What’s possible when Democrats finally stop wimping out

I wrote yesterday about the Supreme Court gutting the part of the Voting Rights Act that banned racial gerrymandering. Many Republican legislatures announced they were ready to rework district maps that would eliminate perhaps a dozen black Democrats from Congress. Emily Singer of Daily Kos wrote that the Democratic governors of New York and Illinois that they would work to eliminate more Republican seats. The redistricting race will continue. Back in 2010, when Republicans began to put serious, computerized effort into gerrymandering Democrats were more concerned about maintaining fairness. This time they’re willing to fight in the manner of Republicans.

Ultimately, this is a race to the bottom. But if Democrats don’t follow Republicans to the gates of Hell, then it gives Republicans carte blanche to draw their way to a permanent majority—something Republicans are already crowing about doing.

Illinois had been preparing a statewide Voting Rights Amendment. That effort is is being scrapped because it would have prevented this type of redistricting. In a second post Singer discussed the possibilities of Democratic gerrymandering efforts. She included a tweet by Stephen Wolf that showed by 2028 Democrats could flip 19 seats in 9 states (based on a Republican winning the seat in 2024, recognizing some may flip to Democrat this year). In addition to those mention this redistricting could be done in New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. In contrast Republicans might be able to squeeze out another 12 seats in eight Southern states. Of course, the Democratic response can only be done in states where there is a Democratic governor and Democrats control both chambers of the legislature. So vote for Democrats this fall. And we hope that in 2028 with Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress and with a Democrat as president they will pass a nationwide gerrymandering ban to stop this race. I’m hopeful, but they had a chance in 2022 and didn’t take it. Lisa Needham of Kos writes a weekly column on what the courts are doing. Alas, many of the stories are about how they support the nasty guy. This column is from last week. In what should have been an obvious decision Judge Kyle Duncan of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that Texas can require schools to display the King James version of the Ten Commandments because it “looks nothing like historical religious establishment.”

Per Duncan, the separation of church and state is only implicated if the state tells churches how they could worship or punishes someone for rejecting the Ten Commandments or takes your tax dollars to support clergy. It also “does not co-op churches to perform civic functions.” Come on, man. This is impossibly, deliberately slippery. No, the law didn’t say “we hereby outsource evangelical churches to perform the civic function of education,” but it did say, essentially, “the civic function of education now must include a specific religious text with the specific religious language used by specific, conservative, evangelical churches.”

Red states keep passing laws that they know lower courts will block. This is an example. They keep doing it so they can get the cases before the “theocrats” on the Supreme Court so they can explain our understanding of the separation of church and state has been wrong these past 250 years and our founders really did want to mandate the display of the Ten Commandments. There is news about the Senate race in Maine. Susan Collins has been one of their senators and is known for her “concern” about what her fellow Republicans were doing, yet would vote with them anyway. It’s a seat that seems within Democrat’s grasp. Thom Hartmann of the Kos community and an independent pundit described the Democrats campaigning for the seat. There is Governor Janet Mills, 78, who has done a fine job, is appreciated by the citizens, and is the darling of the party insiders who want the “safest, most ‘electable’” candidate to beat Collins. The other candidate is Graham Platner, oyster farmer, whom Hartmann describes this way:

Maine’s Democrats saw a guy who’d actually served three tours in Iraq, who runs a small business on the working waterfront, who talks the way they talk, and who isn’t afraid to say out loud that the people robbing them are the billionaire class and the Republican shills they own.

Platner has been across the state, speaking wherever a group will listen and raising lots of money. Yes, there have been problems, such as a tattoo of a Nazi emblem that has since been removed. Platner has become so popular and raised so much money that yesterday Mills suspended her campaign, even though the primary is still a couple months away. That leaves Platner as the presumptive challenger to Collins. Hartmann says Mills’ withdrawal is sending a message to the rest of the party and they had better listen. That message is adjacent to the reason I touched on yesterday.

People are sick and tired of mealy-mouthed corporate Democrats who run on focus-grouped slogans and govern like they’re scared of their own shadow. They want fighters.

Note the “corporate” label. That refers to Democrats who don’t want to upset the billionaire money spigot. As Mills withdrew the Congressional Progressive Caucus rolled out its New Affordability Agenda, a ten point plan. Here’s a bit of it: + Make drugs cheaper (and they provide detail on how). + Make utilities cheaper. + Make gas cheaper by taxing extra profits. + Make childcare cheaper, max of 7% of income. + Make housing cheaper. + Make groceries cheaper + Abolish Super PACs so billionaires can’t buy politicians so easily.

New polling from Data for Progress found that every single one of those proposals is supported by close to 60% of Republican voters. Among Democrats it pushes into the 80% range. That’s not a “leftist” agenda. That’s a genuine populist agenda that works for the actual American electorate.

