper. It has been talking of upgrades for two decades without it happening. So when DOGE called for efficiency and the elimination of waste and promised IT whiz kids to make it happen Dudek thought great, bring it on. Except the other part DOGE called for was the elimination of fraud. And that was much louder than all other goals. Every little discrepancy these green kids found was taken as fraud and blown into a scandal – see the stories of 120 year old people turned into dead people still collecting SS.

They could have worked to modernize Social Security’s legacy software, the current and former staffers say. They could have tried to streamline the stupefying volume of documentation that many Social Security beneficiaries have to provide. They could have built search tools to help staff navigate the agency’s 60,000 pages of policies. (New hires often need at least three years to master the nuances of even one type of case.) They could have done something about wait times for disability claims and appeals, which often take over a year. They did none of these things.

Every time Dudek tried to work around his bosses, which were people at the White House, he would get a call reminding him what he was really supposed to be doing, which was not to make the SSA better. He realized the problem wasn’t the DOGE kids, it was the senior leaders. One example was the SSA Office of Transformation, which had been starting the work of modernizing the SSA systems. He was told the office was wasteful and to cut it. So he started acting the part that the White House wanted, while trying to push what would actually help the SSA. About all that did was make him unemployable after he was forced out. And the turmoil frightened many of the people who depend on their SS checks. It also made their experience working SSA agents on the phone and in person worse. The only good thing is that SS benefits are still being paid. So far. Maria Godoy of NPR discussed the release of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy. It has 100 recommendations for improving children’s health. Some of the points are good, things like promoting exercise and fitness and teaching good nutrition. But there are also not good things, such as studying the root causes of autism (which aren’t the things he wants to prove) and producing a new vaccine framework (when there is nothing wrong with the old one). There are also loopholes, such as calling on the reduction of unsafe food additives while letting food companies determine the safety and while specifying no penalties for using additives known to be harmful. And there are contradictions, such as calling for fresh local produce in schools after the administration canceled the program that did just that. Leila Fadel of NPR continued the conversation with Barry Popkin, professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. Popkin said yes, children’s health is bad. An example is the type of diabetes usually only seen in older adults is now seen in children and teens. But this list does nothing to fix that bad health. “It’s all promises but no teeth.” It’s all about “research, exploration, consideration, but nothing about any regulation or law to mandate change.” Nothing will happen, or at least nothing after Kennedy leaves office.

And you can see that, really, that the food and agriculture sectors that really profit highly from the ultra-processed food they're selling to our children and killing them at the same time, really have gotten to the government so that they had nothing in this document that will lead to any meaningful regulation, law or guideline that will improve America's health.

One thing that would help the health of children is money ffor school food programs that pay for eliminating ultra-processed foods and regulation to require it. But that won’t happen. Alix Breeden of Kos adds a bit more:

According to Marion Nestle, New York University professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health, the report doesn’t have much substance. “The report seems to twist itself into knots to make it clear that it will not be infringing upon food companies,” Nestle said in an email to NBC News. “MAHA has so much bipartisan support. This was the time to regulate food marketing to kids — not ‘explore.’” She went on to say that the report is “short of specifics and weak on regulatory actions,” echoing a similar sentiment from professionals when the preliminary report leaked.

At the bottom of the article is a quote from Kennedy:

We had lots of guns when we were kids. Kids brought guns to school and were encouraged to do so. And nobody was walking into schools and shooting people. There are many things that could explain this. One is the dependence on psychiatric drugs.

I’m pretty sure my student handbook for high school said that a student caught with a gun at school would be expelled. I never saw a gun at school (or anywhere else, though I didn’t go into the town gun shop because my family didn’t hunt). I never heard of a bring your gun to school day. So I rate his first two sentences as false. That bit about nobody shooting people in schools is true. We didn’t practice lockdowns and didn’t need to. But at the time the rate of gun ownership was quite low. At the ending of this quote is Kennedy trying to link psychiatric drugs given to students with school gun deaths? The kids aren’t doing the killing. Fadel spoke to reporter Adrian Florido about the recent Supreme Court order that lifted the temporary order that banned ICE from doing aggressive immigration sweeps in Los Angeles. The order was brief, unsigned, and included no reasoning, meaning it was from the shadow docket. The order means ICE can resume targeting people based solely on skin color, accent, and occupation; what the ACLU called blatant racial profiling. Florido said:

In a concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited an estimate that 10% of LA's population is undocumented and said race can be relevant when agents are determining whether they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent. And she wrote, quote, “we should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low-wage job.”

A reminder that Sotomayor is Latina. There is an underlying court case. The lower court said these sweeps cannot happen while the case proceeds. The Supremes said the sweeps can. And the order will probably affect what ICE does in Chicago and other cities. Fadel and Steve Inskeep then spoke to Sarah Isgur, editor of SCOTUSblog, who recently interviewed Justice Amy Coney Barrett about the shadow docket. A Supreme Court case takes time to read through the briefings, hold oral arguments, and write the opinions. That takes several months to a year or two. The purpose of the emergency (shadow) docket is what should the law be between now and when the case is officially decided. Even so this can have permanent effects that can not reversed even if the eventual decision goes the other way. An example is a person deported now. Other examples are everything the nasty guy does through executive order, such as whether he can fire the head of the Federal Trade Commission. A problem is the orders are not explained and they usually (almost always?) favor the nasty guy. These orders leave lower courts caught between previous Supreme precedents and what these order say. This post includes a bit of that Barrett interview. She admits the emergency docket does not allow the justices to think about the issue, there is less information, and no time for reasoned opinions. Isgur says these nine people don’t really know how to handle the emergency docket and with the start of their term next month they’re going to be hit with a lot of cases coming from all those executive orders, cases like can the president invoke tariffs or fire a Federal Reserve governor. Another issue is what should be the status quo. The emergency docket is supposed to protect the status quo while the case is being decided. Is the status quo what was in effect before the president took office? Or, as the nasty guy’s team claims (and has Biden’s team claimed before them), since he is voted in by the people and is there only four years should his orders be status quo? Lisa Needham of Kos added her take on the Supreme Court orders.

The now familiar 6-3 lineup at the United States Supreme Court just threw out decades of settled law so that President Donald Trump’s roving bands of masked federal agents in Los Angeles can engage in a little light racial profiling, as a treat, and can continue scooping up people based on nothing more than looking Latino, speaking Spanish, and working at a low-wage job like a car wash. You know the drill. A lower-court judge wrote a detailed, thoughtful, lengthy opinion about how this practice was 100% racial profiling and ordered the government to stop doing it. The Trump administration ran to the Supreme Court to say that the world would crumble if they couldn’t racially profile brown people in Los Angeles right away, and the Supreme Court obliged by staying the lower court’s order. That stay prevents the lower court’s order from going into effect, so federal agents can continue this straight-up racist, unconstitutional behavior. ... Does arresting or detaining people for no reason at all violate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that probable cause is required to search or seize someone? It sure does! If a police officer wants to stop someone on the street and search them, they have to have a level of reasonable suspicion about that particular person, such as believing they are armed and about to commit a crime. Law enforcement officers have to be able to justify stopping specific people based on specific concerns rather than being able to stop whole groups of people based on shared characteristics. ... Justice Sonia Sotomayor pulled no punches, even refusing to engage in the faux-civility of the tradition of saying “I respectfully dissent.” Nope, here it is just “I dissent.” While that may seem like a nerdy, legalistic, tiny thing to focus on, in the context of how the justices communicate with one another through their opinions, it’s Sotomayor saying the actions and reasoning—or lack thereof—of her colleagues are not worthy of respect.

