#especially in countries with constitutional courts

[tanadrin]

Minor point of contention: The German presidency is mostly irrelevant. There's a few scenarios, most of which afaik never happened, in which the president can make actually important decisions. One of them being that in 2017 he decided not to dissolve parliament when coalition negotiations failed and instead convinced the SPD to join the governing coalition again (not the world, but certainly not nothing) and, if there's a law the government considers to be really urgent but can't get a majority for, the president can decide whether to implement a 6-month period in which laws do not need to be ratified by parliament as long as they get the support of the unelected Bundesrat (can only happen during that one 6 month period per administration, and hasn't ever happened, but it's not like it isn't a question to consider when deciding on the next president).

I love it when people habituated to parliamentary systems are like, "no, no, our head of state is not a figurehead! They have the very important job of [technical matter that has only come up once in the last thirty years]." It's a charming bit of ceremony, but when you compare it to, like, the pre-war German presidency and its expansive capacity to fuck shit up, you could easily be forgiven for not remembering who the guy is, or even that he exists at all.

(But I admit, still not quite as bad as the British king, who by convention exercises no power, and if he tried to change that, Parliament would immediately strip him of the remaining powers he does theoretically have!)

[waytootiredstudent]

Okay alright sorry for all the sudden German politics influx but lemme explain what happened so far and why Germans are losing it a bit:

The tldr? Our government is getting a divorce and it's turning messy with elections being called early and now being called even earlier.

The longer version?

Okay so, groundwork first:

in Germany there is a coalition currently in power called the Ampel(traffic lights) bc the colours of the party are red, yellow and green (or not anymore or for much longer??). They're centrist slightly more left leaning than right leaning. (You could argue about that I am aware). There has been infighting for as long as this coalition has been going on. It is also the first three party coalition since y know, the Last Time.

So. Enough groundwork. The yellow party (FDP) has a finance minister (Christiane Lindner) it's this guy

You will see him in memes I am sure. We don't like him. He's an asshole and has blocked every meaningful change that the coalition had been trying to accomplish. He also got his finance plan blocked by our highest court because parts were against our Constitution.

(.... I am oversimplifying hard here it's actually more complicated than that and not fully his fault, but it's also not the focus)

What WAS the fault though of him and the FDP was that they had a strong position of "saving money at all costs" which made bigger and bigger rifts with the two other coalition partners who were more leaftleaning. The war in Ukraine, Infrastructure, climate change - there were many places that needed more money and Lidner was like naaahhhhh for no fucking reason other than "oh we need to save money!!"

Long story short there have been arguing all the fucking time and therefore have started to lose approval. Drastically lose approval. As on for the first time since the Last Time there is a far right party in charge for part of the country that is also being investigated for being Nazis. (Oversimplifying again).

Which is. Worrying. You know. Especially with Trump now being elected. It has us all a little skittish.

The finance minister has also now been fired.

You see. We were all still trying to stomach Trump winning the US election, when Scholz, in the same fucking evening, fired Lindner.

And not in a polite way. Nah. Olaf fucking Scholz our Chancellor, notorious for saying literally nothing, and with a running joke that he regularly stops existing bc that man Does Not Take Stances, a spine of wet cardboard, delivered this yesterday evening:

(English subtitles by me you already got this far watch it I spent too much time on this lol)

And it is insane alright. For his standards and German politic standards thats the equivalent of calling Lindner a egomaniacal bitch that has only his self interest at heart and can not be trusted.

Lindner and his party have been pulverised in all recent elections. Which means that after he was fired, the FDP completely withdrew from the coalition and all minister from the FDP resigned.

....well all but one who apparently stayed in his positions because he's leaving the FDP over this. What sort of shitty backstabbing kindergarten fight is this. (Jokes aside hes the minister of transportation and says he needs to stay in office in important projects. Which. True. Having minister resigning en mass is not good)

Alright cool cool cool cool. Current situation yesterday is the following:

So. Trump is president. Fuck.

Lindner got fired! Yaaay!

Wait my goverment is now also falling apart! Fuck.

Which all lead to new elections being called in Germany.

Mind you, that's not usual ok. I know other countries have systems where they can call an election whenever but that is not a thing that normally happens here. We have a schedule alright. (Insert obligatory "Germans and their plans and structure" joke)

So new elections are called for spring, nearly a year early. Cool cool cool. With a right wing rising in Germany and deeply unpopular current leadership. On the eve of motherfucking trump getting elected.

Habeck, leader of the green party and one of the few policians in germany I think is vaguely liked by ppl (the general attitude in German politics is less "I like this guy" and more "you are the least shitty choice I guess") has appearently also nearly started crying after the news broke. So. Yeah.

Now. Let's make this shitshow complete,alright?

There is this party. CDU. They had been in charge for a very long time in Germany. Centrist, right leaning, with the afd on the rising even more right leaning than before. Their current leader is Friedrich Merz, as unpleasant as human beings can go.

He has now called for the new election to be not in a few months but like. To be called next week.

In the current climate.

So yeah. if you're German mutuals and friends are currently going through their own stages of grief - this is why.

[saywhat-politics]

Jan. 27, 2025, 1:00 PM MST

By Laura Strickler

A group of Quaker congregations is suing the Department of Homeland Security for changing a policy that prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from carrying out operations in so-called “sensitive locations” such as houses of worship, playgrounds, schools and hospitals without approval from supervisors.

The policy, which had been in place under multiple administrations — including during President Donald Trump’s first term — was rescinded last week.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court in Maryland on Monday, alleges, “The very threat of that [immigration] enforcement deters congregants from attending services, especially members of immigrant communities,” and argues that attending religious services is at the heart of the “guarantee of religious liberty.”

Faith leaders, local officials and educators have objected to the policy reversal and have been vocal about their opposition, but the suit appears to be the first from a faith-based organization challenging the change in court.

“A week ago today, President Trump swore an oath to defend the Constitution and yet today religious institutions that have existed since the 1600s in our country are having to go to court to challenge what is a violation of every individual’s constitutional right to worship and associate freely,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is providing the lawyers representing the Quaker groups.

Perryman said the lawsuit addresses more than churches that act as sanctuaries. “The troubling nature of the policy goes beyond just houses of worship with sanctuary programs — it is that ICE could enter religious and sacred spaces whenever it wants,” she said.

Noah Merrill, secretary of the New England Yearly Meeting of Friends, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, told NBC News in an email: "Quaker meetings for worship seek to be a sanctuary and a refuge for all, and this new and invasive practice tangibly erodes that possibility by creating unnecessary anxiety, confusion, and chilling of our members’ and neighbors’ willingness to share with us in the worship which sustains our lives. This undermines our communities and, we believe, violates our religious freedom."

According to the lawsuit, the policy that protected “sensitive locations” from immigration enforcement without prior approval dates back to the early 1990s. It was meant to allow undocumented people to operate freely in certain public areas with the idea that doing so would ultimately benefit not just them, but also the larger community — for example, by allowing children to be in school during the day, and letting sick people visit hospitals without fear of deportation.

[a-very-tired-jew]

I'm convinced that Ireland's recent petition to the ICJ to expand and change the definition of "genocide" was either pre-planned or waiting for something like the Amnesty International report that recently came out. However, the report is problematic. It buries the lede in its executive summary, the first and maybe only part that many people read, that they disagree with the accepted standard for genocide and are expanding it.