Hartmann says Democrats began to go astray with Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” that included “End welfare as we know it” and sucking up to banks, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Defense, and defending Netanyahu no matter the count of war crimes. Hartmann then reminded us what the Republicans have been doing with the power voters keep giving them. Here are the nine points Hartmann listed: + Cut taxes to billionaires (the national debt just crossed 100% of GDP). + Rigged elections. + Cheered wars. + Allowed the nasty guy’s grift. + Kept the minimum wage at $7.25. + Taken money from the fossil fuel industry in spite of global warming. + Taken money from the gun industry. + Hijacked Christianity, pushing a twisted version. + ICE. Sounding mealy-mouthed against that isn’t going to please voters. So if that New Affordability Agenda is popular with 80% of Democrats it is good politics.

Maine just showed the rest of the country what’s possible when Democrats finally stop wimping out and trying to appease Republicans. Voters want candidates like Graham Platner who’ll take names and kick ass.

Ruben Bolling of Kos, in his Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon poses an interesting idea. The nasty guy has been saying he needs a new ballroom as part of the White House for security. The shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner confirmed the need (at least in his head). So a great way to keep children safe at school is to turn each school building into a ballroom. Though there is the problem of getting shrimp cocktail sauce on the math worksheet. Back in October I wondered if my blog had become famous because in September there were 163,988 views, beating by three times the previous record. Since then the peak in views was last month, at 67,191. April finished at 177,760 views, most of that in the second half of the month, setting a new record. Back then I had just cleared a million views (since 2010). New the all time tally is 1.47 million views. A bit more than a quarter of those views came from Brazil and the US. However, what caught my attention was this: Blogger tells me the top 19 countries that view this blog. It then groups all other countries under “Other.” And this group is close to a third of all views. Since Blogger orders countries by number of views those grouped under “Other” will have no more than the bottom country in the list. That means there are at least another 20 countries that have viewed this blog in the last month and the number is likely far higher than that. So compared to the record set last September this record appears to come from a much broader base.

The most profound, harmful and unnecessary economic error

I finished the March/April issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact. I read the six issues I get in a year, but usually don’t blog about them because it would be hard for me to say much about the two dozen stories and articles and hard for anyone else to get a copy by the time I’ve read it. However, in this issue I thought the editorial made some points worth sharing. It is online, though the link shows that it will be online only until the next issue is published, which may be in a week. The editorial is “Seeking Scientific Common Ground, Even On Guns” by Richard A. Lovett. The debate on guns seems to cycle at every mass shooting, with nothing changing. How can we break the cycle? One way is to look at the points (usually small) on which both sides can agree. And to do that we need data-driven research. The Centers for Disease Control had been restricted from doing this sort of research (and under the nasty guy will be restricted again). But academic researchers could and did (though that may also be banned now). One study in California compared the addresses of gun purchasers with addresses of shooting incidents. That showed people in households with guns were 2.33 times more likely to die from gun violence and the victim was typically the wife or domestic partner of the gun owner. RAND released research in 2023 showed evidence of consequences of three types of gun laws. Restricting a child’s access to parents’ guns reduces the chance of the child being shot by the gun. A stand-your-ground law increases gun violence because the law gives permission to shoot when one feels threatened, even though one could flee. Concealed carry laws increase gun violence, but in an unexpected way. When one has permission to carry a gun and wants to go to a place that forbids guns they leave the gun in the car. And they forget to lock the car. And the gun is stolen. Gun thefts rise when concealed carry laws go into effect. Maurizio Porfiri of New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering found that gun sales go up after a mass shooting because of a fear of new laws that might restrict gun purchases. His team also found there is one group of people who commit mass shootings for the fame. To get that fame they go for unusual settings and they innovate. The antidote is minimize use of the shooter’s name and reveal as little of the attack as possible. Yeah, media and the public don’t like that idea. They want the juicy details. With research we know more about how to prevent deaths buy gun. In a right to carry state that might include reminders to lock your car when you leave your gun in it. The big news today is the nasty guy’s “Liberation Day” – the imposition of tariffs on close to every country in the world, then what happened in response. Oliver Willis of Daily Kos reported on the actual announcement. The speech was “rambling” and included “debunked conspiracy theories.” It again showed he doesn’t understand the effects of tariffs or much about economics. One country notably missing from the list is Russia. And he again complained the 2020 election was stolen. As near as anyone can figure the reason why it is “liberation day” is that it marks the liberation of dollars from American and world wallets and retirement accounts as prices go up and stocks go down. I saw a lot of cartoons showing exactly that. TheCriticalMind of the Kos community gives the history of income taxes and tariffs, and what the nasty guy got wrong. In the early years of the US the federal government was funded by tariffs. An income tax was first considered in 1812 and enacted 1861-1872. In 1906 President Teddy Roosevelt called for inheritance and income taxes. President William Howard Taft called for them again in 1909. The 16th Amendment authorizing income taxes was ratified in 1913. The Great Depression began when the financial markets collapsed in October 1929. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 made the depression worse. President Franklin Roosevelt saved the nation (by canceling Smoot-Hawley – the article isn’t clear). And the economy recovered going into WWII. Parts of the nasty guy’s speech is repeated. I’ll leave it by saying the nasty guy got the year of the 16th Amendment right. Nothing else. Emily Singer of Kos reported that four Republican senators – Murkowski, Collins, McConnell, and Paul joined Democrats in voting for a resolution that terminates the national “emergency” that the nasty guy is using to justify the tariffs. That “emergency” is the false claim of fentanyl coming from Canada. This resolution is in response to the 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, so doesn’t include the worldwide tariffs imposed yesterday. The Republican controlled House is unlikely to consider the resolution, and if it did the number of Republicans who might vote for it is unknown. Also, the nasty guy verbally attacked the Republican senators that voted for it. Dartagnan of the Kos community discussed the article by the editors of the Economist condemning the tariffs. From the Economist:

It’s hard to know which is more unsettling: that the leader of the free world could spout complete drivel about its most successful and admired economy. Or the fact that on April 2nd, spurred on by his delusions, Donald Trump announced the biggest break in America’s trade policy in over a century—and committed the most profound, harmful and unnecessary economic error in the modern era. ... Almost everything Mr Trump said this week—on history, economics and the technicalities of trade—was utterly deluded. His reading of history is upside down. He has long glorified the high-tariff, low-income-tax era of the late-19th century. In fact, the best scholarship shows that tariffs impeded the economy back then. He has now added the bizarre claim that lifting tariffs caused the Depression of the 1930s and that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were too late to rescue the situation. The reality is that tariffs made the Depression much worse, just as they will harm all economies today. It was the painstaking rounds of trade talks in the subsequent 80 years that lowered tariffs and helped increase prosperity.

Dartagnan wrote that many feel these tariffs will be temporary. As the stock market crashes (and it made an excellent start at that today) cooler heads will prevail. But the nasty guy made sure this time around his administration is full of of loyalists, selected for the purpose of not telling him his ideas are catastrophic. The Economist counsels other nations to build up their trade by seeking saner trading partners and be cautious in their retaliation which would cause the nasty guy to double down. They’ll do it anyway to please their people. Dartagnan noted the nasty guy said that other countries will cave to his demands and open factories in the US. That’s preposterous – Vietnam and Indonesia have no interest in moving their manufacturing base here. He concluded:

There is no favorable outcome for Americans with these tariffs. None. It’s all bad, a wholly pointless, self-inflicted wound, apparently all premised on the irrational whims of someone whose own horrendous business record should have prohibited him from ever leading this country in the first place, let alone implementing its economic policies.

Willis reported on some world leaders condemning the tariffs. He concluded:

The entire world, including Americans, has given a thumbs down to Trump’s tariff tirade. Only Trump, his inner circle, and most of his Republican allies seem to think this will all work out.

After writing yesterday that the intent of DOGE is to make the US government unable to function so that government functions would have to be turned over to private companies, these tariffs got me thinking. Will crashing the economy in the US and around the world help corporate takeover? It will definitely have one effect: Rich people like the nasty guy and Musk live to oppress the lower classes so their lives look better. And crashing the economy will definitely oppress the lower classes. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted several pundits discussing the tariffs. I’ll summarize the points made by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo. His first point: Presidents have power over tariffs only because Congress delegated it and only during emergencies. Congress can take that power back. The Republican Congress could end this tonight, so it is on every one of them. Marshall’s second point: The huge stock market drop after the tariffs were announced both makes sense – this will be a big shock to the economy – and is weird – the nasty guy had talked about the coming tariffs for weeks and had been quite specific about them. “This suggests the equities markets are still in the grip of quite a bit of magical thinking, especially about Donald Trump.” Sebastian Strangio of The Diplomat explained how the per country tariffs were calculated. The nasty guy said they were “reciprocal,” a word he used a lot. But the tariff rates are not based on the tariffs other countries have placed on US products.

As numerous observers have already noted, the tariffs that the administration claims have been imposed on U.S. goods correspond to the nations’ current trade surplus with the United States, expressed as a percentage of these nations’ total exports to the U.S. ... (The White House later appeared to confirm this.) The fact that the administration has passed this off as a “tariff” rate, and then used this as the basis for the imposition of so-called reciprocal tariffs on other nations – in most cases the latter seems to have been calculated simply by halving the former – is a sign of spectacular mendacity and incompetence. As Mike Bird of The Economist noted on X, the fraudulent way that the tariffs were calculated is “almost a worse signal than the tariffs themselves.”

Kate Lyons and Nick Evershed of the Guardian:

Heard Island and McDonald Islands, which form an external territory of Australia, are among the remotest places on earth, accessible only via a two-week boat voyage from Perth on Australia’s west coast. They are completely uninhabited, with the last visit from people believed to be nearly 10 years ago. Nevertheless, Heard and McDonald islands featured in a list released by the White House of “countries” that would have new trade tariffs imposed.