Needham also reported some of the ICE ways of doing business have changed for the worse. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem says ICE agents are facing assaults (what the rest of us would consider freedom of speech). Filming of ICE agents isn’t allowed. No Supreme Court ruling has said one way or the other, though numerous state courts have rules that is a protected right. ICE agents used to be required to document the specific person they want to arrest, giving lots of details, and getting supervisor approval. Now they just arrest who they please. DHS is blocking members of Congress from doing their ICE facility oversight duties without prior approval, while the law says approval can’t be required. And DHS has shut down the oversight office, freezing 500 civil rights cases.

No recordings, no paperwork, no oversight. DHS is systematically eliminating every way we have to keep tabs on law enforcement to ensure that Trump’s immigration crackdown, no matter how illegal or violent, can’t be stopped.

In Tuesday’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Politico:

The justices, who apparently divided 6-3 along ideological lines, put on hold a federal district judge’s order that reined in what critics called “roving” raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That judge had found the tactics were likely unconstitutional because agents were detaining people without probable cause at car washes, bus stops and Home Depot parking lots based on stereotypes. The high court’s majority offered no explanation for its decision to grant the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to block the district judge’s order. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately in support of the decision, saying it was reasonable to briefly question people who meet multiple “common sense” criteria for possible illegal presence — including employment in day labor or construction, and limited English proficiency.

That little bit about “common sense” is partly why Sotomayor lost respect for the decision. In the comments Matt Davies posted a cartoon titled “Supreme Court guide to use of race in admission:” Over the entrance to a university is “Not OK.” Over the doors of an ICE detention van is “OK.” David Wolfe tweeted, “Children are born perfect without the need for toxic injections. Once vaccinated, the brain and body are harmed forever.” Dr. Neil Stone, infectious diseases doctor, responded, “Before vaccines, 1 in 5 kids never made it to their first birthday.” I add: What’s the evidence that the brain and body of an infant are harmed? Every vaccine must document they aren’t harmful to the vast number of people who take them. Acyn tweeted a quote from the vice nasty, “The bad news is...one of the pollsters once told me, anger usually wins midterm elections and because we done so much of what we said we are going to do, people are angry.” Gavin Newsom responded: “JD Vance admits he policies are wildly unpopular on national television.” In the comments of Wednesday’s roundup is a meme by Dan Pfeiffer,

There are only two possibilities – John Roberts is so afraid of a constitutional crisis that he will give Trump everything he wants, or Roberts is 100% in on the MAGA project to destroy our democracy.

Or both? Way down in the comments is a cartoon by the Naked Pastor. Under a banner saying these are the “Lost sayings of Jesus” Jesus is talking to a group of women. “Beware when men write something and claim it is inspired by God, for then you can’t dispute it.”

The majority disdains restraint and grasps for power

I’m about to travel, leaving Monday after lunch. I might post tomorrow, and might not. I’ll be gone for two and a half weeks. If I post in that time it will probably be travelogue. Yeah, pontificating on Thursday’s debate is still a thing. Kerry Eleveld of Daily Kos wrote a review of the debate. In spite of the obvious flubs that are getting all the airtime Biden did give a spirited defense of democracy in the face of the nasty guy lies. The nasty guy’s lying did catch plenty of notice. Alas, there are still many who won’t vote for the nasty guy because of his lies and other behavior, but then saw Biden as old and won’t vote for him. Joan McCarter of Kos reported that Speaker Mike Johnson has found a reason to remove a president. Johnson was an architect of the nasty guy’s attempt to stay in office in 2020 and voted against impeachment twice. His choice in November is the criminal and constant liar. Johnson could have helped remove that president from office. And didn’t. But he’s called on Biden to pull out of the race. Reason? Biden lost a debate.

This is the same Mike Johnson who voted against removing Trump from office after the Capitol insurrection. He’s for removing a president because he’s old, and he’s against removing a president who is old and who tried to overthrow the government. Good to know.

McCarter than quoted CNN’s fact checker, who said the nasty lied more than 30 times. The quote lists them. Kos of Kos says Biden called for the debates and set the rules, so Biden needs to fix it. That does not mean dropping out. There is a problem if the nomination is handed to Kamala Harris. She’s not Biden and would have an extremely hard time winning. But shoving Harris aside for Newsom, Whitmer, or Buttigieg or any other Democrat ready to jump in would create quite bad optics. Also, states want names for the ballot by about six weeks. This was a lost opportunity to shift the narrative from Biden’s age to the nasty guy’s mental decline. But so far the polls have shifted little. The Supremes have issued quite a few rulings over the last few days as they conclude their session. An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported on a ruling about whether cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors when shelters are full. The question before the court is whether the bans were “cruel and unusual” and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The majority, in the 6-3 decision along ideological lines, said nope, it’s not cruel. The minority, in a dissent read from the bench, said yes, it is. “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. The minority sided with the homeless who, in many cases, do not have an option when shelters are full. The number of homeless in the country is more than 650K, the most since 2007. The majority sided with cities, who want to keep their beautiful and safe. The article doesn’t mention how the ruling supports the social hierarchy, which this Court is all about. This ruling is also about oppressing the people already in a difficult and precarious positions. Another AP article reported the Court overturned the Chevron decision. Many articles don’t mention the name of the two cases involved, which can be confusing, so I’ll mention them: Loper v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The main dispute is who has the final say when an agency issues a rule and the supporting law is vague in that area. Back in 1984 the Chevron decision concluded that in such cases deference should be given to the agency who wrote the rule. They’re the experts. Congress cannot foresee every possibility and having Congress wrangle every last detail of what “clean water” means is something they don’t have time or expertise for. So, fine, Congress can’t fill in the details. But corporations say courts can. Environment and consumer protection advocates say, courts aren’t subject experts either. It will take time to teach the courts the relevant science. Filling the courts with these cases (and there will be a lot of cases) will take up a lot of time and in the meantime the corporations could continue their harm to consumers and the environment. (To which corporations say to themselves, yep, that’s the point.) Scott Detrow of NPR talked to law professor Jody Freeman about this case in a six minute, understandable discussion. McCarter reported Justice Elena Kagan issued a strong dissent for these rulings. There’s the part about courts not being subject experts – which Justice Gorsuch demonstrated by repeatedly confusing “nitrous oxide” and “nitrogen oxides.” A bit of Kagan’s dissent quoted by McCarter:

In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar. It defends that move as one (suddenly) required by the (nearly 80-year-old) Administrative Procedure Act. But the Act makes no such demand. Today’s decision is not one Congress directed. It is entirely the majority’s choice. ... Its justification comes down, in the end, to this: Courts must have more say over regulation—over the provision of health care, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems, and so on. A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.

A Supreme Court power grab? Yes, because a lot of cases will be appealed to them. In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin had several interesting quotes. Jill Lawrence suggested that the nasty guy won simply by showing up because the impeachment process and the courts did not protect the country. He won again when moderators called him “Mr. President.” The rest of Dworkin’s quotes are about the ruling’s the Supremes have issued over the last few days. Just Security talked about another case, this one the Fisher ruling. It narrowed the definition of obstructing an official act. This was used to prosecute many of the Capitol attackers and the official act was Biden’s election certification. For those already convicted there is minimal impact. For those still waiting trial there are other laws to convict them under. Rock Hasen of Election Law Blog says the Fisher ruling probably won’t help the nasty guy because of his fake elector scheme. Inside Climate News discussed the decision to overturn Chevron. Though the actual question involved a small fishing operation the case was funded by the network created by the billionaire Koch family, who made their billions in petroleum and very much want to gut consumer and environmental protections. That original Chevron case was led by Anne Gorsuch, then head of the EPA and fierce opponent of regulations. She lost that 1984 case. Her son Neil wrote a lengthy concurring opinion to overturn Chevron. Noah Rosenbloom of The Atlantic said attacking the federal government’s ability to regulate industry (to protect consumers and the environment) has long been a corporate top priority.