This disagreement with the accepted definition and their intention to change it is on pages 101 and 102. A little over 100 pages later they admit to this action, which makes up the basis for their entire argument. There are four whole sections before this, two of which are their scope and methodology section and their background and context section. When making an argument for changing a well defined and established term and expanding its accepted definition you have to introduce the argument early on and work to establish it throughout your document.

Especially if its the crux of your entire position.

By pushing off this admittance until pages 101/102 and not even mentioning it in the executive summary it comes across as Amnesty International knew exactly that their argument was poor.

Surely when they get to it they provide a good argument backed up with sources and citations that they expand upon and explain and support them, right?

Nope.

One court case that they don't even go into in the section. Also, this is it. This is their entire section admitting that they disagree with the accepted definition and legal standard of genocide, that they are expanding it to encapsulate their standards, don't explain what those standards are, and cite one case that maybe supports their position.

One citation to support changing the definition and the legal framework surrounding it 101/102 pages into an almost 300 page document.

Any lawyer could easily get this argument thrown out. Any professor would toss out your paper for this. Journals, editors, publishers...you'd receive scathing critical feedback for this alone.

One citation to support your position to change the accepted definition and standards of a highly impactful and devastating act because you "feel" that it is happening and the standard is too "narrow".

In fact, the report alludes to other experts and literature that supposedly supports their position, but it is not included in this section that stands at the core of their argument. It's almost like finding people who also feel the same way are not actually evidence in the eyes of accepted standards, precedence, and evidence based practices and policy.

It'd be like someone in entomology saying they think spiders are actually insects because they feel that the definition of insects is too narrow, providing one citation, not explaining why that citation supports their position, and ignoring the whole body of literature that states otherwise.

And that's been my problem with the position of a lot of anti-Israel groups and individuals. It has been a subjective position based upon them feeling like this conflict is the worst thing ever and thus must constitute a genocide. There's a reason even the ICJ deemed it not a genocide but a conflict that could potentially become one.

Creating a report that is predicated on changing the definition of "genocide", burying the lede on the intention of doing so, and then (likely) having another country petition to change the definition based upon your report is shady behavior. We would all call it out if it was some Right Wing organization in the USA doing it towards another country, organization, or what have you. But again, Israel and, by extension and affiliation, Jews are held to a different standard than anyone else. That is what makes so many of these organizations and their actions antisemitic. None of this effort to goalpost and change the rules and definitions happens for any other country or people.

Only Israel, Israelis, and Jews.

And we know what happens when that occurs.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

From a legal point of view, it’s clear that Donald Trump should be barred from holding federal office by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Trump had taken an “oath to support the Constitution of the United States” when he was sworn is as President and then he “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6 with the attack on our Capitol by his supporters. That means come January 20, if Trump is sworn in, he will be an illegitimate President. The only question is: Will Democratic leaders take the fight to Trump on this issue or roll over? And it’s true that Democrats don’t control Congress but that doesn’t mean they should “obey in advance” and not raise this legitimate issue in the media, in Congress, etc. This is about defending our Constitution and if Democrats don’t take the fight to Trump now, history tells us that aspiring autocrats like Trump will be even more embolden in the future to break the law and violate the Constitution.

As a brief reminder, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December 2023 that Trump was disqualified from ever holding office again by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The court first determined that the Jan. 6 attack was an “insurrection” as the framers of the 14th Amendment intended. The court then concluded Trump had “engaged” in that “insurrection” given Trump’s countless overt acts after the November 2020 election to build support for the Jan 6 attack. As the court wrote, “Trump fully intended to—and did—aid or further the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power in this country.” Thus, the court concluded that “President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three.”

It’s true the U.S. Supreme Court later reinstated Trump to the ballot in Colorado but they did not question the conclusion that Trump had “engaged in an insurrection.” Rather the ruling’s focus was the enforcement of this section of the US Constitution. The Court found that “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.” Rather, “enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress.” [...]

But here is a fact overlooked by many. Both a majority of the House and Senate have already voted that Trump had incited an insurrection and is barred from holding office by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. On January 13, 2021, the House considered a resolution to impeach Trump titled, “Incitement of an Insurrection” which included a specific reference to this disqualifying provision: “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office…under the United States.”

The resolution then detailed the acts Trump took “inciting violence against the Government of the United States.” The proposed resolution concluded, “Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”

That article of impeachment was approved 232 to 197—with ten Republicans joining. And it was that very article of impeachment that included the reference to barring Trump by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that 57 Senators in the Senate voted in favor after Trump’s impeachment trial—including seven Republicans. If these two votes are sufficient to trigger the Section 3 disqualification clause, then the only way it can be lifted is by “a vote of two-thirds of each House.”

[...]

As Timothy Snyder warns in his book, “On Tyranny,” about not obeying in advance, “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” Snyder noted that, “After the German elections of 1932, which brought Nazis into government…the next crucial step was anticipatory obedience.” History is screaming at us—as Snyder details—that, “Anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy.”

Donald Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment when he helped incite the insurrection on January 6th, 2021. Based on that, he should NOT be eligible to serve as President.

Thus, he is not a legitimate occupant of the Presidency.

[omgthatdress]

Robe à la Polonaise

1780s

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

"The element of eighteenth-century fashion that we think of first is probably the court style. This linen dress of great beauty, and also of simplicity, provincialism, and even a degree of vulgarity compared to court dress, is most instructive. The bodice and skirt sewn together constitute a robe; a matching petticoat is worn underneath. Heavy linen, almost of a diaper weight and of great tactility, will always feel luxurious, but it also bears a common touch. Likewise, the floral appliqué is clumsy and garish, rather oversized for the dress, especially when compared with such refined examples as the embroidered cottons of the 1780s and 1790s of court style. But this country cousin possesses her own charm, and the dressmaking is sure. If a few roses loom too large and the reinforcement with metal sequins strikes one as grossly vernacular, one must remember that even high style in the emerging age of fashion plates and periodicals is not uniform and does not always conform to our ideal of good taste."

[mariacallous]

The US supreme court heard one of the most consequential LGBTQ+ rights cases in its history on Wednesday, with arguments that laid bare the conservative supermajority’s broad threats to civil rights, bodily autonomy and decades of legal precedent.

In US v Skrmetti, the court is weighing Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, one of 24 state laws across the US prohibiting treatments that are part of the standards of care endorsed by every major medical association in the country.

The case originated with three trans youth and their parents who sued Tennessee, arguing the care – puberty blockers and hormone therapy – was medically necessary and “life-saving”. The Biden administration joined the case, asserting Tennessee’s law was unconstitutional.

The case hinges on the legal question of whether Tennessee’s healthcare ban constitutes a form of sex discrimination that merits “heightened scrutiny”, which would mean the case be returned to lower courts for a more rigorous review. But the oral arguments made clear that a ruling against the trans plaintiffs could have far-reaching implications for trans rights and anti-discrimination protections more broadly.’

The US and the ACLU argued that the law is discriminatory and bans treatments based on sex classifications; under Tennessee’s ban, cisgender boys with delayed puberty can be prescribed testosterone, but transgender boys are barred from accessing the same treatments for gender-affirming care. Tennessee argued that the law is an “across the board rule” to “protect minors” from “risky” medical interventions.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the US solicitor general, noted that the court would “turn its back on 50 years of precedent” if it sided with Tennessee’s arguments that the law does not constitute sex discrimination warranting closer scrutiny.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, repeatedly compared Tennessee’s ban with the prohibition on interracial marriage, overturned by the landmark Loving v Virginia decision in 1967: “Some of these questions … sound very familiar to me, [such as] the arguments made back in the day, the 50s and 60s, with respect to racial classifications.” Jackson later added: “I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases.”