Those islands take so long to get to because they are near Antarctica. While there are no humans, there are lots of penguins. Parish Dave and Louise Matsakis of WIRED reported that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) was created by Congress to help small American manufacturers to grow. On Tuesday the nasty guy told Congress he’s withholding funding for some MEP centers.

The Democratic congressional aides and heads of MEP centers in multiple states believe that abandoning support for the program runs counter to Trump’s long-standing goals of boosting domestic manufacturing and winning the ongoing trade war with China.

Don Moynihan of the “Can We Still Govern” Substack discussed Musk and his heavy investment in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. The quote concludes:

The stakes could not be higher. If Musk won, his combination of unlimited money and social media dominance would appear unbeatable. But his loss signals that money and messaging cannot dominate the deep and growing sense of dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, and with Musk in particular.

Down in the comments are lots of cartoons about the tariffs and Musk’s loss in Wisconsin. Also: Leia BlueSkywalker posted a meme: “I don’t want Canada or Greenland. I want PBS, Social Security, and the Smithsonian.” A meme posted by exlrrp quoted President Ronald Reagan from 1988. “When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country – the same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression.” Way down in the comments is a cartoon posted by paulpro. It shows two buttons, one labeled “Trans people are too weak to be in the military.” The other is labeled “Trans people are too strong to compete in sports.” A transphobe is in a sweat over which button to push.

He knows that his picks are too extreme for confirmation

The voters chose the nasty guy a second time less than ten days ago. Already I see I won’t be able to keep up with the news. I won’t keep up with what I see as the bits of news worth writing about. For example, in contrast to eight years ago the nasty guy is being quick about announcing his picks for various administration positions and for his cabinet. Alarming, but not surprising, that all the names mentioned so far are horrible people. I don’t have the time to list them all. I will mention a few – which means they’re the most alarming. Lisa Needham of Daily Kos reported the nasty guy will probably have no difficulty getting his choices for the 1,200 positions that need Senate confirmation. The Senate is in Republican hands and it appears the filibuster for confirmations has already been eliminated (or was never there). And if the Senate balks, there is the Federal Vacancy Reform Act that allows for “acting” cabinet members. These are supposedly limited to 210 days, But last time the nasty guy switched people around and the Department of Homeland Security had three acting secretaries, so no official head for 440 days. An advantage of the “acting” secretary is they’re more easily fired if they aren’t sufficiently loyal. Or, like last time, he could leave positions vacant, grinding agencies to a halt.

But that’s exactly what conservatives want. They hate agencies because agencies have a nasty habit of creating regulations on things like limiting pollution or trying to make things better for trans kids. Gutting the administrative state means Trump will never have to deal with pesky experts again. Instead, we could experience conspiracy theorist and all-around weirdo Robert F. Kennedy Jr. running the FDA. If Trump wants it that way, it’s likely impossible to stop him, even if Republican senators came together to block someone who thinks wi-fi causes cancer, Trump can just go around them. It’s definitely time to expect the absolute worst.

Emily Singer of Kos reported, prior to the Senate voting a new Majority Leader...

“Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner,” Trump wrote in a post on X. “Sometimes the votes can take two years, or more. This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again. We need positions filled IMMEDIATELY!” ... So the fact that Trump is demanding the Senate allow recess appointments is a likely sign that he knows that his picks are so extreme that even a GOP Senate wouldn't confirm them. ... The three Senate Republicans running to replace Mitch McConnell as leader all quickly came out to say they support Trump’s demand to make recess appointments—a bad sign for anyone hoping that the Senate would serve as a backstop to Trump’s dictatorial impulses.

With Congress becoming nearly a year-round body there may not be a recess to allow making a recess appointment. Needham reported that various government institutions are trying to protect themselves from the nasty guy’s efforts. The military is one she focused on. How will they be called on to deport millions of immigrants? Will they be housing deportees at military bases? Will they be called on to stop domestic protests? How are the generals and grunts to figure out which orders are legal and which are illegal – they are required to disobey illegal orders but face harsh consequences of they disobey a legal one. But, how to tell? Walter Einenkel of Kos reported:

A disturbing report from The Wall Street Journal says that Donald Trump’s transition team is drafting an executive order to create a military review body that could allow his administration to remove three- and four-star officers more easily. Purportedly, this “warrior board” would consist of retired senior military personnel. The Journal, whose reporters have seen a draft of this order, says it allows the removal of officers “lacking in requisite leadership qualities” as quickly as 30 days from their review and could force them to retire. The speculation that this board would be a way for Trump to create a military that is loyal to him above all else is not far-fetched.