Make friends with someone who doesn’t look like you

There was an election in Ohio yesterday – that proposal to raise the vote threshold needed to approve a constitutional amendment, among other things to make getting amendments onto the ballot harder. Jeff Singer of Daily Kos Elections reported that it failed with 57% voting against. Quite good results. So the abortion rights amendment on the ballot for November has a much better chance of passing. And that’s what yesterday’s vote was all about, so ignore Republicans who try to say differently. My own city had a primary for electing a new mayor. The previous one had been in the job about 20 years, then abruptly resigned last January to take a different job. An interim was designated. This election was to fill out the term and was the only item on the ballot. A half dozen candidates in a non-partisan contest were reduced to two. And now I have a dilemma. The guys who got the top two positions, with tallies way above everyone else, are the interim and my state representative angling for a new job. The interim sent several campaign cards touting his endorsements. I began to think he had some pretty sweet backers, raising suspicions, though I couldn’t find campaign finance data for this race. He appears to be competent, though hard to tell in six months on the job. His opponent appears to be at least as competent and has the advantage of being plugged into state government. I think he would do a better job. But I need him in the state House. Democrats have two vote lead there. Both my rep and another passed their primaries for becoming the mayor of their city. If either gets their new job the Democrat’s lead shrinks to one. If both become mayor then the House is tied until special elections are called. And installing a replacement will take at least six months. I know why he is campaigning for mayor. State reps have term limits (as do senators). Even though he’s a long way from reaching the just extended limits, the job of mayor can be much more stable. And mayoral jobs around here don’t open up all that frequently. There are three people of color who are Republican candidates for president – Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Hunter of Kos discussed what their campaigns are not saying.

Quite simply, you cannot run as a Republican if you acknowledge systemic racism to be real, and so the only Republicans you are going to see on the campaign trail are ones who insist systemic racism isn't real. This is a country of 300 million people; you don't have to look all that hard to find a rich and successful person who insists that because they overcame systemic racism, it must no longer exist.

Last month I wrote about the Associated Press article that tried to equate the extreme corruption of Justices Alito and Thomas by billionaires with the book events that Justice Sonia Sotomayor was invited to. Charles Jay of the Kos community wrote about one of those events that happened back in 2019. A big purpose of this event was to allow her to interact with children. She made sure the kids got copies of her book and that Spanish versions were available. She told them about growing up on Puerto Rico. She wanted to answer their questions. She told them a couple important things. “My success came about because I read.” “Go out and make friends with someone who doesn’t look like you.” Some cartoons. From one pundit roundup with cartoons posted by Denise Oliver Velez in the comments is one by Dave Whamond. Recent news out of Florida is the class on AP Psychology was banned because of LGBTQ content. So Whamond imagines a math class:

Teacher: So we are no longer teaching addition, subtraction and multiplication? DeSantis: We are only teaching division.

And one by Pat Byrnes. Two men are in a bar. The one with a red hat says:

I did just fine in the divorce, thank you. She got the economy, health care system, infrastructure, and international respect, but I got to keep my guns and resentment.

In another roundup is a cartoon by Dave Coverly. A librarian is speaking to three dogs:

The library rejected your request to ban all books on cats and squirrels. But to be fair, it was no dumber than all the other book ban requests we get.

An annual income of $100,000 is no longer enough to buy a house

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos wrote that the stench of corruption around the Supreme Court is now so strong investigative journalists are swarming. And Clarence Thomas is giving them all the fodder they need. The latest is from the New York Times and is about his long-standing membership in the Horatio Alger Association, which provided another collection of wealthy friends. In response Thomas has opened the Supreme Court chamber to the society, giving their induction ceremonies an extra flavor only he could provide.

As the circle of Thomas’ rich and powerful associates grows, so grows the likelihood of conflicts of interest for him on the court and the likelihood the media will be able to dig them up. Each new discovery will only deepen the crisis in the court and generate more momentum for reform. ... The Times report is full of the stuff we’ve come to expect from Thomas stories: his continuing simmering rage at having been perceived as getting to where he is through affirmative action and the resulting chip on his shoulder, as well as his susceptibility to very rich people who want to give him stuff, which he clearly feels is owed to him, up to and including his wedding reception.

The stench has gotten so bad that progressive groups used to be afraid to take on the court are now demanding court reform. The Republican House may stop any action for now. But Democrats better start now to be ready with reform bills in 2025. Public opinion won’t give them a choice. That constant investigation may also turn up some strange comparisons. McCarter also noted that the Associated Press declared a scandal that Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes books! She goes on book tours! She gets paid for it! The schools she visits buy hundreds of copies of her books! Her court staff is helping with her book ventures! That’s not at all the same as billionaires funding luxury vacations for Thomas and Alito or making sure Jane Roberts’ company gets lots of business. Might students and librarians have interest in cases before the Court? Yes, but not $2.4 billion in personal interest. That last is the amount Alito’s sugar daddy benefited in a case before the Court, for which Alito did not recuse himself. Might Sotomayor’s staff helping organize book events prompt court reform? If so, great! Senate Democrats are working on a Supreme Court ethics act. But benefiting from book tours (which she disclosed) are a long way from a billionaire paying for a luxury Alaskan fishing trip with glacier ice martinis. SemDem of the Kos community wrote about a huge threat to the middle class dream of owning a home. Large corporations are buying up so many houses they are driving up housing prices for regular people. These houses are offered for rent at high rates, which makes it harder for regular people to save to buy a house. Sometimes these firms buy entire neighborhoods. These companies usually pay cash, which greatly simplifies things for the seller, but against which a person needing a mortgage can’t compete. Add in slow house building over the last several years and the supply is now constricted. Prices go up. Which is a gold mine for these companies. Wall Street landlords are making enough to afford lobbying. And Congress is the only group that can make a difference. Some of the money these investment companies use came from when they gorged on mortgages leading to the crash in 2008. They’re now profiting off the destruction they created. They are stealing from first-time home buyers as they push the idea that renting is better – sheesh one must stay in one place! (I have been in my house for over 30 years, my parents were in theirs for over 50.) They tend to target black neighborhoods. Corporate landlords must deliver profits to shareholders. That means higher rents, more evictions, and not doing basic maintenance and repairs. Homeless shelters are seeing a dramatic increase in people seeking their help.

As the Wall Street Journal now says, high house prices along with student debt and meager savings mean that making an annual income of $100,000 is no longer enough to buy a house.

Yet home ownership is one of the few ways to generate wealth for those who don’t have it. And corporations have found another way to keep them from getting it. Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported the nasty guy is in serious legal jeopardy and could face jail time. His lawyers have asked a federal judge to delay the trial until after the 2024 election. They claim he could not get a fair trial during the campaign.

In effect, Trump's lawyers are arguing justice should be delayed, not because he's a sitting president but because he once again seeks to be.

And if the trial is delayed and he wins he’ll simply tell his Justice Department to drop the case. That will be his personal get-out-of-jail-free card for any federal case. He’s also pledging to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Biden. All that allows fellow candidate Chris Christie to play what to me sound like mind games. Wrote Eleveld:

"I'm telling you—no matter what he says, no matter how he's bragging and going on and on about him not being afraid—he goes to bed every night thinking about the sound of that jail cell closing behind him," Christie said Tuesday on MSNBC's Morning Joe. Christie recalled that when he would prosecute political figures as a U.S. attorney in the 2000s, Trump would tell him, "I could never do that—I could never go to jail."

