#federal laws mean nothing to trump

[vintageseawitch]

i've been losing it about j donut "okay, good" vance but now learning that RFK "brain worm chainsaw wielding whale skull collector" jr can't get his name removed from swing state ballots because he waited too long has me howling. what a little collection of weirdos they got there. this is such a bizarre timeline omfg.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

On August 20, a little before dawn, 87 year-old Lidia Martinez was abruptly jarred awake by an unexpected knock on her door. The longtime activist who for over 35 years has worked to expand voter registration among seniors and veterans in south Texas, cautiously peered out the door. Standing on her doorstep were nine police officers dressed in tactical gear and carrying firearms. After showing her a search warrant, Martinez’s home was searched as she was forced to stand outside in her nightgown in her driveway in full view of her neighbors. Martinez was later questioned for three hours after which the police seized her phone, computer, personal calendar and more.

[...]

These bad faith searches orchestrated by Paxton were predicated on the claim that the people being investigated were registering non-citizens to vote—despite zero evidence presented of wrongdoing. Very alarmingly, if Donald Trump and House GOP have their way, these types of raids would be happening nationwide with federal law enforcement under a GOP President.  That is why GOP House Speaker Johnson is now demanding the proposed SAVE Act be included in any deal to provide funding to keep the government open.

To be clear, federal and state law already makes it a crime for non-citizens to vote. But this new federal legislation would establish criminal penalties for registering an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentation proving U.S. citizenship.  That means that what we are seeing in Texas is coming attractions of what the GOP wants to do nationally.

Keep in mind despite Texas AG Paxton’s two year investigation, no charges  have been filed against any of the people whose homes were searched.  Indeed, there may never be charges because even Paxton’s basis for the search is BS. In his press release announcing the investigation, the Texas AG presents no evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, Paxton makes baseless claims like these organizations have set up voter registration booths outside state agencies where people could register inside. Paxton’s press release literally includes this question with no answer: “Why would they need a second opportunity to register with a booth outside?” But nowhere in his press release does he even allege any criminal conduct—only questions.

And Paxton—a close ally of convicted felon Trump—showed his bad faith earlier in August on a radio show when he peddled lies about non-citizens voting. Paxton declared, “There’s a reason Joe Biden brought people here illegally. I’m convinced that that’s how they’re going to do it this time, they’re going to use the illegal vote. Why were they brought in, why did he bring in 14 million people?” adding, “He brought them here to vote.”   That is nothing more than the type of BS you hear on Fox News. But now Paxton has weaponized government by targeting people registering those he believes will vote for Democrats. The backlash to Paxton’s actions have been swift. LULAC requested that the Department of  Justice investigate Paxton's office for Voting Rights Act violations. LULAC CEO Juan Proaño and the group's national president, Roman Palomares, summed up well what is really going in their letter to the DOJ: "These actions echo a troubling history of voter suppression and intimidation that has long targeted both Black and Latino communities, particularly in states like Texas, where demographic changes have increasingly shifted the political landscape.”

The Texas GOPs voter intimidation tactics are based on the faux outrage campaign against noncitizen voting.

[patriottruth]

This is a reminder that on March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered donald j. trump to have 87 Democrats in both houses of Congress remove his insurrectionist disqualification from ever holding any federal office again. He failed to do so prior to November 5, 2024. Should he fail to do so by December 17th, 2024, he will not be the 47th President of the United States of America on January 20th, 2025.

So I've seen some comments suggesting this is misinformation. It's not. Per the Supreme Court of the United States' own Berger Test to disqualify judges, the MAGA SCOTUS majority ruling pertaining to donald j. trump being permanently immune from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means nothing; because it lacks standing in precedent, law, constitutionality, and relevance.

The three dissenting justices clarify that the only matter that was actually legally settled and, therefore, legally enforceable, pertained to state actions, not federal law enforcement actions against a disqualified insurrectionist presidential or federal candidate, such as donald j. trump, committing the federal crime of being an insurrectionist attempting to hold office without having their insurrectionist disqualification removed via a two-thirds vote of both houses. And so it is legal fact that the Supreme Court did, in fact, order donald j. trump to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses on March 4th, 2024; it's just that donald j. trump and his legal team were too illiterate and unintelligent to actually read what was legal and had standing (state enforcement against federal candidates), and what didn't (federal enforcement against federal candidates). And MAGA SCOTUS is now permanently legally barred from ever addressing any matter pertaining to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump, so they can't even try to interfere on his behalf again should Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate demand and force a vote on the matter of donald j. trump's disqualification for holding federal office.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court decision overruling a trial court decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis against Rep. Victor L. Berger, a Congressman for Wisconsin's 5th district and the founder of the Social Democratic Party of America, and several other German-American defendants who were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by publicizing anti-interventionist views during World War I.