He has talked about his admiration for Hitler’s generals. On Tuesday Oliver Willis of Kos reported there are signs Elon Musk is trying to assert control over the Republican Party. He reportedly spent $200 million to support the nasty guy in the election. Part of that was through his use of X to support his guy through lies, conspiracy theories, and attacks. Then Musk announced his pick for Senate Majority Leader before the nasty guy did, who chose the same candidate. Thankfully, that candidate lost (which is not a way of saying the guy who got the job will be any good for the country). There are also stories of Musk exerting influence, though the stories may have originated from Musk. Also on Tuesday an Associated Press article posted on Kos reported:

President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday said Elon Musk and former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy will lead a new “Department of Government Efficiency" — which is not, despite the name, a government agency. The acronym “DOGE” is a nod to Musk's favorite cryptocurrency, dogecoin. Trump said in a statement that Musk and Ramaswamy will work from outside the government to offer the White House “advice and guidance” and will partner with the Office of Management and Budget to “drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before.” He added that the move would shock government systems.

The Department of Government Efficiency doesn’t exist, at least not yet. So how does Musk and the rest fit in with the Administration? Likely they’ll be an outside think tank issuing pronouncements on how government departments should be funded and which are terminated. Or... Willis suggests that Musk has been put in charge of a blue-ribbon commission, a long Washington tradition of creating a panel to address a problem and that issues a report months or years later when it can be ignored.

There are already signs from within Trump world that Trump wants to get rid of his growing Musk problem. Politico is now reporting that insiders close to Trump believe Musk has “become almost a comical distraction,” citing his habit of “hanging around Mar-a-Lago” and sitting in on high level meetings and giving feedback nobody asked him for.

The nasty guy has traditionally given his big donors access to power. So Musk is only the latest to step up to the trough. This announcement of Musk’s new fake department fits in the nasty guy’s love of a good show to make a grand proclamation that turns out to be nonsense. This one appears to put Musk in his place. But did he get the message? Einenkel reported Musk is changing the terms of service for X. The new terms say if users want to sue the company they must do so in one of two Texas courts stocked with nasty guy appointees. In response to that and to the general awful quality of the site journalists and news organizations are pulling out. The Guardian has said it will no longer post on X, though users may share articles there. Journalist Don Lemon, who is in the midst of a lawsuit against Musk for alleged breach of contract, is also leaving. Singer reported:

On Wednesday, Donald Trump appointed Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general. The Florida Republican, accused of child sex trafficking, is a Trump loyalist who has made it his mission to protect Trump at all costs. He would be the country’s top law enforcement official. ... Gaetz’s nomination is completely out of left field.

Gaetz had been under the investigation by the FBI for years of alleged child sex trafficking. They declined to file charges. He’s also being investigated by the House Ethics Commission – more on this in a moment. Gaetz was instrumental in getting Kevin McCarthy removed as House Speaker. He is well known for stirring up big trouble for the House, apparently for the sake of stirring up trouble.

Hill newspaper reporter Emily Brooks reported that there was an “audible gasp” in the room where House Republicans are meeting to nominate their leadership slate for 2025 when Gaetz’s nomination was announced. It’s despicable nominations like Gaetz’s that make it clear why Trump wants to shred the rules and bypass the Senate to simply install his picks in key administration roles.

Yeah, a smarmy guy under investigation nominated to be the top law enforcement official. Einenkel had more to say about Congress’ views on the nomination of Gaetz. Some members say they will absolutely not vote for him. Other say he’s the nasty guy’s pick and we must support the nasty guy, showing how completely they’ve sold themselves. And Sen. Susan Collins is “shocked.” One hopes that is higher than “concerned.” She was “concerned” about the nomination of accused sexual predator Brett Kavanaugh’s to the Supreme Court and voted for him anyway – and got a sizable campaign donation haul. Singer reported that just hours after Gaetz was nominated for AG he resigned from Congress. He didn’t wait to be confirmed for the new job. There wouldn’t be a reason for the hasty exit, would there? Yeah, there is. The House Ethics Committee was set to release its report on Gaetz in two days. It is described as “highly critical.” But with Gaetz no longer a member of the House the Ethics Committee no longer has jurisdiction over him and the investigation is closed. Democrats are saying there’s a difference between losing jurisdiction and thus no longer able to issue punishment and being able to issue the report. Democrats want that report issued anyway. I’ve since heard that Republicans in the Senate also want to see that report before they take up Gaetz’ nomination.

Ultimately, Trump wants Gaetz as his attorney general to carry out his agenda of punishing his perceived enemies, and releasing the ethics report into Gaetz’s conduct would jeopardize that nomination. However, one glimmer of hope for the decent people who want to see Gaetz fail is that Gaetz's fellow Republican lawmakers absolutely hate him. Ohio GOP Rep. Max Miller said on Wednesday that Gaetz is "literally worse than gum on the bottom of my shoe," adding that Gaetz is "a complete weirdo."

John VandeHei and Mike Allen of Axios explain more about the nasty guy and Gaetz. Here’s a bit of their article.