In the comments of a pundit roundup for Kos Denise Oliver Velez posted her usual collection of cartoons. Here are a a few. Pat Byrnes drew one of a couple standing between a burning forest and rushing waves. The man says, “See? Here come the floods to drown out the fires. So don’t tell me the climate is out of balance.” Brother Mark tweeted a couple panels from the Naked Pastor. In the first a shepherd is sitting with his sheep as an angel (presumably announcing the birth of Jesus) hovers overhead. The shepherd asks, “So when you said peace on earth and good will to all people, does that include gay people like me?” The angel replies, “What about ‘all’ is so hard to understand?” The second shows Obama and Jesus in a bar. Obama says, “Trump’s reversing all my policies!” Jesus replies, “The Evangelicals are reversing mine!”

A completely hypothetical complaint; a case without standing to complain

I spent yesterday’s post decrying the Supreme Court gutting affirmative action in college admissions. Alas, this post is to decry a couple more decisions as the Court finished their term and left for the summer. The first decision is that businesses may indeed discriminate against gay people. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos reported yup, it was decided 6-3. They hold that discrimination is protected by the First Amendment. A bit from Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissent (which I believe she read when the decision was announced), “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” McCarter posted her article before the decision was announced, the decision included in an update. And the case is – weird. So weird it should never have gone to trial and the Supremes should never have accepted it. But they jumped at the chance to stick it to the gays. The current case follows a 2018 case that decided a Colorado cake baker didn’t have to make wedding cakes for LGBTQ couples, but the Court didn’t extend the decision to include general religious beliefs or free speech rights. The weirdness of this case was uncovered by Melissa Gira Grant, writing for The New Republic: The case is about Lorie Smith who says Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act prevented her from a dream of creating wedding websites because she didn’t want to work with LGBTQ people. First problem: This was only a dream. She hadn’t actually been harmed yet. That’s the basis for “standing,” one of the requirement to bring such a case. Second problem: The suit was brought to the US District Court in Colorado on Sept. 20, 2016. The incident that prompted the case allegedly happened on Sept. 21, the day after. Third problem: That first request for a same-sex wedding website came from “Stewart” marrying “Mike.” Stewart’s contact information is listed. Amazingly nobody called Stewart for seven years, until Grant did. Stewart says Grant contacting him was the first he heard that his name was attached to a Supreme Court case. He denies he filed the complaint the case is based on. He’s married to a woman and has a child. He lives in San Francisco (they’re all gay, right?), so it is doubtful he would use a Colorado web service. He does not agree with the Court’s decision. The whole case is based on lies. Colorado AG Philip Weiser, in a brief to the court noted, “The record contains no evidence.” Yet, the ruling will have profound and dangerous consequences. How dangerous? As Sotomayor and Jackson noted in oral arguments, what if the website maker doesn’t believe in interracial marriage? What if a Santa refused black kids? Ruling on a case with such profound and dangerous implications, which has no evidence, and is based on lies is an example of how much this corrupt Court intends to rule by decree. A famous saying is the Supreme Court has no army, so relies on the respect for the Court and for Democracy to convince the rest of the government and citizens to abide by its decisions. I’ve concluded this Court does have an army – all those MAGA people the court has made sure are well armed. They’ll be delighted to enforce the bigotry of this Court. The other big case, as reported by the Associated Press in an article posted on Kos, is the Supreme Court decided that the Biden administration had overstepped its authority in offering to cancel or reduce student loans for millions of Americans. They held that the executive branch needed the endorsement of Congress before implementing so costly a program. Biden had based his argument on the 2003 HEROES Act. The Court’s decision says that act does not authorize what Biden wants to do. 43 million people are eligible for relief. 26 million have already applied. The projected cost over 30 years is $400 billion (as in $13 billion a year? In a multi-trillion budget? Sheesh). Joan McCarter of Kos wrote about the dissents Kagan and Sotomayor wrote on these two cases. From Kagan on the loan forgiveness decision:

The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not allow plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy. Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.”

The second overreach Kagan says is the HEROES Act does indeed authorize what Biden proposed to do. At the end of that explanation she wrote, “But this Court today decides that some 40 million Americans will not receive the benefits the plan provides, because (so says the Court) that assistance is too “significant.” Significant? If it was a smaller amount – $40 billion? $4 billion? – the conservative justices would be OK with it? I have my doubts. Or is this not about the money, but that 40 million people will be less oppressed? Back to the LGBTQ discrimination case and Sotomayor’s dissent. McCarter sets some of this in a quote box, but it isn’t clear who is being quoted.

“This ostracism, this otherness, is among the most distressing feelings that can be felt by our social species,” she writes. The fundamental point of centuries of civil rights legislation has been to prevent that harm from being felt by whole classes of people—women, people of color, disabled people, LGBTQ people. Sotomayor cites case after case in which business owners came to the Supreme Court to argue that they had a particular right to discriminate in response to every new civil rights law enacted on behalf of each of these protected classes, and in which the court disagreed. “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor declared. “Time and again, businesses and other commercial entities have claimed constitutional rights to discriminate. And time and again, this Court has courageously stood up to those claims—until today. Today, the Court shrinks.”

McCarter wrote:

This is a court acting well beyond its scope. Neither of these cases should have been heard by the Supreme Court, just on procedural grounds. One was based on a completely hypothetical complaint; the other was brought by plaintiffs who didn’t have standing to complain. This court majority is intent on doubling down on its illegitimacy with every session, and it has to be stopped.

While Biden recognizes this is not a normal court, he doesn’t want to do anything about it for fear “we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy.” To which McCarter responded:

This court couldn’t be more politicized and it couldn’t be more unhealthy. There are three justices who have laid out all the evidence, all the justification.

A fundraising email from March for Our Lives begins:

Today, the Supreme Court once again decided to steal our futures. * They ruled against our right to identify how we want to without discrimination. * They ruled against our right to be free of crippling debt. * They ruled against a decades-long program to make sure that people of color have the same right to a college education that white students do.

In a pundit roundup by Greg Dworkin of Kos quoted Ron Brownstein of The Atlantic that discusses the generation gap the MFOL email implies:

In the broadest sense, the Republican-appointed justices have moved to buttress the affluence and status that allow white people to wield the most influence in society, and to diminish the possibility that accelerating demographic change will force a renegotiation of that balance of power. In that way, the ruling is a judicial extension of the proliferating red-state laws meant to constrain the potential influence of younger generations through measures making it more difficult to vote, banning books, and censoring how teachers talk about race and gender inequities. All of these conflicts reflect the mounting tension between what I’ve called the brown and the gray: the racially and culturally diverse younger generations who are becoming the cornerstone of the Democratic political coalition, and the mostly white older generations who provide the foundation of Republican electoral strength.

I’ve heard the young generations in the Democratic party are annoyed the guy at the top of the ticket is 80. His likely opponent, at 77, is no better. Isn’t there someone who could lead this country and is only 50? Commenter exlrrp included a meme by Tristan Snell for Occupy Democrats:

Let me get this straight: forgiving PPP loans is capitalism – but forgiving student loans is socialism?

Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported Biden is already working out a different way to extend relief to those who have student debt. If he can’t use the HEROES Act, he’ll use the Higher Education Act. He had used the HEROES Act because it was faster. The other has a much longer rule making process, though that process has started.

Beyond announcing the particulars of his Plan B for helping borrowers, Biden slammed Republicans for opposing his $400 billion student debt relief program while backing the $760 billion Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses, where the average amount forgiven was about $70,000. Some congressional members borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars themselves, Biden noted, with several borrowing north of $1 million. “All those loans were forgiven,” Biden said. “My program’s too expensive? … The hypocrisy is stunning,” he added.