The case was argued on December 9, 1920, and decided on January 31, 1921, with an opinion by Justice Joseph McKenna and dissents by Justices William R. Day, James Clark McReynolds, and Mahlon Pitney. The Supreme Court held that Judge Landis was properly disqualified as trial judge based on an affidavit filed by the German defendants asserting that Judge Landis' public anti-German statements should disqualify him from presiding over the trial of the defendants.

The House of Representatives twice denied Berger his seat in the House due to his original conviction for espionage using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding denying office to those who supported "insurrection or rebellion". The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in 1921 in Berger v. U.S., and Berger won three successive terms in the House in the 1920s.

Per the United States Supreme Court's "Berger test" that states that to disqualify ANY judge in the United States of America: 1) a party files an affidavit claiming personal bias or prejudice demonstrating an "objectionable inclination or disposition of the judge" and 2) claim of bias is based on facts antedating the trial.

All 6 criminal MAGA insurrectionist and trump-loyalist U.S. Supreme Court Justices who've repeatedly and illegally ruled in donald j. trump's favor are as disqualified from issuing any rulings pertaining to donald j. trump (a German immigrant) as the United States Supreme Court ruled U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was when he attempted to deny Victor L. Berger (a German immigrant) from holding office for violating the Espionage Act and supporting or engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America.

The only misinformation that exists surrounding the Anderson vs. trump ruling is the belief that the MAGA SCOTUS ruling on federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump settled the matter and handed him permanent immunity from prosecution should he ever commit the federal crime of attempting to hold federal office. In legal fact, MAGA SCOTUS' nonsensical ruling attempting to grant donald j. trump permanent immunity from prosecution for insurrection is grounds for immediate and permanent disbarment; as they're clearly attempting to legislate from the bench and prevent Congress from legislating in a way that's unfavorable to their presidential candidate.

This is the only pertinent and legally important part of the Anderson vs. trump ruling with regards to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump or any other insurrectionist committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office without first having their insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses:

Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson Opinion on the Majority Ruling:

Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient ratioAnd MAGA SCOTUS is now permanently legally barred from ever addressing any matter pertaining to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump.nale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “ ‘ “ascertain[ ] what particular individuals” ’ ” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.

To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists. Amdt. 14. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context). Ante, at 5. In fact, the text cuts the opposite way. Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. Even petitioner’s lawyer acknowledged the “tension” in Section 3 that the majority’s view creates. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.

Similarly, nothing else in the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment supports the majority’s view. Section 5 gives Congress the “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” Remedial legislation of any kind, however, is not required. All the Reconstruction Amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning that they do not depend on legislation. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997); see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). Similarly, other constitutional rules of disqualification, like the two-term limit on the Presidency, do not require implementing legislation. See, e.g., Art. II, §1, cl. 5 (Presidential Qualifications); Amdt. 22 (Presidential Term Limits). Nor does the majority suggest otherwise. It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3.

The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose. It cites Griffin’s Case, but that is a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge. See ante, at 5 (quoting 11 F. Cas., at 26). Once again, even petitioner’s lawyer distanced himself from fully embracing this case as probative of Section 3’s meaning. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35–36. The majority also cites Senator Trumbull’s statements that Section 3 “ ‘provide[d] no means for enforcing’ ” itself. Ante, at 5 (quoting Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., 626 (1869)). The majority, however, neglects to mention the Senator’s view that “[i]t is the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment that prevents a person from holding office,” with the proposed legislation simply “affor[ding] a more efficient and speedy remedy” for effecting the disqualification. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626–627.

Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures “ ‘tailor[ed]’ ” to Section 3, ante, at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 158 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting). The Court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot. The majority resolves much more than the case before us. Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.

Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.

What all of that means is that between now and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is ticking!

Here's why this will work: donald trump's legal tactics are deny, attempt to wiggle out of it on technicalities, and delay, delay, delay. Well, from November 2023 to March 4, 2024, donald trump not only said that he was never an officer of the United States, but that he also never swore an oath to support the United States Constitution. And then he said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about running for office, only holding office, and since he's only running for office, nothing can keep him off the ballot. And that's where this has finally caught up to him.