Get used to this. It's your future foretold: On some topics, Trump wants to seem reasonable. On others — like anything related to his suspicion of a hostile "deep state" — he demands his own personal, controllable wrecking ball. Gaetz, 42, is a wrecking ball, head to toe. Oh, and arguably the most despised one among elected Republicans. But Trump doesn't care, advisers say. ... Republicans hope Gaetz is simply a sacrificial sucker, put up to be rejected so Trump can smuggle through a controversial but more acceptable alternative. Perhaps. But Gaetz is a Trump favorite and Mar-a-Lago regular. Trump has assurances from Senate Republican leaders that he can use a controversial workaround, recess appointments, to smuggle in unpopular picks, at least for a few years.

In the comments of a pundit roundup on Kos exlrrp posted a meme and a cartoon. The meme shows a scene from the end of the movie The Planet of the Apes (it came out in the early 1970s) in which the main character encounters the Statue of Liberty half-buried on a beach. The added words say, “Well, at least now we have the backstory...” The cartoon by Sipress shows a woman talking to a man, saying, “My desire to be well-informed is currently at odds with my desire to remain sane.” Further down Marlene Robertson posted the word for the day:

kakistocracy, noun, a state or country run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.

I suggested getting a passport now in case you need to flee later. Madisonian of the Kos community included a link for details, though added five important reminders. 1. Apply now. Don’t wait. The process can take months and applications from nervous fellow citizens will produce a processing logjam. 2. Take a money order for the exact amount. 3. You will need a valid ID and a certified copy of your birth certificate. Take the required photos in the required format or take extra cash for a photo service fee. 4. Check whether you need an appointment or can just walk in. 5. Verify all your documents are in order and all the forms are filled out correctly. I’ll add one more. When I last renewed the place that handled it (I’m pretty sure it was a post office) was allowed to collect a processing fee. Take cash for that too.

The relentless need to oppress

This is one of those times where I’m tired of the relentless push by supremacists to make the lives others miserable. It seems all they do is defend their supposed position at the top of the hierarchy. We get bombarded by something – several somethings – every day. As I put in the title of my previous post it’s like debating a hailstorm. A supremacist is anyone (and some days that includes me) who tries to oppress (bully, belittle, harm – lots of words go here) someone else. A common way an oppressor acts is to do some sort of oppression (such as bully another) and see what the reaction is. Do their friends cheer them on? Do authority figures call them out? They weigh the consequences. If the cheering outweighs the punishment they do it again and do something stronger. That discussion doesn’t include the person who does a bit of bullying, develops and empathy for the victim and understanding of what they did, and stops. Though I’ve been thinking about supremacy and oppression for several years now I still look back at recent actions and realize what I did was (hopefully in a minor way) assert my superiority and caused (hopefully mild) oppression. Some people manage this understanding. Many do not. We’re in a time when too many people in too many high public places cheer oppression or at least stay quiet about it. The crimes of the nasty guy (well before he got to Washington) were ignored, as were the crimes of people like Jeffrey Epstein. Both kept oppressing and criming. We used to be in a time when a white supremacist didn’t talk about his supremacy in public because the shame heaped upon him. They knew their views were not welcome in polite society. Just a few years ago women began a strong effort to speak out against their abusers. But a candidate for president cheered the supremacists. And they became bolder. Republicans used to vote for renewals of the Voting Rights Act. Then five people on the Supreme Court said they could show their inner racist. Republican oppressive behavior was cheered by their base. What once brought enough shame to prevent oppressive behavior, or at least keep it hidden is now praised. Yes, I know a great deal of oppression has been a strong component of our national culture for several centuries. I’m tired of it. I’m tired of the onslaught. I’m tired of those who claim they’re high in the hierarchy seeming to spend all their effort in every day in oppressing those they believe should be below them. The won’t let up until someone – which is we the people – makes them stop. Right now there is little evidence of that happening soon. So on to the latest round of oppression. April Siese of Daily Kos reported that Politico obtained a leaked draft of the pending ruling in an abortion case before the Supreme Court. Of course, leaks from the Supremes are extremely rare (some news outlets say it is unprecedented, others say the Roe v. Wade ruling was leaked). The draft was written by Alito and concurred by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret (notably Roberts isn’t in the list). It says that Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong from the start” and there is no right to an abortion. This morning NPR noted this is a draft and doesn’t (yet) have any legal meaning. But it is highly unlikely that the final ruling will be different enough to leave the right to an abortion in place. Siese quoted a few tweets to add a bit more. From Mark Joseph Stern (link to his full discussion):

Alito's draft opinion explicitly criticizes Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing sodomy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing same-sex marriage). He says that, like abortion, these decisions protect phony rights that are not "deeply rooted in history."

Jay O’Brien mentioned that 13 states have trigger laws that automatically go into effect if the Supremes overturn Roe. There are also laws in many other states that were unenforceable under Roe that come back to life with it gone. Steve Kenson added:

Requiring civil rights to be “deeply rooted in history” is a great way to say “if you didn’t always have civil rights, then you should never have them.”