��I share your concerns,” responded the ACLU’s Chase Strangio, the first out trans lawyer to appear before the court. “If Tennessee can have an end-run around heightened scrutiny … that would undermine decades of this court’s precedent.”

Kate Redburn, co-director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, explained after the arguments that there was the potential for an outcome that “would authorize a much broader range of sex discrimination, which has been previously found unconstitutional.

“There could be situations where the government could distinguish between people by sex, and courts would not intervene,” they continued, saying a ruling in favor of Tennessee could make it easier for states to pass policies that discriminate on the basis of pregnancy or other reproductive choices, for example: “Regulations that we now would say are based on stereotypes – especially stereotypes about what women’s proper role is – depending on how expansive this opinion is, those stereotypes could be authorized.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal, also noted that a decision declaring that the ban on care is not discriminatory could open the door to bans on gender-affirming healthcare for all trans people, not just youth: “You’re licensing states to deprive grown adults of the choice of which sex to adopt.”

Matthew Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general, responded that the “democratic process” was the “best check on potentially misguided laws”. Sotomayor interjected: “When you’re 1% of the population, or less, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Blacks were a much larger part of the population and it didn’t protect them. It didn’t protect women for whole centuries.”

“That was a chilling moment,” said Sydney Duncan, senior counsel at Advocates for Trans Equality, who sat in the courtroom. “Is the next step to ban adult healthcare? The state didn’t have a great answer there.” She noted that Tennessee’s law is rooted in “bad science” and misinformation. Doctors cited as expert witnesses for the state have repeatedly been discounted and rebuked by US judges for their lack of credentials and anti-trans bias, the Guardian recently reported.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, asked Prelogar about bans on trans people in athletics: “If you prevail here … would transgender athletes have a constitutional right to play in women’s and girls’ sports?” Prelogar responded that the sports issue – which has become a focus of Republicans’ culture war – was related to a different legal question. Kavanaugh’s questions raised some concerns from advocates that the outcome could have broader impacts for LGBTQ+ rights beyond youth healthcare.

“The justices likely see this case as a potential harbinger of future litigation and constitutional questions about trans people’s equal protection,” Redburn said.

Rice also claimed that trans plaintiffs were seeking a “right to engage in nonconforming behavior”. Redburn said the remark was noteworthy and raised broader concerns about people’s rights to self-expression:

“You can see the motivation is not, as the state has suggested, to protect the health of children, which is something that states have a right to regulate, but instead is based on not only particular animus towards transgender individuals, but also a broader social vision that upholds a certain gender hierarchy.”

The conservative justices appeared reluctant to intervene and block Tennessee’s ban, which means the outcome next year could deliver a dramatic blow to trans rights at a time of escalating attacks on LGBTQ+ equality across the US.

“It’s so important that we understand this case as deeply connected to … laws on race and sex discrimination more broadly,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of United for Reproductive and Gender Equity (Urge), an advocacy group. “These questions of what is privacy, what is autonomy, can we control our bodies and our families – these are all intertwined.”

The questions from Jackson and Sotomayor, she said, made clear that “the struggle for the recognition of trans people’s humanity cannot be separated from questions of race and gender equality that have long been cornerstones of this nation’s jurisprudence”, McGuire said.

She noted that anti-abortion and anti-trans activism were closely linked and that this case would probably be followed by efforts to ban adult gender-affirming care, birth control, IVF and other healthcare: “We have seen the right use marginalized people as the tip of the spear for a much larger attack … This voracious desire to be involved in our most personal, private decisions has no end.”

Imara Jones, a podcaster and CEO of the news organization TransLash, who sat in the room, noted that the healthcare under threat was long established: “If you eliminate gender-affirming care, you’re going to be shortening people’s lives and diminishing the quality of their lives. It’s a very real impact. This is not a constitutional or esoteric consideration for trans people. It’s as personal as it gets.”

Bamby Salcedo, a longtime activist and president of the TransLatin@ Coalition, said she and other advocates were bracing for a harmful ruling, but added: “For many of us as a community, hope is the last thing that will die. Regardless of the outcome, we as people are resilient … and we are going to continue to exist despite the oppression we may experience because of this decision. We are going to continue to fight like hell for all of us to be protected.”

[beardedmrbean]

In a classic example of better late than never, a Federal Court in Canada ruled on Tuesday that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's invocation of The Emergencies Act in 2022, used to crush the largest and most peaceful protest in Canadian history, was "unreasonable," "unjustified," and "violated the fundamental freedoms" set out in Canada's constitution.

The case was brought to the court by a number of individual applicants as well as several Canadian civiil liberties groups, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. And in the decision, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley expressed what every trucker and other participant in the trucker's Freedom Convoy knew to be true: There was no justification for granting the government powers that amounted to near Marshall Law over a protest that was 100 percent peaceful, with no violence or property damage committed—that is, until the Emergencies Act was passed, and the police trampled grandmothers under horses, fired tear gas canisters at journalists within point blank range, beat protesters down and smashed the windows of the truckers rigs, and generally deployed the type of violence that the government had knowingly falsely accused the truckers of engaging in.

The government also froze the bank accounts of truckers, seized donated funds, and shut down of the economic lives of hundreds of Canadian citizens, a draconian measure which shocked the world.

Every protester and trucker who took part in the Convoy knew that the government and it's bought and paid for media were lying to the public about the Freedom Convoy, and though it feels good to once again be proven correct, that doesn't change what happened. It also doesn't change the division in Canadian society which took place under COVID, and it remains to be seen if this ruling will put an end to the ongoing punishments of various Freedom Convoy protesters which continue to this day.

For example, the trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, who emerged as public faces and leaders of the Ottawa portion of the Freedom Convoy, has now become the longest mischief trial in Canadian history. Finally getting underway in September of last year, the trial proceeded in fits and starts into December, and is set to resume in February.

Or take Guy Meisner, a trucker from Nova Scotia, was one of the first to be arrested and charged when the crackdown began after the Emergencies Act was invoked. He will be back in Ottawa near the end of February for the ninth time to face his "mischief" charges.

Then there is the case of Christine Decaire, a woman who protested in Ottawa and was charged by the police, who was acquitted last year; much like this ruling today, however, The Crown has decided to appeal her acquittal. To drag an innocent person back to court is the kind of grossly vindictive behavior on the part of the Trudeau Government that they have become well known for.

There are dozens of cases like this working their way through the system.

And then we have The Coutts Four, a group of men who were arrested in Alberta right before the Emergencies Act was invoked and have been kept in custody without bail nor trial ever since. Hopes are high that this ruling may help change their circumstances, but it has now been two years since they have seen their families, which is a grossly offensive situation, especially in a country where nearly everyone gets bail.

All of these cases point to a level of vindictive cruelty on the part of this government as constituted under Trudeau, who was only too happy to champion the fair treatment of someone who fought on the side of The Taliban in Afghanistan and was later apprehended by American forces. Champion the rights of his own peaceful citizens to a fair trial? Apparently that is beneath the Prime Minister.

Trudeau's deputy, Chrystia Freeland was behind the bank account freezing acting as Finance Minister, and she appeared almost immediately after the ruling to announce that her government would be appealing, claiming to "remind Canadians how serious the situation was." This though all the evidence and testimony presented in 2022 at the official inquest into the invocation of the Emergencies Act found that no threats existed, and everything the media said about the truckers was a fabrication.