SCOTUS illegally took the case to begin with. SCOTUS was required to kick the case back to Congress immediately to force a two-thirds of both houses vote to remove donald trump's insurrectionist disqualification. But they illegally denied Congress the ability to vote on it at the time, illegally legislated from the bench to keep donald trump on the ballot by illegally amending Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and dismissed the clear two-thirds vote requirement to replace it with "Congress must pass new legislation and amend Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in order to keep insurrectionists off of the ballot and out of office in the future. All six MAGA SCOTUS injustices can now be immediately and permanently disbarred from ever judging or practicing law anywhere in the United States now and in the future for that illegal legislating from the bench; because the U.S. Constitution clearly says that the Judiciary can never interfere with Congress legislating, or with the President enforcing the laws of the United States.

donald trump and his allies figured that was a win, that SCOTUS couldn't be challenged, that the Democrats could never get legislation passed to keep him off the ballot or from holding office again, and the matter was dropped. But that's where he was wrong; because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still reads, and only legally reads, that the only way an insurrectionist can hold federal office again is by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; and that means that now that donald trump can't try and use the technicality of "I'm not even trying to hold office, I'm just running for office," and he's actively trying to hold office with no technicality wiggle room, donald trump's only path to the White House is to have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17th, 2017; and his favorite tactic of delay, delay, delay won't work because delaying means he can't be inaugurated, sworn in, and serve as the 47th President of the United States; and that means Kamala Harris would become 47th President of the United States by default.

If anyone is interested in fighting another trump presidency, contact every Democrat representative in the House of Representatives and the Senate and remind them that donald j. trump cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, and be the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025 unless 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification before December 17, 2024. Many of them have online contact forms. You may have to enter an address near their local office in their district for the contact form to go through, but I know they're going to want to be reminded of this by as many people as possible in order to save humanity and American democracy from donald trump. Plus, Kamala Harris can be contacted via the White House Vice President contact form; and as a presidential candidate and the President of the Senate, she and President Biden can do a lot to enforce donald trump having to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate before December 17, 2024.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Let’s start with Oregon – what does this mean for unhoused people in Grants Pass?

It means that Grants Pass can enforce its 24/7 citywide ban on public homelessness. The question was whether cities should be able to jail or fine someone who has no other alternative but to live in public space – the unhoused folks who are considered “involuntarily homeless”. The city was already allowed to arrest people who had declined offers of shelter. Now, Grants Pass will likely be fining people who have no shelter options.

When you fine someone who can’t pay, the fine can eventually turn into a misdemeanor. Studies have shown that it doesn’t help an already poor person to be driven into debt. Fining someone makes them less likely to emerge from homelessness, including by ruining their credit score and making them unable to afford basic needs like food.

Beyond fines, the city of Grants Pass is going to eventually jail more people. This is punishing people who have done nothing more than exist in public space. This case was about whether you can punish people for the unavoidable consequences of being human. The supreme court said yes.

How do you expect the decision will impact other jurisdictions across the west?

This is quite possibly the most consequential decision in history up until this point relating to homeless rights. It’s hard to overstate how important it is.

I think more cities will attempt 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. I think it will encourage cities to shift away from investments in evidence-based approaches like adequately investing in affordable housing, permanent supportive housing and diversion and shift toward more law-and-order, enforcement-led efforts to essentially jail and banish already marginalized people from public view.

Grants Pass argued it wasn’t criminalizing the status of homelessness, but criminalizing the act of camping in public. The supreme court majority in its ruling on Friday concurred, and said that criminalizing an act does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Presumably cities could in the future go even further than Grants Pass has, as long as they frame their laws as prohibiting public camping, instead of prohibiting homelessness, although I don’t think that issue has been fully resolved by today’s decision.

Donald Trump and others have used increasingly dark rhetoric, threatening to force people into “tent cities”. Will the ruling embolden those kinds of efforts?

I think we could see the forced displacement of unhoused folks into what I would call internment camps out in the middle of nowhere – a mass migration of unhoused people from one place where their existence is banned to other places where the laws don’t ban their existence. Many cities already have authorized camps in far-out locations that are completely invisible to the general public. I learned about one that was bordered by a dump, a recycling center and railroad tracks – the quintessentially least desirable place.