Let-them-eat-cake obliviousness

The Supreme Court year is over and in the last couple days they’ve been dropping two decisions a day, each with huge consequences. I got through one of them today. I heard a bit about the affirmative action ruling yesterday. This morning NPR got me up to speed. Steve Inskeep discussed the decision with Elissa Nadworny. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said the admissions policies by Harvard and the University of North Carolina used race in ways the constitution does not allow. They may consider applicant's discussion of how race affected their individual lives, but not beyond that. This is a blow to colleges committed to a diverse campus. The University of California took decades and a complete redesign of the admissions process costing hundreds of millions of dollars to get their diversity numbers back up after the state banned affirmative action in the 1990s. Only about 200 schools and universities are highly selective and where this decision would apply. The rest are desperate enough for students this isn’t an issue. But those selective, elite institutions are the gatekeepers to power in America – eight of nine current Supremes attended Harvard or Yale. High school counselors are working with students to reframe their essays. But there is a lot of anxiety. Are some students relegated to HBCUs? Will others give up, saying college isn’t for everyone? Nadworny ended:

But, you know, over and over, research has shown that nothing is as effective at creating a racially diverse student body as considering race.

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos started with Roberts’ ruling:

Roberts seemingly ends the possibility of any meaningful racial considerations in admissions in his opinion, writing that the schools’ programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.” “Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin,” Roberts wrote. “This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.” This nation’s constitutional history on race is a problematic thing for Roberts to invoke in overthrowing this precedent.

I read the bit “touchstone of an individual’s identity ... but the color of their skin” and thought that for a great number of white people, especially cops, the color of a person’s skin is indeed the “touchstone of an individual’s identity.” Put another way, skin color is all they see. They are completely blind to “challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned.” That reminds me that being blatantly hypocritical is a way of declaring how much power one has. Part of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent:

The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court’s opinion is not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I dissent.

Yes, Robert’s is saying he is upholding the 14th Amendment while Sotomayor is saying he is violating it. McCarter explains the history of the case and previous affirmative action cases that led to this one. I’ll let you read them. McCarter concluded, mentioning the Students for Fair Admissions, backed by conservative groups. The backers championed this case and the one that gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

Both Harvard and the SFFA hired economists to evaluate the 2019 class of Harvard to simulate what it would look like if race couldn’t be considered a factor in admissions. The Harvard economist determined that the class would have been 9% Hispanic rather than 13%, and 6% Black as opposed to 14% under affirmative action. In the arguments in the cases, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued for the universities, pointing out what ending the admissions process would mean for higher education. “When students of all races and backgrounds come to college and live together and learn together, they become better colleagues, better citizens and better leaders,” she said.

McCarter then turned to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent:

With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces “colorblindness for all” by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life ... No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal racelinked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better. The best that can be said of the majority’s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism. But if that is its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain.

Jackson then added footnote to decry Justice Thomas for attacking her dissent without carefully reading it. As part of that she wrote: “JUSTICE THOMAS ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here.” McCarter added:

Both note a carve-out Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for military academies, which can still use race-based criteria for admissions. Jackson interprets that as the majority concluding “racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom.”

I was ready to insert a couple quotes from Twitter, but at the moment Twitter won’t let me read tweets without becoming a member. This is something new today. I haven’t signed up before now due to the way they and other social media sites collect information about me (I won’t be surprised if they do that when I read without signing up). But with Elon Musk in control of Twitter and watching the way he I trashing it there is no way I’m giving him anything. But back to the Supremes. One of those tweets was saying that Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan are writing their dissents not for the current time, but for a time when we can pull back from this conservative control. Those dissents will be useful in rebuilding the country. On Thursday Kai Ryssdal of the NPR show Marketplace talked to Peter Blair Henry, who has a string of business and economic credentials. Here is the main point of what they talked about: There’s a lot of data that shows diverse leadership teams at corporations perform better than non-diverse teams. This ruling removes one way in which universities produce diverse classes of graduates. That will make it harder for businesses to generate the diverse teams they need for higher performance and higher profits. This is a global disadvantage. Corporations will have to turn elsewhere to get diverse talent. They don’t know how to do that yet. Today on Marketplace Stephanie Hughes discussed one of the ways these corporations could create a diverse workforce. A corporation recruits at only a few colleges and universities. One place they tend to go is the CEO’s alma mater. Where they could go and where the administration would be delighted to see them are the HCBUs. They could also get rid of “weird” rules, like not interviewing anyone with a GPA below 3.2. They assume that’s a predictor of performance, and it isn’t. Meteor Blades of Kos wrote about another potential consequence of this ruling.

Environmental injustice comes from having situated waste dumps, chemical factories, mines, refineries, and other polluting facilities in areas where a long history of redlining has disproportionately forced Black people and other people of color to live. This is not to say that white people earning low incomes haven’t also wound up in such areas. But the racial disproportion is stark. If the Supreme Court majority were ultimately to apply its rationale in the affirmative action cases to this matter, implementing truly effective environmental justice would be next to impossible.

Laura Clawson of Kos looked at yet another potential consequence.

America First Legal, run by white nationalist former Trump aide Stephen Miller, started teeing up the next racist court decision before this one was even decided. The group has filed at least nine Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints, The Washington Post reports, alleging that major companies like McDonald’s, Alaska Airlines, Hershey, Anheuser-Busch, and Nordstrom are “hiring people based solely on immutable characteristics, like race or sex, rather than qualifications or abilities.” If the EEOC doesn’t do what Miller wants, the next step would likely be a lawsuit. ... The U.S. economy continues to be shaped by the legacies of slavery, segregation, redlining, hiring discrimination, and discriminatory mass incarceration. But when it comes to deciding if someone gets into college or gets a job or promotion, groups like America First Legal have a lot of money and lawyers to argue that none of that can be taken into account, that applicants affected by those histories should be judged by terms that most highly value the type of qualifications accumulated by people whose ancestors were attending elite colleges at a time when those colleges didn’t admit Black people, and accumulating generational wealth at a time when that too was overwhelmingly off limits to Black people through a host of discriminatory practices, many of them written in law. ... The right-wing legal advocacy complex ... argument is that any effort to undo centuries of discrimination against Black people and other people of color is itself discrimination against white people.

These conservatives are demanding the right to oppress. Lalo Alcaraz tweeted a cartoon of Thomas looking down from a hole in the ceiling as he pulls up an affirmative action ladder, saying, “I’ll be taking this.” Mike Luckovich posted a cartoon on Kos. It shows a person labeled “Legacy Admission” climbing a ladder up to college. There is also a young black man staring at the court carrying his ladder away. The court says, “Your ladder’s unnecessary...” In a pundit roundup Greg Dworkin of Kos included a tweet by David Rothkopf (which I would have linked to directly if I could).

I think analyses pitting Trump v. Biden may have 2024 wrong. My sense is 2024 will be Democrats vs. the six GOP members of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS views on abortion, affirmative action, voting rights, guns, environment, LGBTQ rights will turn out a big anti-GOP majority.