Laura Clawson of Kos reported on the leak and what is says. She added what Schumer and Pelosi said in condemnation of what the draft proposes. Then she wrote:

What Pelosi and Schumer didn’t say is what they plan to do about it. Or even what they plan to say Democrats would do about it if they had a few more Senate seats.

A lot of the Republican talk is that the states get to decide whether abortion is legal or not. They know many states will enact or have already enacted laws to ban abortion as soon as the ruling is official. They also know many states are working to declare women have a right to an abortion. Joan McCarter of Kos wrote of what the Republicans are not saying very loud – if they regain control of Congress and the presidency they will be ready to enact a strict national ban. Various organizations are working to make sure future GOP prez. candidates are onboard. Wrote McCarter:

Because of course it isn’t about states’ rights when it comes to abortion. It’s not about anyone’s rights.

So we have to elect more pro-choice candidates. Right?

The response from Democrats has been underwhelming. There’s been little more than the usual platitudes from Democratic leadership about protecting the right to choose and absolutely no endorsement, or really even any talk, about the most important thing they could do right now to ensure that right: expand the courts. Expand the district courts, the circuit courts and especially the Supreme Court to stop the radical right from imposing a right-wing evangelical dominionist hellscape across the land. And while that’s not possible right now with an evenly divided Senate, run on it and work like hell to get a big enough majority in the Senate to make Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema irrelevant, get rid of the filibuster, and save the country. ... Don’t tell us you’re going to fight like hell. Do it.

From the end of a thread by Michael Harriot:

GOP: Then we’ll steal a SCOTUS seat & fill it with a handmaiden whose entire life goal is overturning Roe. Dems: Still not gonna fight or pack the court. Or end the filibuster. After all, the law says… SCOTUS: We find that the law of the land doesn’t matter. Roe is overturned. Dems: I can’t even believe they did that! Someone needs to stop them!

Elie Mystal, a justice correspondent, tweeted:

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN SHOULD PROMISE TO SEND DOCTORS TO PROVIDE ABORTION SERVICES ON FEDERAL PROPERTY. 1. The doctors don't need to be licensed in the states because A: They're practicing on federal property and B: According to the Supreme Court, abortion isn't health care. 2. The doctors should volunteer which gets us around the Hyde Amendment.

Then Mystal linked to an article he wrote last September, when Texas passed its restrictive ban, about all the things the federal government could be doing and isn’t. That makes one wonder if the big pots of money that bought off Republicans has also bought off Democrats. The means the difference between the two parties is the Democrats pretend to be on our side. Jennifer Mendelsohn tweeted four images of death certificates of women who died of an abortion. The dates are 1884 to 1927. In the cause of death several use the phrase “Criminal Abortion.” I saw a tweet that Twitter dangled as something enticing to click on, but it disappeared before I had a chance to do so. So I can’t give credit. I’m sure the text isn’t quoted accurately and I’m sure there is more to the thread.

If conservatives really cared about the children they are forcing women to give birth to, the medical costs of giving birth would be free and there would be generous paid maternity and paternity leave.

And there would be basic income so the kids were properly fed. And education would be free ... Some Republicans are irate. Not about the text of the draft ruling, but that it was leaked. Hunter of Kos reported Sen. Josh Hawley, one of those who most ardently supported the Capitol attack, called the leak a “coordinated assault by the Left.” Sen. Ron Johnson said the goal of the leak by the radical left was to “intimidate sitting Supreme Court justices.” Moscow Mitch – the guy who broke the court – also blamed the radical left. Aaron Rupar tweeted that Fox mentioned the leak more than they mentioned abortion. Hunter included a tweet by Tina Smith that includes a photo of the Capiol attack to remind us what an actual “coordinated assault” looks like. Hunter reminded us we don’t know who leaked the opinion. It could have been a conservative wanting to blame a liberal. Or ...

if conservative justices were feeling uneasy about the sheer magnitude of what Alito intends to unravel, leaking the document would paint a target on whichever conservative justices were threatening to back out.

Rebekah Sager of Kos reported that Chief Justice Roberts condemned the leak as an egregious breach of trust. He has asked the Marshal of the Court to investigate. Sager quoted Amy Kapczynski tweets about the timing of the leak. This draft was circulated back in February. Why would a liberal leak it in May when the opinion is released in June? That puts the focus on the leak and not the opinion. Sager wrote:

Essentially, Kapczynski says leaks are a well-sharpened tool conservatives use to show they’re bold enough to break the rules and public trust to get what they want… and then blame the left. But, in the end, the leak isn’t the story. The opinion is.