Justin Trudeau has remarked in the past that Canada is a "post-national" state that has "no core identity," yet when that identity asserted itself to say enough is enough to the strictures of his punishing COVID Regime, he was only too happy to unleash the full power of his "post-national" state to attack these citizens whom he holds in utter contempt.

It appears that there is no ruling Trudeau will not appeal or lawfare he will not pursue to ensure punishment of the enemies of his party.

Justin Trudeau is not a leader, but merely a narcissistic tyrant. This week was only the latest evidence.

Gord Magill is a trucker, writer, and commentator, and can be found at www.autonomoustruckers.substack.com.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

[agentoffangirling]

Okay

The Supreme Court has officially ruled on the TikTok ban, and it has ruled it as constitutional. The Biden administration has stated they will not enforce this ban, meaning that it is up to the next administration to decide how to handle it

To the people who are celebrating: hi, don't think it's gonna stop here. TikTok is just one of the many social medias that operate in the United States, and if you really think they're going to let all others operate freely, YOU ARE WRONG

This sets up a precedent where the government can declare any social media as a "foreign adversary" literally anytime they want for whatever bullshit reason. And especially with this incoming presidency, you can be assured that if they don't bend themselves to his every will, they can be at risk for a ban as well

There has been little to no evidence that China has been stealing Americans' data from TikTok, all American data is stored in US servers. You cannot ban an app simply based on the assumption that they "could" (especially referring to it as a "national security risk", tf?) when no evidence has been presented that they ever will

The only reason TikTok is being banned is bc it's not American-owned. Meta doesn't own it, Musk doesn't own it, Google doesn't own it-- all of these companies have done more than their fair share of misinformation and data selling, they've been embroiled in lawsuits ever since I was born. It is being banned bc it offers alternative news. It is being banned bc it allows other people to raise their voices. It is being banned bc it has the audacity to not be dominated by an American company. Remember that Meta lobbied massively for this ban to take place. Do you really think it's out of the goodness of their hearts?

Yes, TikTok hosts a shit ton of misinformation, I won't deny that. But it also allows people to take notice of things that are happening in their country; it is the prime reason so many people knew about KOSA, a law, that if passed, could act upon Ao3. But bc users made noise and called their representatives, it failed every time it was introduced. The government, surprise surprise, doesn't like that! They want things like that to pass quickly and quietly, and TikTok gets in the way

At some point, they will go for the rest. If they don't conform, they will go for the rest, and yes, that includes Tumblr. Even if you hate TikTok's guts, no one is immune from a law like this. Make noise, do not let this die

[qqueenofhades]

I'm not clear as to whether or not the 14th Amendment barring an insurrectionist from holding certain powerful offices needs that individual to first to be proven guilty of being an insurrectionist in court. We all know Trump is absolutely an insurrectionist, but do we technically need that guilty verdict first?

I mean, I'm not a constitutional lawyer so I can't give you a 100% for sure answer, but I think the problem here isn't nuances of law or interpretation so much as basic courage: are courts or judges actually going to come to literally the only conclusion that can factually and legally be drawn (that the evil orange is a fucking traitor who should rot in prison for the rest of his life and never be allowed near public office again) or are they going to chicken out of it by admitting that he's an insurrectionist but something something the statute doesn't apply to him?

That's why the CO Supreme Court ruling (and as a native Coloradoan, HELL YEAH GUYS HELL YEAH!) is so important. Yes, I'm sure SCOTUS will do their worst to it, though the COSCOTUS judges craftily tailored their ruling to a states' rights opinion written by Gorsuch, who will now have to go diametrically against his own previous jurisprudence to find in Trump's favor. Yes, Republicans only like states' rights when the states are doing what they want, and the rest of the time it has to be stamped out, but even though Trump has been formally indicted for insurrection in regard to January 6, this is the first time that a court has conclusively found that as a result, it would be illegal for him to appear on the ballot due to the 14th Amendment. Which. Yeah. It is incredibly fucking obvious that this is the case. As I said, the issue isn't whether the statute applies, as it clearly does, but if the legal system is going to actually do the right thing and correctly apply it to Trump. While he wasn't going to win CO in 2024 anyway, what I really hope is that states like Pennsylvania or Michigan, where it would be HUGE to boot him off the ballot, follow suit. Ideally with a slightly different model of legal theory, so it can't be invalidated by whatever nonsense SCOTUS comes up with in regard to the Colorado ruling, but yeah.

The original judge's ruling in the case was a mess because they were clearly trying to have it both ways and avoid taking a stand: yes, Trump is clearly a traitor, but they didn't want to be the one that said he couldn't appear on the ballot as a result. But now that COSCOTUS has found that a) Trump engaged in legally defined insurrection and b) that therefore disqualifies him from standing for elected office as a matter of straightforward application of the 14th Amendment, let's hope that gives other judges in these suits across the country nerve to follow suit. Because this is not a candy-ass or trivial statement:

That's as about as strongly worded a statement as you can get in a case like this, and it's been made by a state-level supreme court. It likely will not survive SCOTUS, but they might also try to find a way to split the difference (especially as Jack Smith has asked them for an expedited ruling on the absolute immunity question and they might have to pick one or the other in terms of helping Trump out) and come up with some vague weasel word opinion. So. We'll see. The issue is not that it applies to Trump, but that he's heretofore been handled with kid gloves and gotten the benefit of the doubt and preferential treatment at every turn. This is not that, and God, do we ever need more of it.

[haggishlyhagging]

Here's the reality of it, and I beg you to think about this when you hear all the shit that you hear about the First Amendment. I beg you to think about this Constitution that was crafted to protect the institution of slavery; crafted not to interfere with it, with the buying and selling of human beings. It is not a surprise that this state, regulated by this Constitution, is deeply insensitive to crimes against people that involve buying and selling them.

And I will remind you that the Founding Fathers were—many of them—slave owners. But especially—especially—that James Madison, who crafted the First Amendment, not only owned slaves but bragged that he could spend $12 or $13 a year on their upkeep and make from each slave $257 a year.

The First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with protecting the rights of the people who historically have been chattel in this country. And it is not a surprise that right now the First Amendment is protecting people who buy and sell people: the First Amendment is protecting pornographers. And we're told that their rights of speech make our rights of speech stronger. You see, they take one of us, or ten of us, or thirty of us, put gags in our mouths, hang us from something, and our speech rights are stronger. It defies comprehension but they keep saying it's true. I keep saying it's not true.

Please understand that we now live in a country where the courts are actively protecting pornography and the pornography business. When the civil-rights ordinance was passed in Indianapolis, the city was sued an hour after the ordinance was passed for passing it. For passing it. It was never even used. For passing it.

The first judge, in federal district court, was a Reagan-appointed judge, a woman, a right-wing woman. She said in her decision that sex discrimination never outweighs First Amendment rights in importance. That's the right-wing position. The First Amendment is more important than any harm that's being done to women. This First-Amendment-first decision was then appealed. Another Reagan-appointed judge, Frank Easterbrook, wrote the appeals court decision striking down the ordinance. He said that pornography did everything that we said it did. He said it promoted rape and injury. He said it led to lower pay for women, to affronts to women, to insult, to injury. And then he said that that proved its power as speech. Its ability to hurt women proved its power as speech and was the reason it had to be protected. A right-wing, Reagan-appointed libertarian.

So if your theory says that the right is against pornography and will use any means in its hands to stop pornography from existing, it seems to me that reality forces you to change your theory because your theory is wrong. Both the right and the left agree that a woman being hung from something is somebody's speech. Somebody's speech. And this means there is a new legal way in which women are legally chattel. Do you understand that once we're made into speech, we are owned as speech by men in the age of technology? Once we're technologized, once the abuse of us is technologized, we are legally their chattel.