The first time the court has eliminated a right

Michigan COVID data website (which is here) confirms they switched their updates to Tuesdays. So the data I downloaded today is accurate as of June 28. After seven weeks of decline in new cases per day this past week shows only a small decline, from 1670 to 1652. It is too soon to tell whether this is a plateau or a pause in the decline. The deaths per day are rather consistent at mostly single digits for the past two weeks (when data has likely not been fully posted yet) and mostly in the teens for several weeks before then. I noted in my last post I had accumulated another 40 browser tabs while writing a long post that went up on Tuesday. Of course, several more tabs accumulated since then. So many of these will get a mention and a link and not much discussion. And not all of them are in this post. Today’s block of tabs is about the Supreme Court. The first link gives an indication how far behind I am. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos reported a week ago that the Supreme Court handed down a ruling overturning many state gun control laws. Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion. Alito rubbed salt in the wound by saying New York’s gun control laws didn’t stop the mass shooting in Buffalo. Breyer wrote the dissent saying there are significant problems of gun violence and the court just took away the ability of states to control it. As for all those similar laws in other states a belligerent gun rights community is ready to sue to overturn every one of them. The day that gun ruling dropped Leah McElrath tweeted:

SCOTUS issued a ruling striking down concealed carry regulations in advance of the abortion ruling. They know how incendiary the Dobbs ruling will be. They’ve put up barriers at the Court and increased their personal protections. But WE are to be subjected to increased danger.

A week ago McCarter reported the Supremes overturned Roe v. Wade, saying the 1973 ruling was wrongly decided and the constitution does not confer a right to an abortion. A lot of state bans will immediately go into effect. McElrath showed a short video from the morning of this decision showing police in riot gear on their way to protect the Supreme Court building. The Justices (injustices) know the ruling is unpopular. Mark Sumner of Kos listed states where abortion is now illegal and the states where it will be illegal in 30 days. This is the first time the court has eliminated a right. A big question is DC, where abortions are legal now, but it is Congress, not the city government, that gets to decide. All it takes for them to lose the ability to get an abortion is a Republican majority in Congress. In the decision Alito wrote their reasoning is only about abortion, nothing else. Laura Clawson of Kos reported Thomas wrote his own concurring decision and spelled it out. That reasoning that supported Roe v. Wade which they overturned, is the same reasoning that supports Griswold (a couple has a right to make decisions on contraception), Lawrence (people have a right to have sex with whoever they want, even if they’re of the same sex) and Obergefell (people have a right to marry who they want, even if they’re of the same sex). Conspicuously missing from the list is Loving (people have a right to marry, even if they have different skin colors – see Clarence and Ginni). Which means Thomas is telling states: Want to ban same-sex marriage, sodomy, and even contraception? Pass a bill, get it challenged all the way to us, and we’ll be glad to help you out. Send us a case – please! Shortly after the ruling Biden gave a speech. Sumner summarized it by writing:

Honestly, the failure to take some action beyond declaring that the White House will help protect women’s right to travel to other states and to obtain medication through the mail is a huge disappointment. They’ve had weeks to prepare for this moment … there should have been a more powerful response. And there should have been a threat—to expand the Court or take other action that would confound the ruling. As it is, it’s way too easy to view this speech as throwing up his hands and saying “take it up with Congress.”

As for Congress, who also knew this day was coming, Walter Einenkel of Kos, reported about three dozen House Democrats stood on the steps of the House and sang “God Bless America.” As for the decision, they say they’re not pleased, but don’t say what they’re going to do. Which is like giving a high five to a drowning person. Hunter of Kos discussed how we got to this point. He quoted tweets from Celeste Headlee showing all of the conservative justices but Thomas lied during confirmation hearings when asked about Roe v. Wade being settled precedent. Also, they’re lying was well known. Including known by the senators who trusted the accuracy of these statements and voted for them. Sherrilyn Ifill, a civil rights lawyer and president emeritus of the NAACP legal defense fund, tweeted:

Every time I re-read it I’m newly aghast. What an absolute embarrassment and betrayal of principle in judicial decisionmaking. The idea that our rights in a democracy are fixed at where they would have been in 1789 or 1868 is morally bankrupt & legally unsupportable. The majority opinions in Bruen & Dobbs make clear: logic, consistency, real-world consequences, reliance, stare decisis, modesty, discipline, historical context, guidance to lower courts, adherence to letter & spirit, will not characterize the jurisprudence of the Alito-Thomas court.

Rep. Shontel Brown of Ohio tweeted:

Let me get this straight: The Supreme Court says states cannot decide how to regulate guns – yet only the states can decide how to regulate a woman’s body.

Karen Hunter tweeted:

Please do not let anyone drag you into a conversation around abortions w/ this #RoevWade decision. It was NEVER about abortion. It's ALL about rights and who gets to have them in America. Don't fall for the okie doke...

Erin Ryan tweeted:

Damn girl is that a concealed handgun in your waistband or are you just being forced by the state to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term?

Rebecca Entel tweeted:

What will kill you first in the US? Guns, not being able to afford healthcare, climate change, low covid vaccination rate, domestic white male terrorists, poverty, childbirth? It’s like Russian roulette without the empty chamber.

Aysha Qamar of Kos reported the last remaining abortion clinic in North Dakota, located in Fargo, set up a GoFundMe account to raise money to move across the river into Minnesota. Their goal was $20,000. They raised more than a half million. Early this week McCarter reported the Supremes issued a decision saying a football coach was doing nothing wrong by conducting prayers at the 50 yard line after football games. Part of the majority reasoning was that prayers were quietly offered while students were otherwise occupied. Sotomayor, in her dissent, included some factchecking photos. No, the students were not otherwise occupied. They were out on the field with the coach. That coach consistently invited others to join. And his prayers were demonstrative – he was making a scene for the purpose of getting a case before the Supremes. And he succeeded. McCarter quoted a tweet by Qasim Rashid:

SCOTUS just ruled 6-3 that public school teachers and other staff can now lead students in prayer. If any public school teacher wants to learn the Islamic call to prayer, i.e. the Adhaan, let me know.

While Biden was on a diplomatic trip this week for NATO and G7 meetings Hunter report that allies are feeling skittish. They can’t be sure the US will be a reliable partner – or even a democracy – when Biden’s term expires. These other countries are watching the Supremes overturn centuries of international jurisprudence, rulings that clamp down on human rights and reinforce paramilitary groups. And Biden can offer no proof that things will turn out fine. Especially since he offers no plan to make sure they stay fine. And if he is telling world leaders he has such a plan why isn’t he telling us? Hunter also wrote about privacy and big tech. He warns that a person’s phone can be searched for evidence they had an abortion. Such things as searching for abortion clinics in another state. Hunter provides links on how to protect yourself. Dartagnan of the Kos community also offered advice. Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Kos, quoted some late night commentary:

After Roe v. Wade got overturned some pro-lifers have been posting pictures of themselves holding up signs like this, that say “Please don’t abort…we will adopt your baby.” There is some other fine print though. It says offer not valid if baby is black, brown, gay or already out of the womb. —Jimmy Kimmel Live guest host Chelsea Handler