Draft majority opinions circulate through the Supremes first. Then concurrences followed by dissents. And this is the right time for concurrences to start their rounds. Perhaps the leak is because Roberts circulated a concurrence urging a more moderate position, perhaps one keeping exceptions for the life of the mother. Seise posted a long string of photos and videos of protests that were held across the country yesterday. Lauren Sue of Kos reported that the hashtag #ShoutYourAbortion is now quite active. There is also a website where one can tell their story anonymously. And women are telling their powerful stories. A few examples of what they said in quoted tweets and in this post’s comments: A woman said an abortion allowed her to safely leave an abusive relationship. Warren Senders said an abortion saved his mother’s life and he was born three years later. conniptionfit said her mother not having an abortion meant dropping out of college and married an abusive man. TB50 said their mother was raped and they spent a few years in foster care before being adopted by a woman who was abusive. The people who demand pregnancies be carried to term and promote adoption did not check on them. Kerry Eleveld of Kos listed some of the other progressive things that appear to be on Alito’s and conservative’s list of things to overturn: The right to same-sex marriage. The right of same-sex couples to be intimate (which was illegal in some places up to 2003). The right to access contraception. The right to interracial marriage. McCarter wrote:

“Pro-choice Republican” senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins would have you believe that they didn’t see the immediate end of abortion rights coming. That they had absolutely no clue the Trump justices they were trading votes on (both voted yes on Gorsuch; Murkowski was “present” on Kavanaugh, yes on Barrett; Collins was yes on Kavanaugh, no on Barrett) would do something so radical. Never mind that the guy who nominated them promised as a Republican hopeful that the best way to end abortion in the U.S. was “by electing me president.” ... Nonetheless, both Collins and Murkowski are playing disingenuous today, following the leak of Alito’s draft opinion in the Mississippi case that will end national abortion rights. Collins released a statement expressing her total surprise. “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” Collins said.

McCarter quoted a tweet from Demand Justice:

Five Republican Supreme Court justices have reportedly voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. But when they were testifying at their Senate confirmation hearings, they all denied they were planning to do that.

And McCarter concluded:

Which takes us back to this: the Supreme Court as it stands is illegitimate. It is full of liars, people who lied to the Senate under oath. Not to mention insurrectionists. It needs to be dealt with. It needs to be expanded. And Collins and Murkowski either need to wake up to reality, or stop lying to their constituents.

Michael Beschloss, presidential historian, tweeted:

What does it mean for rule of law in America if nominees to the Supreme Court feel free to say things that they may not actually believe during public confirmation hearings and to Senators in private as a tactic to get confirmed?

Greg Dworkin, in a pundit roundup for Kos, had some interesting quotes. First from Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post:

With polls showing as much as 70 percent of Americans favoring the preservation of Roe v. Wade, unelected justices — in some cases appointed by presidents who lacked a popular-vote majority and confirmed by senators who did not represent a majority of the country — would bring to head a battle between a fading racial, religious and political minority and an increasingly diverse, secular country.

Dworkin quoted Dr. Mia Brett

Things not “deeply rooted” in US history - Interracial marriage - Anyone other than white men voting - The concept of illegal immigration (doesn’t exist until 1875) - Non White people naturalizing - An individual right to a handgun - Women serving on juries

Dworkin also quoted an article in Axios about what Republican candidates for the Senate should be saying about abortion: * Say Americans are compassionate people who want to welcome every new baby into the world. * Say Democrats have radical and extreme views on abortion, outside the American mainstream. * Refute the Democrat claims – say that Republicans do not want to take away contraception, mammograms, and female healthcare or throw doctors and women in jail. My refutation of those three points. * Democrats are also compassionate towards women who find themselves in difficult circumstances for which abortion needs to be an option. * Democrat’s views are actually well within the mainstream. See above on 70% wanting to preserve Roe. * Yes, they do want to take away contraception as the GOP candidate for Michigan Attorney General has said. They may not want to throw doctors and women in jail but they have already instituted hefty fines. And that bit about mammograms is scare tactics. Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Kos, quoted from Molly Ivens’ book Who Let the Dogs In?

[A]pproximately one fourth of all fertilized eggs are swept out on the menstrual tide before they even get near to implanting themselves in the uterine wall, and we do not hold funerals over Kotex or Tampax. I suggest to you this means that the beginning of life is not a single specific event, but rather a process that deserves increasing respect as it continues toward birth—precisely the tripartite system set up under Roe v. Wade (and if you hear Roe v. Wade described as "abortion on demand," you are listening to a liar). I respect those who oppose abortion, but I do not think they have a right to use the law as an instrument of coercion against people who do not believe (and it is a matter of faith) as they do. ... There were an estimated one million abortions a year in this country before Roe. Abortion can be safe and legal, or dirty and illegal. It cannot be stopped.

Of course, I’m getting a lot of emails from organizations working towards reproductive rights or progressive causes asking for donations. That was the hot topic in the news (it even threw the Ukraine war off the top of the national conversation). But it isn’t the only one I’m grumbling about today. If I had more time to write today (he says at the end of a six page post) I would have also written about: Election tampering. Oppressing LGBTQ people. Claiming the refugees coming across the Mexican border are an “invasion.” People demanding others take off their masks. A politician saying banned books should be burned and the state book should be the Bible. I’ll get to those eventually.