-Andrea Dworkin, “Woman-Hating Right and Left” in The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism

[wardevilwins]

Why is it the War Devil?

Obviously, I am fascinated by the concept of the War Devil. There is a way in which her presence in the story is uniquely Japanese. Since WWII, the question of how to process the Empire’s defeat has hung over Japanese society. On the conservative side, there is a long project to minimize the realities of the War, especially atrocities committed by the Japanese Imperial Army. Alongside this, there is the concerted effort within the legislature to repeal Article 9 of the constitution, the article which forbids the Japanese government from raising an army. On the left, there is a desire for genuine reconciliation and strong support for article 9. However, the effort has not gained much of a foothold. Japan is, much like the United States, a strongly conservative country.

For example, when the historian Ienaga Saburo wrote his textbook “New Japanese History” for public schools in 1953, the government initially approved his manuscript, but when he resubmitted a revised version two years later, they demanded that 216 revisions be made. Revisions included minimizing the Rape of Nanking, adding a mention of public support for the Russo-Japanese war, etc. Straightforward government censorship of established historical fact.

Ienaga sued the government for damages arguing that he was protected by Article 21, the right to free speech. Note: his book was not a state standard. It was simply one of many textbooks available for use by schools. A district court ruled that the government’s demands didn’t constitute censorship, but did constitute an abuse of authority and granted monetary settlement. An appeal to the High court rejected the monetary settlement, and the Supreme Court upheld the appeal.

In other words, the Japanese Government was granted the right to dictate the facts of history “for the public good” in the words of the rulings. Realities of war were erased from the public consciousness with the intent to control the narrative around the Fallen Empire. And the state reasoning was a paternalistic appeal to the greater good of humanity. If this reminds you of Makima’s plan in part one, I am sure that is not a coincidence.

This is a metaphor that I think was broadly missed by the international audience. The idea that War should be forgotten for the sake of humanity, this is the ideology behind historical revisionism. Fujimoto is looking directly at the way that political power in Japan is used to manipulate public understanding of history. Pieces of the past are erased, eaten, and forgotten.

This is why I don’t lend much credence to the idea that Chainsaw Man actually modifies the fabric of the universe somehow when he eats a devil. It is not that the world changes, it is that people forget about it. It’s not that our forgotten sixth sense was deleted. We just forgot it used to exist. It disappeared, perhaps as a part of Chainsaw Man’s attack. And then we forgot.

The main reason I think of it this way is because of the parallel with historical revisionism. Right now in Florida the state government is attempting to erase the suffering of African slaves brought to America from the school curriculum. If they maintain this for three generations, no one in the state of Florida will know of this true part of history. It will be forgotten. Humanity in Florida will have forgotten a part of slavery. We don’t need supernatural mechanics to explain historical ignorance. This happens all the time.

Yoru describes this phenomenon in more detail: “War became a thing of books and movies.” Yoru became weakened as humanity became less afraid of war. Parts of the war that really happened are not gone, but have been consigned to unreality. They exist only at a distance. It is only one step further along this axis until they are completely forgotten, until they aren’t thought about at all.

This idea of forgetting War is directly relevant to the political conflicts around Article 9. This conflict is split as I mentioned, but the reality of the situation is more complex. During the occupation, the US Government directed the drafting of the new Japanese constitution. In a real sense, Japan was literally Americanized. The text of Article 9 reads:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

This is part of Chapter 2 in the Articles of the Japanese Constitution. Other chapters contain multiple articles. This is the only article in chapter 2 which is titled “Renunciation of War.” To date, Japan is the only country in the world to include a renunciation of war in its constitution.

Of course, Article 9 doesn’t exist out of the kindness of the Japanese people’s peace loving hearts. It exists because the US military thought that the Japanese people were so intrinsically bloodthirsty, that if they didn’t dismantle the empire and remove their ability to raise an army, there could never be peace.

That said, Japanese politicians were involved in the drafting of the constitution as well. Since the war began in China in 1928, a significant faction even among the hawkish types were exasperated with the boneheaded aggression. But the fascists had control of the Emperor, the key figurehead. Once that was lost, cooler heads who were open to the idea of a peaceful Japan stepped in.

So Article 9 starts with this complex identity. On the one hand, it is an imposition by the occupying force, on the other hand, it is a reconciliation within Japan around mistakes the nation made. This remains the case going forward. Because soon after the occupation ends, the Korean War begins.

America, having secured a foothold in the region, realizes that militarily neutering their nearest ally may have been a tactical mistake. But they also still don’t really trust the Japanese government. So they make a move. The US signs a controversial security-treaty with Japan that creates the “National Security Force” to act as a military police. Japanese conservatives then use this precedent to begin building a military under the premise of it being for “self defense.” Thus the JSDF, Japanese Self Defense Force, is born. This was all done with explicit American support.

The American’s didn’t want to team up with the JSDF per se. They wanted Japan to manufacture weapons to create a short supply line towards the Korean front. The creation of the JSDF gives the Japanese government permission to permit manufacturing of military machinery, which was originally taken to be forbidden by Article 9.

Since it’s founding, the JSDF has gradually crept further and further towards active military activity. The final line was crossed in the Iraq war. At the behest of George W. Bush, Prime Minister Koizumi approved a battalion of Japanese soldiers to act in conjunction with the US military for the invasion of Iraq.

This occurs in 2004, in the wake of the 90s. Japan re-enters war in a real way. At this point, article 9 is essentially window dressing on a country which has what amounts to a fully functional military force. But, the existence of article 9 creates a public perception of Japan as being removed from war, even as it actively participates.

You can see now why when Yoru appeared in chapter 98 I was immediately excited. The idea of the War Devil coming back is a stab at the powers that be trying to paper over their militaristic intentions with political rhetoric. Conservatives are currently moving to repeal article 9. This was one of Shinzo Abe’s major objectives. But he failed to achieve it.

So the struggle continues under the current leadership. And in that context, Fujimoto is placing War front and center. War that has been forgotten but will come back. War that, should she return to full power, will turn legions of young men into weapons.

It’s a subtle but also daring message. The debate plays out in politics but is notably absent from public discourse. Japan is different from American in that political conflict doesn’t dominate its media landscape. Generally speaking, the media is running cover for the government.

So to see someone go after this idea of forgotten war, of war coming back from a weakened state, and to highlight the latent threat it poses, is quite refreshing. Once again, Fujimoto manages to subtly weave a cogent political message into the threads of his story, not necessarily by trying to push a particular narrative, but simply by reflecting in his work the political realities he sees in his society.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Steve Brodner

* * * *

MONDAY JANUARY 20 WAS THE DARKEST DAY IN OUR HISTORY

TCinLA

Jan 21, 2025

As Asawin Suebsaeng wrote in Rolling Stone yesterday, “This is a scenario that we were raised and taught in our schools to believe was not practically or legally possible in our time. This is, we were assured at school, something that occurs in Europe, especially in bygone decades of empire, world wars, and global cold war. Maybe it’s something that unfolds during the democratic backsliding of Latin American nations, particularly the poorer ones. The Middle East. The Philippines. Other places we can’t locate on a map without cheating or a hint, and in countries and regions we can barely deign to pronounce correctly.

“Not here. At least that’s what we were told again, and again, and again, and then again.”

Monday evening, ConvictedFelon34 granted sweeping pardons to nearly all of the convicted January 6 insurrectionists and conspirators, commuting the sentences of 14 of those serving the longest sentences on the most serious charge: seditious conspiracy.