Building a paramilitary branch predicated on a right to violence and sedition

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos reported the Senate has come to an agreement on a gun safety bill that has little to do with gun safety. They left guns out of the title, calling it the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” McCarter details what is in the bill. There is a good chunk of money for mental health. It is needed but should have been funded by Medicaid expansion rather than tying it to a gun law which connects mental health to violence and further stigmatizes it. There is better background checking and longer wait times for 18-21 year olds, though it sunsets in 10 years. There his help for states to pass red flag laws, in which courts can remove guns from the home of a dangerous person, though states that refuse pass such a law can redirect the money to drug courts and veteran courts. The boyfriend loophole is closed – guns can be taken from a recent dating partner convicted of violence as well as a spouse. All to the good, but not nearly enough. And it hasn’t actually passed yet. New York had a gun law that limited licenses to carry guns outside the home to sportsman and those who could prove a need, such as a messenger carrying cash. Nina Totenberg of NPR reported that had is the right word – today the Supreme Court struck it down. Clarence Thomas wrote the 6-3 majority opinion. He called the right to bear arms not a second class right and, as Totenberg wrote, “just as the First Amendment doesn't allow the banning of unpopular speech, the Second Amendment is not limited to people who can demonstrate a special need to carry a gun in public.” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said, “This decision isn't just reckless, it's reprehensible.” The insanity of gun culture has possessed everyone, even the Supreme Court. This is an Originalist view – if a regulation wasn’t around at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, it isn’t permissible. So since there was no ban on high capacity magazines in 1789 there can’t be one now – except there were no high capacity magazines in 1789. There are limits to the ruling. A state may require a license to own a gun and that may require a background and mental health check. But many states have laws that say if a person asks for a gun license the state “shall issue” one. Unknown yet is what kinds of places can ban guns – stadiums, subways, New Year’s Eve on Times Square, where liquor is served? The ruling is an invitation for a do-over for the NRA. Don’t like a gun law, such as the one before the Senate? Come on back! McCarter wrote about another 6-3 ruling the Supremes issued last week. It was about the way schooling is handled in very rural Maine. If the state pays for students to attend a private school it must also pay for students to attend religious private schools. Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent, calling the ruling “especially perverse” and saying the Constitution does not require this result and that it undermines the separation of church and state. Dartagnan of the Kos community said one of the cases yet to be handed down will likely attack how the Environmental Protection Agency works and may make it extremely difficult for the US to do much about climate change. Dartagnan then discussed the Federalist Society, which selected five of the six conservatives on the Supremes and another 241 federal judges confirmed in the nasty guy years. Their goal is to remake the judiciary into a tool for business. Over the last several years these Federalist Society judges have shifted from litigating individual rules from government agencies to choosing cases that can attack the ways the government does business. Tired of litigating every little rule the EPA hands down? Create a case that guts the EPA. The Federalist Society creates the cases and guides them through the federal court system. The way of doing this in the case now before the Supremes is to say Congress must pass each and every one of the rules developed by the EPA and other federal agencies. But Congress simply doesn’t have the time of expertise for that. The ruling could mean the conservative majority of the Supremes will take for themselves veto power over huge swaths of federal policy and making Biden the weakest president in over 80 years (that’s the number put out by Ian Milhiser – but 1942 was when Franklin Roosevelt was at the height of his powers, maybe he meant 100 years?). This theory that Congress can’t delegate the creation of rules to federal agencies would, as Dartagnan wrote, “automatically render the vast majority of consumer, worker safety, and environmental protection laws invalid.” It would overturn a great deal of court precedence – which this gang appears ready to handle with a machete. Back to guns, the main topic at the start of this section. From a post a couple days ago (before the ruling on guns by the Supremes) Hunter of Kos reported last week a man dressed in a tactical vest and having a semi-automatic rifle and a pistol attempted to enter several buildings in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Of course, just by being there, he terrorized the people around him. There were multiple 911 calls and the courthouse was locked down and store employees were evacuated. But, because of Oklahoma’s open carry laws – and this ruling by the Supremes – a guy can cosplay as a purveyor of violence and the police could do nothing until he pulls a trigger. Wrote Hunter:

It is obviously an asinine situation, the public is obviously right to presume a gunman walking toward a courthouse or store means trouble, because no citizen has a plausible reason to need an assault weapon inside those buildings and no reasonable citizen would try it. Only criminals and assholes parade semi-automatic rifles in public. There aren't exceptions. ... It is perfectly, 100% reasonable for any law enforcement officer to presume a man headed for a grocery store, a public building, a movie theater, or a public school carrying an assault rifle, handgun, ammunition, and other gear intends to do harm. It is transparently obvious that the man ought to be stopped, and with violence if necessary.

The police arrested the guy. Not for the guns or for the terror he caused. But for the brass knuckles he also carried. Hunter wrote that being arrested for having brass knuckles means the Oklahoma legislature can regulate guns – if they wanted to. Or with this ruling, could. Laws like this show contempt for law enforcement. They tip the situation away from police officers and towards vigilantes. Yet, when black Americans protest with banners they are met with a military response. And a black man would not have been allowed to pull the stunt this white guy did.

The practical effect of relaxed "open carry" laws, the erasure of licensing and training requirements, and other legislative promotion not just gun ownership but of guns as public accessories is the creation of a paramilitary force, in America, that is as or more heavily armed than law enforcement; that answers to no one, and is exempt from police harassment; that is almost exclusively conservative; that is almost exclusively conspiratorial and paranoid; and that is self-selecting for those most willing to resort to mass violence. The Republican legislatures are in essence building a paramilitary branch of their own movement predicated on a right to violence and sedition. It is not being hidden. The number of Republican lawmakers who now cite a right of rebellion as the reason for removing gun restrictions far outstrips the number of Republican lawmakers who oppose the seditionist premise.

From a post at the beginning of the month, David Neiwert of Kos reported that Liberty Alliance, a far right group in Missouri, has a website that shows a “Woke Heat Map.” It lists and identifies schools in Missouri allegedly promoting “crazy ideas” such as Critical Race Theory and grooming toddlers with sexually explicit books. Click on a school on the map and content explains why the school is classified as “woke.” The content is, of course, from far right groups. The purpose is to alert residents of the craziness in their own communities. Neiwert wrote:

Stochastic terrorism and the scripted violence that comes with it have become essential features of post-insurrection Trumpism and its unfolding strategy: claim your political opponents are literally satanic pedophiles conspiring to traffic your children and destroy America by replacing white people, and then tell your army of True Believers the names and identities of these fiends. Paint targets on them.

Then wait for the “lone wolf” to show up. A wolf that isn’t so lone because a large number of people have radicalized him, normalized the extremism, and encouraged the violence. That’s a large number of people quite content for the media to not connect from the gunman back to the encouragers.

Explain why the gun lobby matters more than the safety of our children

I had shopping to do this afternoon and 20 minutes before heading out the electricity cut out. I called the electric company (which is why I keep a land line) and was told the repair guys will be on the scene by 6:45 this evening. At least not a multi-day outage. On my way out of the neighborhood I passed a lot of dark houses and at the main road a dark traffic light. Thankfully, the next traffic light was working. I did the shopping and headed home at about 5:15. The sun had already gone down. The traffic light was still out. The neighborhood houses were all dark. Once inside I started lighting candles. Shortly after I lit the last one the power came back on. It was 5:40. Only 2:10 without power. As I mentioned yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday over Mississippi’s ban on abortion. They set the limit at 15 weeks, though the standard for the last 30 years had been 24 weeks, about the time the fetus could survive outside the womb. Laura Clawson of Daily Kos reported some of the arguments. From the conservatives she heard a lot of red flags. From the progressives: Clawson wrote:

Justice Elena Kagan noted that one reason for stare decisis—following precedent in most cases—is “to prevent people from thinking that this court is a political institution that will go back and forth” as its membership changes or depending on who “yells the loudest.”

And:

"To reexamine a watershed” of Roe’s importance, Justice Stephen Breyer said, “would subvert the court’s legitimacy.

As for Sonia Sotomayor, April Siese of Kos wrote a separate post. Sotomayor noted that the sponsors who pushed the bill through the Mississippi legislature said they were doing it because “we have new justices on the Supreme Court.” She then referred to the 1992 Supreme Court ruling Casey vs. Planned Parenthood that set the standard at viability. She noted 15 justices of varying political backgrounds since then have upheld that standard. And now she said:

Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible. It’s what Casey talked about when they talked about watershed decisions. Some of them, Brown vs. Board of Education it mentioned and this one, have such an entrenched set of expectations in our society: If this is what the court decided, this is what we will follow.

Sotomayor also asked an important question conservatives are determined to ignore:

When does the life of a woman—and risk to her health—enter the analysis? Poor women who elect abortions before viability—they are put at a tremendously greater risk—14 times greater to give birth to a child full-term than to have a previability abortion.