The idea of rounding up unhoused folks and forcing them into camps or out of the jurisdiction entirely is obviously very concerning. And it should be of grave concern, because once something is invisible, you don’t know what’s happening to the already really vulnerable people living there. Trump has publicly contemplated using his federal authority to move people into the middle of the desert where they won’t bother anyone by existing. It’s a very dystopian vision of internment camps and the likely abuses and neglect that would come from that. It’s terrifying.

Prior to this ruling, cities already had quite a lot of latitude to restrict camping, correct?

Yes, cities could already sweep encampments as much as they like. In many cities, they’ve been sweeping tents at record rates. They could also already enforce anti-camping laws if there was something that could be shown to be an urgent public health or safety issue with respect to a particular encampment – for example, if an encampment was blocking a whole sidewalk. Cities could sweep without even giving notice in those circumstances. Under the previous standard, cities weren’t even required to provide adequate shelter. It just said if the city lacks shelter, it can’t jail or fine someone, which to me should be so straightforward, and yet somehow here we are.

How do you expect legal advocates for unhoused people will respond to this ruling?

The dehumanizing message of today’s decision is going to galvanize civil rights attorneys. It has to. Anytime somebody’s basic right to exist is threatened, civil rights activists have to regroup. And cities should not approach this too cavalierly. There will be legal consequences for cities that pursue 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. All this decision does is remove the protections for unhoused folks under the eighth amendment of the US constitution. States across the country have analogs to the eighth amendment in their state constitutions. States can and often do interpret their state constitutional provisions to be more protective than the federal constitution. The eighth amendment at its core is really about how much we value the humanity of vulnerable people. So it’s crippling from a human standpoint to have that protection removed. But there are other avenues that homeless rights advocates and human rights lawyers can still pursue. They can make arguments under other federal constitutional provisions. There are still due process arguments under the 14th amendment. You can still argue there is selective prosecution. There are arguments that could be made under the fourth amendment [which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures]. There’s the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], and most chronically homeless people would likely qualify as someone with a disability who has protections from state-sanctioned abuse.

[simply-ivanka]

Trump’s Trial Violated Due Process

Trump was denied notice of the charges, meaningful opportunity to respond and proof of all elements.

By 

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley

Wall Street Journal

Whether you love, hate or merely tolerate Donald Trump, you should care about due process, which is fundamental to the rule of law. New York’s trial of Mr. Trump violated basic due-process principles.

“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.” In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial.

The state offense with which Mr. Trump was indicted, “falsifying business records,” requires proof of an “intent to defraud.” To elevate this misdemeanor to a felony, the statute requires proof of “intent to commit another crime.” In People v. Bloomfield (2006), the state’s highest court observed that “intent to commit another crime” is an indispensable element of the felony offense.

New York courts have concluded that the accused need not be convicted of the other crime since an “intent to commit” it is sufficient to satisfy the statute. But because that intent is, in the words of Winship, “a fact necessary to constitute the crime,” it is an element of felony falsification. Due process requires that the defendant receive timely notice of the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. It also requires that he have opportunity to defend against that accusation and that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to commit it.

Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

To recap, the prosecution involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an “intent to commit another crime,” (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of “unlawful means.” It’s a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense.

To make matters worse, Judge Merchan instructed the jury: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

Due process demands that felony verdicts be unanimous, but in Schad v. Arizona (1991), a murder case, the high court indicated that there need not be unanimity regarding the means by which a crime is committed. But a plurality opinion by Justice David Souter cautioned that if the available means of committing a crime are so capacious that the accused is not “in a position to understand with some specificity the legal basis of the charge against him,” due process will be violated. “Nothing in our history suggests that the Due Process Clause would permit a State to convict anyone under a charge of ‘Crime’ so generic that any combination of jury findings of embezzlement, reckless driving, murder, burglary, tax evasion, or littering, for example, would suffice for conviction,” Justice Souter wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, observing that “one can conceive of novel ‘umbrella’ crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-to-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.” Four dissenting justices argued that the In re Winship precedent requires unanimity regarding all elements of a crime, including the means by which it’s committed.

All nine justices in Schad, then, believed unanimity is required to convict when the means by which a crime can be committed are so broad that the accused doesn’t receive fair notice of the basis of the charge. New York’s election law requires that the violation occur “by unlawful means,” so any “unlawful” act—including, in Scalia’s example, either robbery of failure to file a tax return—can qualify. That’s clearly overbroad. Thus, Judge Merchan’s instruction that the jury “need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were” was unconstitutional.