Harry Litman wrote this morning: “The pardons are vile, vicious, and despicable. They are the most flagrant show of disrespect and tyranny toward the country by any president in our history. If they are not strongly repudiated by history, it will mean that the country has been lost.” Litman then posted, “I cannot think of a remotely similar betrayal of country by a sitting president,” and served it up as a question to Heather Cox Richardson, who quickly replied, “I got nothing. This is huge.”

It is indeed huge. It’s enormous.

No other act of treason to the Constitution by any elected official other than the acts of treason by the Southern Traitors 164 years ago comes close. This is the equivalent of the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. The only days that could possibly have been worse if they happened would have been the Germans defeating the Normandy Invasion, the Confederacy winning the Civil War, or the British defeating the Revolution. This is right up there with Julius Caesar’s attack on the Roman Republic.

The convicted felon who brought the seditionists and traitors to Washington to block congressional recognition that the worthless piece of shit really had lost the 2020 election, who attempted a coup against the government he led, was indicted by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith on multiple charges for his acts in furtherance of the conspiracy he organized (only escaping trial and conviction by an unconstitutional ddecision granting him immunity as president, by the traitors he appointed to the Unsupreme Court), who spent the past four years extolling these traitors and seditious insurrectionists as “hostages” rather than the convicted criminals they are, demonstrated within hours of his desecration of the Oath of Office what a lie it was when he swore he would “protect and defend the Constitution,” granted pardons to his willing soldiers.

ConvictedFelon34 also ordered the Department of Justice to drop pending prosecutions of any of the January 6 traitors still facing prosecution, “with prejudice to the government,” meaning there is no possibility of ever bringing those cases again. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented interference with the DOJ’s independence, foreshadowing how things will be with the DOJ being run from the White House in accordance with the whims of this demented madman, this twisted psychopath.

Compounding his treason, ConvictedFelon34 then officially appointed Missouri Republican Ed Martin as interim United States Attorney for Washington D.C. The long-time MAGA activist was a leading member of “Stop The Steal” in the 2020 election, and an advocate over the past four years for the convicted insurrectionists. On January 6, 2021, he gave a speech at ConvictedFelon34's pre-insurrection rally exhorting all “real Americans” to work to “stop the steal.” He tweeted that the crowd was “rowdy but nothing out of hand.” He also tweeted that the situation was “like Mardi-Gras today - love, peace and joy.” He was on the board of the Patriot Freedom Project, which raised money at events held on Trump properties where ConvictedFelon34 spoke in support.

This morning, Martin stood on the steps of the Federal Courthouse in D.C. and announced to a crowd of MAGAts that he had officially withdrawn all pending charges against those facing trial and those who had been recently convicted of crimes including assault on police officers.

The acts of clemency from ConvictedFelon34 brought full circle the conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election and hold on to power regardless of the election results. The act of treason on January 6, 2021, was a neither a beginning nor an end but rather an inflection point in his long- running, fantastical, Big Lie and his assault on this country. He intends to make every American pay for those years spent with his nose pressed against the glass door that would never be opened to him, giving access to civilized society for a crimnal.

Among those freed were former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, both convicted of Seditious Conspiracy and sentenced to long terms in prison. Last night, Rhodes was seen leaving prison.

These pardons and commutations will now reinvigorate the paramilitary right-wing extremist groups and other long-marginalized figures who see ConvictedFelon34 as the their leader and inspiration. A group of Proud Boys returned to DC on Inauguration Day and were seen marching in the streets before the pardons were issued, shouting “Whose streets? Our streets!”

These people will now be even more loyal to the traitor who kept his word to pardon them. They are the foundation of his private MAGAt Army, the paramilitary force all fascists organize to turn loose on the country they have stolen, to enhance their power. Think the Nazi Brown Shirts, the SS, and the Italian Fascist Black Shirts. These are ConvictedFelon34's thugs who will go after any “enemy” he designates.

As historian of Fascist Authoritarian movements Ruth Ben-Ghiat explained, by pardoning the seditionists, “Trump’s not just trying to keep people loyal to him. He’s also letting elites and his base know that any future violence they plan or commit in the interests of returning or keeping him in power will be forgiven.”

We knew the pardons were coming, because Trump told us over and over that he would free the rioters he incited to attack the Capitol. But too many Americans still seem to believe that It Can’t Happen Here - or they actively want it to happen.

When he launched his re-election campaign at a rally in Waco, Texas, two years ago, ConvictedFelon34 stood with his hand on his heart as a recording of the so-called “J6 Prison Choir” was played, singing the movement’s anthem, “Justice for All.”

“Our people love those people,” he declared at Waco. “If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6 fairly. ... And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons, because they are being treated so unfairly.”

So, it wasn’t a surprise. But it was so bad that even some in ConvictedFelon34's inner circle were shocked at the breathtaking scope of the jailbreak. His advisors had urged him to conduct a case-by-case review to weed out the most violent of the rioters. Vice President CorporalCouchfucker launched the trial balloon, saying “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.” Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi and Republican lawmakers including Senator Thom Tillis condemned rioters who attacked police. Back in November, even Trump insisted that he wouldn’t issue a blanket pardon, telling Time magazine in his “Person of the Year” interview that: “I’m going to do case-by-case, and if they were nonviolent, I think they’ve been greatly punished.”

But that turned out to be bullshit.

When MAGA reacted negatively to CorporalCouchfucker’s announcement, ConvictedFelon34 immediately dropped the idea, uncaring as usual about throwing his supporters under the bus.

Since January 6, 2021, the DOJ has obtained more than 718 guilty pleas, including 213 defendants who pleaded guilty to felonies including seditious conspiracy and assaulting federal officers. Another 171 defendants were convicted of similar crimes in trials. 387 of them assaulted police or members of the media. 289 committed less violent or non-violent felonies like “federal rioting, property destruction, and firearms counts.”

So, who are these traitors?

Julian Khater used a can of bear spray to attack Capitol Police officers who were trying to hold the line against attackers. One of the officers Khater sprayed was Brian Sicknick, who died the next day after suffering a stroke. Last year, Khater pleaded guilty to two counts of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers with a dangerous weapon, and earlier this year he was sentenced to more than six years in prison.

Brian Christopher Mock bragged that he “beat the s--- out of a police officer,” according to someone who spoke with the FBI. Mock, who was wielding a baton as a weapon, was sentenced to 33 months in prison and another two years of supervised release for a total of six felonies, including obstructing police officers during a civil disorder, and four counts of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers.

Peter Stager, sentenced to 52 months in prison for assaulting a Capitol police officer with a flagpole, declared in a video taken during the insurrection that “every single one of those Capitol law enforcement officers, death is the remedy, that is the only remedy they get.”

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Daniel “DJ” Rodriguez was sentenced to 12 years in prison for driving a stun gun into the neck of police officer Michael Fanone during the most vicious clash outside the Capitol. After his sentencing, an unrepentant Rodriguez shouted “Trump won!” as he left the courtroom

Ralph Joseph Celentano III, who grabbed an officer at the Capitol and threw him over a ledge, an act the judge described in his trial as a “truly cowardly and despicable thing to do,” was sentened to 78 months in prison.

Ronald Colton McAbee, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, grabbed the leg of a fallen police officer and dragged him toward the mob. McAbee was wearing reinforced knuckle gloves, and when another officer tried to help his downed colleague, McAbee swung at the officer’s head and body. Videos captured the scene showed that he then lifted the first downed officer and they both slid down a set of steps, with McAbee falling on top of the officer, who was hospitalized.” McAbee was sentenced to 70 months in prison.