Leah McElrath tweeted a quote from Melissa Murray, who does a podcast on the Supremes>

Y'all. Justice Sotomayor can count votes. She knows where this is headed... either viability is gone or Roe is gone. Her questions are for the public... to let us know that abortion isn't the end. It's just beginning of the unraveling of these other rights of intimate life.

McElrath added:

What was clear just reading tweets was Justice Sotomayor was arguing for our rights now but—even more—she was arguing for the historical record. Laying foundation for a future—that might or might not arrive in our lifetimes—when people will fight to regain what we’re losing.

Marissa Higgins of Kos reported that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) was driving home when he heard two contrasting stories. One was the oral arguments at the Supremes in which there was a lot of talk about the sanctity of life of the unborn. The other was about a 15 year old boy who pulled out a gun at Oxford High School in Oxford, MI (Detroit’s far north suburbs) and killed three students and wounded eight (one of those has since died). That prompted Murphy to return to the Senate and launch into a speech (I don’t know how many other people were in the chamber). He shared the video on Twitter (and Higgins linked to it) where it has been seen more than 2.3 million times. The core of the speech as reported by Higgins:

Murphy opened his address by saying he’s well aware that his Republican colleagues have “very strong views” on abortion. “But,” he continued, he listened to his colleagues “talk about the sanctity of life, the very moment that moms and dads in Michigan were being told their kids weren't coming home because they were shot at school due to a country that is accepted gun violence due to Republicans fealty to the gun lobby.” Whew. ... "You care about life?” Murphy continued. “Then get these dangerous military-style weapons off the streets, out of schools.” He told Republicans it’s also time to require that everyone buying a gun goes through a background check. Murphy went on to stress that tragedies like this happen in the United States because we “choose to let it happen.” He stressed that we as a nation are not “lucky” but rather that this is a “purposeful” choice made by the nation to “sit on our hands and do nothing.” He said his peers send a “silent message of endorsement” by not doing more to prevent gun violence. "When Congress, the highest, most important, most powerful leaders in the land do nothing shooting after shooting,” he said. “You can understand why those broken brains imply that as an endorsement." “If you're going to come down here and talk about the sanctity of life,” he continued, “explain to the American people why the gun lobby matters more than the safety of our children who are walking into school every day fearing for their life.”

Lili Loofbourow, who writes for Slate, tweeted (NBD = no big deal):

I for one am glad ideas like packing the courts are off the table because it would be *indecorous* for Dems to do anything that might prevent an illegitimate, superpacked GOP court from depriving half of Americans of the right to forgo forced birth and let's face it, there's nothing indecorous about having your body ravaged, your life endangered, tearing stem to stern, bleeding for weeks, and lifelong incontinence or uterine prolapse being dismissed by society as "just one of those things" adoption exists after all! NBD so-called "freedom" fetishists treat these things as trivial, and that's why their pretensions to anything like philosophical or moral seriousness are--and must be treated as--garbage.

McElrath tweeted:

Many seem to believe Republicans are actually going to allow abortion law to be decided on a state-by-state basis because they say so. I don’t think they will. Once they take back power, they’ll likely do whatever is necessary at a federal level to establish fetal personhood.

I’ve written several times that the conservative shouting over Critical Race Theory isn’t really about CRT, rather a whole lot of stuff heaped on top that’s being called CRT. Clawson has the latest from Williamson County, Tennessee. The leader of the local chapter of Moms for Liberty, whose children are not in public school, filed a complaint claiming some texts being used in grade schools violate the state’s new law against teaching about “privilege” or “guilt” or “discomfort” based on race or sex. Clawson lists several books in the complaint. One of them is Ruby Bridges Goes to School. Little Ruby was one of those black children who were a part of integrating Southern schools. The end of that book:

Now black children and white children can go to the same schools. I like to visit schools. I tell my story to children. I tell children that black people and white people can be friends. And most important, I tell children to be kind to each other.

So what about it makes little white kids feel “discomfort?” Which means the conservative argument isn’t even about teaching white kids hate themselves. Wrote Clawson:

The thing is, I get their objections to teaching Ruby Bridges Goes to School. It’s a scary book if you’re a committed racist who doesn’t want anything getting in between your kids and the racism you’re teaching them. After the Moms for Liberty started agitating against the book, I got a copy and read it to my kindergartener. He was fascinated and appalled. He had a lot of questions. It opened up avenues for us to discuss racism in other settings.

DrJessieNYC tweeted:

You think they're "concerned moms" but they're actually fronts for dark money interests

She linked to an article on Truthout described as:

Right-wing women’s groups are raking in donations from organizations spawned by Charles Koch and other billionaires.

Aldous Pennyfarthing of Kos reminded us that William Hartmann was a Republican on the Board of Canvassers for Wayne County, Michigan. This county includes Detroit. After the 2020 election Hartmann refused to certify the results, then relented after fierce criticism. Hartmann has now died of COVID. David Neiwert of Kos discussed how frequently far-right groups call each other “patriots.” He gives a lot of examples. Then he got into why that particular term is being used so much. It isn’t because of a love for democracy – they’re quite a seditious lot.

Their notions of patriotism revolve around enforcing authoritarian adherence to “legitimate” leadership figures and not around the democratic values America of our historical traditions. In psychological terms, it’s an expression of a deep need to see oneself, and to be seen by others, as heroic. The dynamics of achieving that heroic status inform everything they do and say, particularly their constant reification of concocted enemies against which they set out to do battle. In the 1990s, the threat was the “New World Order” and its black helicopters; in the 2000s, it became an invading horde of immigrants, combined with the threat of Islamist terror. Under Trump, it became “antifa” and Black Lives Matter and critical race theory.

And in practical terms the word links them to far-right movements of the last 30 years. And Neiwert provided some of that history. John Stoehr and his Editorial Board discussed political violence after the Rittenhouse verdict. Excerpts of his thread:

In America, political violence is normal. So normal it's invisible. Political violence is the predictable consequence of democratic politics seeking to advance the cause of liberty and justice for all coming into conflict with conservative politics seeking to preserve a social order in which white men rule w/ impunity. ... The takeaway appears to be that it’s now OK to shoot anti-racists as long as the shooting can be credibly characterized as “self-defense.” ... After Rittenhouse’s acquittal, anti-racists may feel it’s too dangerous to petition. (The fascists are taking it to mean they can shoot first and often.) But some won’t let the Second Amendment nullify the First. They’ll arm up. When racists with guns meet anti-racists with guns, it’s likely the results will be bad. USA Today, citing a study by Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, said “armed protests are six times more likely to turn violent compared to protests where no guns are present.” ... What we are seeing now, in the potential for armed racists to silence free speech through intimidation or murder, didn’t come from no where. It started at home, in the family, especially between husband and wife. When women challenge “authority,” when children challenge “authority,” conservative politics does not turn to democracy as a means of resolving conflict. It turns to violence. It also covers it up. When a husband hits his wife, when a father hits his kids, our discourse almost never calls it political violence though the maintenance of the man’s authority over his wife and children is almost always the reason he hits his wife and children. We call it “domestic violence.” We call it “child abuse.” These terms are accurate but incomplete. Suffering is a political problem in democratic politics. Suffering is a political goal in conservative politics. Without suffering — without punishment for those people who deserve to feel their pain — anything can happen. Even liberty, equality and justice for all.

Today, December 2, 2021, is both a palindrome and an ambigram! Written as 12022021 (especially using they way the numbers are displayed on a microwave) the string can be read left to right, right to left, and upside down. There are eleven dates this month that are palindromes – 12-1-21 through 12-9-21, 12-11-21 and 12-22-21