That isn’t all. Judge Merchan hand-selected three laws—federal election law, falsification of “other” business records and “violation of tax laws”—as the “unlawful means” by which state election law was violated. Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses, and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial. Mr. Trump tried to call former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith to explain why this law wasn’t violated, but Judge Merchan ruled Mr. Smith couldn’t testify on whether Mr. Trump’s conduct “does or does not constitute a violation” of federal election law, denying him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Judge Merchan’s second “unlawful” means, falsification of other business records, is circular: A misdemeanor becomes a felony if one falsifies business records by falsifying business records. Further, the prosecution never alleged or provided evidence that Mr. Trump falsified “other” business records. The prosecutors likewise neither alleged nor offered evidence that Mr. Trump had violated tax laws, Judge Merchan’s third predicate.

Mr. Trump, like all criminal defendants, was entitled to due process. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him. That takes time, however, and is unlikely to occur before the election. That unfortunate reality will widen America’s political divide and fuel the suspicion that Mr. Trump’s prosecution wasn’t about enforcing the law but wounding a presidential candidate for the benefit of his opponent.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

[foxgirlmoth]

Okay, lets go through this apparent list of positives that Biden is in favor of.

Trans Rights: There have been multiple laws within states to fully close off especially trans kids rights to medical treatments and more. This is extremely current. Biden puts in minimal effort to look like he's doing anything at all for trans and queer rights, and there haven't really been any efforts aside from doing one or two proposals that immediately get shot down, and he's more than okay with that, hence why there's no longer really any push for this shit still. If you're trans, you can't piss in Utah without the risk of getting a fine right now. Even though these are state laws, the fact that there's been nearly zero effort federally to address this besides the title IX rule, speaks a lot about priorities in this area.

Abortion Access: Are we just forgetting the whole Roe V Wade getting overturned thing that happened in 2022? Are you really trying to say that this is good for abortion access? Abortion access has gotten actively worse.

Environmental Reform: Biden has endorsed extreme oil drilling projects and in general oil companies still love him! Not to mention the train crashes which we'll get to later.

Healthcare Reform: Covid-19 is still around and is sadly predicted to stay around for a long while. Healthcare is still private and a competitive field in the US and that causes major issues as well. If you look this up, you see articles titled along the lines of "Biden has lowered the cost of insurance" and meanwhile it just dropped in 2020 once during the pandemic but has been growing in cost.

Prescription Reform: Reading into this, not much has changed, which isn't surprising under genocide Joe. Drugs in the US are still higher than anywhere else in the world, and with healthcare issues still abundant, this is still a big issue.

Student Loan Forgiveness: Student debt is still extremely high in the US, and while Biden has rolled out some plans for forgiveness, it's a fraction of the debt, and he primarily uses the whole thing to win over swing states. This is a dangling carrot that provides very little overall.

Infrastructure Funding: Train crashes from 2020-present, worldwide, but notice the amount of US crashes! Neat! Quite literally just look up train crashes in the US during his presidency, there's too many to link here. It is also important to remember that Biden signed a bill to prevent rail strikes, preventing a lot of pressure to the government and the economy, which would have been a GOOD THING. Seriously, this guy has fucked up our environment and our rights in multiple ways.

Advocating Racial Equity: Structural racism within the US is still a huge problem, Biden hasn't addressed much. Also people are still in cages on the Mexico/US border (Which has been maintained by every president in office since it was established), with a very recent crackdown on the border.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Just. Look at the racial equity and trans rights sections above. Biden does the bare minimum, loves focusing on swing states, and all around uses the ol' carrot on a stick.

Vaccines and Public Health: Once again look above at sections on healthcare, abortion access, and prescription reform. Its bad. Remember how Covid-19 vaccines aren't being continued for free?

Criminal Justice Reform: This is just structural slavery still. Disproportionate amounts of black people are incarcerated, police are still heavily funded under Biden. He does not care about reforming the justice system, he even supports cops breaking up campus protests! Cool!

Military Support for Israel: Yup! Both sides suck! Biden has a very long history of sure hating Arabic countries though! He's done nothing but ship weapons and participate in the genocide of Palestinian people. Would Trump also do this? Yes. Does this mean this is an issue you should just drop and call a non-issue? No, what the hell are you talking about.

Israel/Hamas Ceasefire: Netanyahu has no plans to accept any actual ceasefire, yet Biden still provides weapons and support. Wow! That sure is weird? I wonder if Biden really cares about a ceasefire or how he just looks publicly.