Vincent J. Gillespie grabbed a riot shield from police and can be seen in footage using the stolen shield to ram law enforcement officers while “screaming ‘traitor’ more than once and ‘treason,’ as he points to a law enforcement officer.” A federal judge sentenced him to 66 months in prison for assaulting, resisting or impeding officers; civil disorder; engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds; and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

Peter Schwartz, armed with a wooden tire knocker, assaulted police with a chair and chemical spray. After the attack on the Capitol, he boasted in a text message that he had thrown “the first chair at the cops,” bragging, “I started a riot.” Prosecutors noted Schwartz had nearly 40 prior convictions for assaults and threats to officers. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison for assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers using a dangerous weapon; interfering with a law enforcement officer during a civil disorder; obstruction of an official proceeding; disorderly conduct; and commission of an act of violence on Capitol grounds.

Ryan Samsel’s “violent attacks on the police on Jan. 6, 2021, were widely seen as the tipping point in the storming of the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.” Samsel was one of the first insurrectionists to push through the barricades and overrun police resistance. He was convicted of federal assault charges last month and was awaiting sentencing in June before the charges were dropped this morning.

Former New York cop Peter Webster was “seen repeatedly pushing at the barricades and then swinging a flagpole at Officer Noah Rathbun before shoving through the police line and tackling the officer.” He was sentenced to 10 years for charges including assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon.

In addition to pardoning traitors, ConvictedFelon34 signed an executive order revoking the security clearances of 51 former intelligence officials who signed a 2020 letter arguing that emails from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden carried “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” and that of his former national security adviser John Bolton.

Another executive order allows quick removal of top immigration court officials, who would be most likely to oppose the plans of Reincarnation of Reinhard Heydrich Stephen Miller.

The way that MAGA Republicans portray Democrats as all-powerful traitorous conspirators always carries some cognitive dissonance but rarely as much as yesterday, as shown by Marjorie Traitor Goon’s post on Xitter (That’s pronounced “shitter”): "These people would line us up in front of a firing squad & kill us if they could. We know exactly who the Democrats are ... Democrats, until you start writing big checks to Republicans & start voting Republican ... then we can start talking about unity."

They want a war. Here.

It not only Can Happen Here, it is Happening Here.

TCinLA

[girlactionfigure]

🚀BALLISTIC MISSILE - MISS? - Real time from Israel  

ISRAEL REALTIME - Connecting to Israel in Realtime

( VIDEO - Houthi ballistic missile fragments falling through the Israeli sky after interception. )

🚀 BALLISTIC MISSILE FIRED BY THE HOUTHIS AT CENTRAL ISRAEL 12:20 AM..

.. interceptor fired from Rishon/Holon area.

.. large booms over Samaria, then over central Israel - up to 10 explosions heard.

.. NO ALARMS except for 1 in Talmei Elazar on the northern-ish coastal area.

.. it appears the point of interception resulted in the angle of the shrapnel falling into the Mediterranean Sea - so no alarms within Israeli towns.

⚠️HOUTHI CHATTER - “The Houthis announced on their radio that the launch was unsuccessful and that another launch towards Tel Aviv will be made in the next 24 hours at a  time to be determined.

❗️US SEC STATE BLINKEN SAYS.. “The pressure on the government to make concessions has delayed the return of the hostages.”

Blinken's claim is that every time Hamas saw that Israel was being pressured to give up, it hardened its stance.  Blinken said that as a result, he tried to pressure in private conversations rather than in public. 

⭕HAMAS ROCKET hits the EREZ border crossing, which is exclusively delivering humanitarian aid into NORTH GAZA.  

❗️BRAZIL GOES AFTER.. Initial report: A court in Brazil has ordered the police to arrest an IDF soldier who is vacationing in the country - on suspicion of committing "war crimes" in Gaza.

▪️ISRAELI CHIEF RABBI UNDER THREAT.. The Shin Bet and the police provided concrete information this evening about the intention of terrorist organizations to harm new chief Rabbi Yosef. The threat level against the rabbi has been raised to the highest level, and police protection has been assigned.

▪️TEL AVIV PROTESTORS.. (anti-govt) Police announce, end of illegal demonstration in Tel Aviv, 5 rioters arrested, all lanes opened to traffic.

▪️EGYPT PREPARING TO ATTACK HOUTHIS?   They base their decision to attack the Houthis on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which grants states the right to self-defense against any threat to their national security.  The Houthi threat poses a direct danger to Egypt, especially with regard to the safety of the Suez Canal and surrounding waterways and the loss of 80% of their canal revenue and impact to national budget.

▪️US MILITARY LEAK ON THE HOUTHIS - IT’S THE STRATEGY STUPID.. A secret document submitted by the commander-in-chief of American forces in the Middle East to the Pentagon in which he reveals the failure to deter Houthi forces in Sanaa and that American forces need a new, stronger strategy and broader attacks.

▪️POLITICS - BEN GVIR..  “I did some soul-searching on Shabbat and realized that I was wrong when I saw the Prime Minister and (MK) Boaz in the plenum and we did not offset them.  I apologize to the Prime Minister and my friend (MK) Boaz Bismuth.  From now on, we will offset the Prime Minister until he fully recovers in the near future.”

🔹SYRIA - NEW LEADER IS A MOSSAD BOY?  In a classic example of Arab conspiracy theories, Hezbollah says about the new Syrian dictator: 

Commentator close to Hezbollah, Ali Hamiya: Syrian HTS rebel leader and new Syrian leader Al-Julani was kidnapped as a child, raised by the Mossad, and then sent to Syria.

🔹LEBANON - UNIFIL COMPLAINS.. Peacekeepers today saw an Israeli army bulldozer destroying a blue barrel representing the withdrawal line in the Levona area. The Israeli army bulldozer also destroyed a Lebanese army watchtower near the UNIFIL post in the area. The deliberate and direct destruction by the Israeli military constitutes a blatant violation of Resolution 1701 and international law.

🔹LEBANON - HEZBOLLAH.. Lebanese source, Hezbollah is preparing to attack IDF targets in Lebanese territory.  These comments come in the wake of Israel's violations, which the Lebanese claim mean the supervisory committee is not doing its job.

[mariacallous]

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in a major fight over Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, conservatives defending the law plan to point to an unexpected place as a model: Europe.

Two decades ago, Republicans appeared allergic to foreign influence on the U.S. legal system, decrying Supreme Court decisions that looked abroad — often to Europe — for guidance on culture-war issues like gay rights and the death penalty.

Now, that aversion seems to have eroded. Lawyers and legislators on the right are embracing recent moves to restrict some types of care for transgender minors in four European countries. And these American conservatives are using them as evidence that new bans or limits on such treatment in Tennessee and 25 other states are not only prudent — but also consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

“Systematic reviews by national health authorities in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Norway have all concluded that the harms associated with these interventions are significant, and the long-term benefits are unproven,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti wrote in defense of the state’s ban on transition-related medical care for minors.

The law, passed last year, bans hormone treatments or surgeries for minors that would allow them “to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” Challengers to the law, along with the Biden administration, asked the high court to declare the measure unconstitutional after a federal appeals court upheld it. The challengers say the law discriminates on the basis of gender in violation of the 14th Amendment.

A brief from Tennessee state officials defending the law quotes no fewer than three times a passage from the appeals court ruling that upheld the law, saying: “Some of the same European countries that pioneered these treatments now express caution about them and have pulled back on their use.”

The conservatives’ sudden affection for European medical standards and judgments rankles some transgender advocates, who say it’s a hypocritical about-face.

“I think it’s rich that folks that don’t look to Europe for anything, especially socialized medicine, for the guideposts on how to move forward with public policy, are citing any kind of medical policy” from Europe, said Sasha Buchert of Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ+ rights advocacy group.

Conservatives combat foreign influence on U.S. law

The conservative crusade against U.S. judges taking note of legal developments overseas reached a fever pitch in the 2000s.

“It certainly was extreme for a while,” said Austen Parrish, dean of the University of California at Irvine law school. “You had Supreme Court justices that were being threatened with death threats. ... There was this great pushback on anything foreign, because somehow it was giving up on American sovereignty, and we had to chart our own path.”

In 2005, as the anti-foreign-law frenzy was at its height, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) suggested at confirmation hearings for John Roberts as chief justice that U.S. judges who cited foreign precedents should be subject to impeachment. Roberts pledged not to rely on foreign law himself but said removing judges who did would be a step too far.

“I’d accuse them of getting it wrong on that point, and I’d hope to sit down with them and debate it and reason about it,” Roberts said.

That same year, Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer even faced off in a public debate that aired arguments for and against its use.

Justice Clarence Thomas also weighed in, declaring in a 2002 opinion a distaste for foreign influence that seemed to extend beyond legal rulings. “This Court … should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans,” he wrote in a death penalty case.

In the court’s seismic 2022 ruling overturning the federal constitutional right to abortion, the conservative majority tiptoed around the foreign law issue. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion noted that the Mississippi legislature that passed the abortion restriction at issue in that case found that the U.S. was one of only seven countries that permitted elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. He then relegated further discussion of that issue to a footnote.

The court’s liberal minority unapologetically embraced international practice as a reason to preserve Roe v. Wade. “American abortion law has become more and more aligned with other Nations,” Justices Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote, adding that the nuances of those laws are important. “Most Western European countries impose restrictions on abortion after 12 to 14 weeks, but they often have liberal exceptions to those time limits, including to prevent harm to a woman’s physical or mental health.”

Some European countries rethink gender-affirming care

Complaints that some doctors were handing out puberty-blocking medication too widely have triggered reexamination of treatment practices in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and Norway in recent years.

The highest-profile retreat came in the U.K., following a broad review of gender-affirming care by the National Health Service. The head of the review, Dr. Hilary Cass, concluded that studies about treatment for gender dysphoria were unreliable, that doctors were often not tending to patients’ other issues and there was a lack of attention to patients seeking to “detransition.”

“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint,” Cass wrote. “The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”

After the findings in the so-called Cass review, released in draft form in 2022 and finalized in April, NHS stopped prescribing puberty blockers for those under 18 and closed the main NHS clinic in England offering gender-affirming care for minors.

Sweden, Finland and Norway have guidelines that reject certain treatments, such as surgery, for adolescents. But all three countries have some means for teenagers to access puberty blockers, often through clinical trials, according to briefs filed by outside parties with the Supreme Court.

“None of those countries have banned care in the way that Tennessee has,” said Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, who is set to argue against the law at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “None of those countries have taken away every pathway for adolescents to access the medical care that they need.”

While some transgender advocates have been highly critical of the Cass review and other steps that have limited treatments, Strangio was relatively positive about efforts by the European medical community to refine standards for gender-affirming care.

“I think the examples of Europe are often very distorted in the press,” Strangio told reporters on a video conference Monday. “What they’re actually showing us is tailored responses to ensure that people who need treatment get it.”

Strangio acknowledged some risks to puberty blockers and other treatment, but said that alone doesn’t justify an all-out ban on the use of those drugs for minors with gender dysphoria. He noted the same drugs remain available for use in other situations.

“In all other contexts, what Tennessee does and what other governments do when there is beneficial care that carries risk is to inform patients and to attempt to minimize risks. That is what is going on in Europe. That is not what is going on in Tennessee,” he said.

Some judges were unimpressed by Europe examples

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, who blocked Tennessee’s law last June, found similar flaws in the state’s arguments about new limits on transition-related medical care abroad. He said the recalibration of treatment in various countries isn’t akin to the flat prohibition on hormone treatment for transgender minors that Tennessee and other states have imposed.

“Defendants’ reliance on the practices of European nations is not an apt analogy where none of these countries have gone so far as to ban hormone therapy entirely,” Richardson said.

Richardson, an appointee of President Donald Trump, used language that harkened back to earlier conservative skepticism about the relevance of foreign examples to a U.S. court case.

“There is the additional problem that the Court can put only so much weight on the practice of other nations,” he wrote. “After all, the Court cannot outsource to European nations the task of preliminarily determining … the extent to which the treatments at issue are safe.”

Federal judges in Indiana and Florida also rejected similar arguments as they blocked gender-affirming care bans in those states.

A spokesperson for Skrmetti declined to comment for this story, but in a recent op-ed the Tennessee AG repeatedly and prominently invoked Europe’s moves on transition-related medical care.

“Medical research and practices in Europe support a cautious approach,” Skrmetti wrote.

Are conservatives invoking foreign law, or experience?

One scholar who has criticized some efforts to banish foreign law from the U.S. legal system noted that Tennessee isn’t invoking foreign statutes or court rulings.

“There has been this kind of hardcore talk of ‘no foreign law in American courts,’ which I think mostly stems from people not really thinking very hard about when it is you need to use it,” said Eugene Volokh of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Volokh said he views the conservative states’ claims as more factual than legal.

“If the question is: Is youth gender medicine really likely to be effective? That’s something that you shouldn’t ignore … If the English and the Swedes and the Dutch say one thing, then that’s certainly evidence. It’s not dispositive evidence, but it’s certainly evidence,” he said.

Conservatives’ references to Europe at the Supreme Court in the current legal fight point not to court rulings or laws, or to facts or studies, but to medical practice guidelines and standards.

Those amount to national policy in some countries — particularly those with government-run health services, some legal experts say. And they note that urgings from judges like Thomas that U.S. courts ignore “foreign moods, fads or fashions” expressed a sentiment that appeared to go beyond rejecting black-letter law or judicial rulings.

“I definitely see the same thing playing out,” Seattle University law professor Sital Kalantry said.

“There was a big debate where conservatives freaked out about it when the liberals were using it. But now, if it seems to be conveniently supporting their ends, then they’re willing to make reference to international practice. ... We’re now at this place that both perspectives are selectively using international law and practice to support their predetermined end point.”

[mswyrr]

The briefing document, dated Jan. 14 and signed by Ambassador Andreas Michaelis, describes Donald Trump's agenda for his second White House term as one of "maximum disruption" that will bring about "a redefinition of the constitutional order - maximum concentration of power with the president at the expense of Congress and the federal states."

"Basic democratic principles and checks and balances will be largely undermined, the legislature, law enforcement and media will be robbed of their independence and misused as a political arm, Big Tech will be given co-governing power," it says.

...

The document cites the judiciary, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, as central to Trump's attempts to further his agenda, but says that despite the court's recent decision to expand presidential powers, "even the biggest critics assume that it will prevent the worst from happening."

Michaelis sees control of the Justice Department and FBI as key to Trump reaching his political and personal goals, including mass deportations, retribution against perceived enemies and legal impunity.

He says Trump has broad legal options to force his agenda on the states, saying "even military deployment within the country for police activities would be possible in the event of declared 'insurrection' and 'invasion'."