Biden is not a good president, much less a good human being. You provided such a flimsy chart with zero resources or support behind you, and it just feels like people are just making shit up at this point. Get your heads out of the liberal cesspool you grew up in.

[yourlocalmeta1head]

I hate seeing these fucking videos of people who voted for Donald Trump regretting voting for him. If they had just done more research and didn't vote for him just because then the can "afford gas and groceries" they would've learned that if you are the average American your taxes will be higher and you will have larger bills. Donald Trump's tax plan does include a few cuts for the middle class but 83% of tax cuts that are included in Donald Trumps tax plan go to the people that are making over half a million dollars a year. Kamala Harris's tax plan would've been better because 100% of the tax cuts in her plan would go to members of the middle and low class.

Donald Trump has also reported "not being associated with project 2025" and "having nothing to do with project 2025" which is obviously false seeing that many people who are involved in project 2025 have served Donald Trump in one way or another. For example; Paul Dans, who is a former chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personal Management under Trump is leading the project. In addition, Trumps campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has appeared in Project 2025 promotion videos.

Here are ways project 2025 could affect you and your personal life. Project 2025 would stop people from earning overtime pay. He wants to undo recent policy that made over 4 million people newly eligible for overtime. Project 2025 also wants to weaken child labor protections. In quote "The young people should be able to work inherently dangerous jobs" and work in rolls that are not allowed thanks to protections from the department of labor.

Project 2025 also says that they will quote "Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens" Donald Trump is planing on doing mass deportations. He declared that once he takes office that he will use military to do mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

They want to make it harder for women to get abortions by removing it from laws and taking away approval for abortion pills. They want to stop some services that give out birth control and instead suggest less reliable methods. That might take away funding from clinics that provide abortions which could also affect other services those clinics offer. They want to promote traditional roles for men and women. They will take away protections and programs that help gay people, thus making it harder for them to be treated fairly and get the support they need. They might cut back on programs that help poor people get healthcare and other support meaning it could be harder for poor families to get the help they need.

These are some of the ways project 2025 will affect the climate. Project 2025 would rewrite the most legal tool we have for protecting wildlife in ways that would harm imperilled species. For example, it specifically calls for removing protections from gray wolves and Yellowstone grizzlies. They also propose to repeal the Antiquities Act, which would strip the president of the ability to protect the public land and waters of national monuments. Project 2025 would have agencies that manage the federal lands and waters to maximise corporate oil and gas extraction. Speaking of oil, the agenda directly aims to expand the Willow Project which the largest proposed oil and gas undertaking on the U.S. public land. This also calls for drilling into Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and mining into Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness.

If you go to a public school congratulations. You are now required to take the military entrance exam. Page 134/ 135, "Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery—the military entrance examination—by all students in schools that receive federal funding." "Increase the number of Junior ROTC programs in secondary schools"

If you voted for Trump I promise you will regret it in the next 4 years.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A Nazi rally held in Madison Square Garden, February 20th 1939

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 21, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 22, 2024

On Saturday, September 7, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump predicted that his plan to deport 15 to 20 million people currently living in the United States would be “bloody.” He also promised to prosecute his political opponents, including, he wrote, lawyers, political operatives, donors, illegal voters, and election officials. Retired chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley told journalist Bob Woodward that Trump is “a fascist to the core…the most dangerous person to this country.” 

On October 14, Trump told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that he thought enemies within the United States were more dangerous than foreign adversaries and that he thought the military should stop those “radical left lunatics” on Election Day. Since then, he has been talking a lot about “the enemy from within,” specifically naming Representative Adam Schiff and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats from California, as “bad people.” Schiff was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee that broke the 2019 story of Trump’s attempt to extort Volodymyr Zelensky that led to Trump’s first impeachment. 

Trump’s references to the “enemy from within” have become so frequent that former White House press secretary turned political analyst Jen Psaki has called them his closing argument for the 2024 election, and she warned that his construction of those who oppose him as “enemies” might sweep in virtually anyone he feels is a threat.

In a searing article today, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer of The Cycle explored exactly what that means in a piece titled “What (Really) Happens If Trump Wins?” Bitecofer outlined Adolf Hitler’s January 30, 1933, oath of office, in which he promised Germans he would uphold the constitution, and the three months he took to dismantle that constitution.

By March, she notes,  the concentration camp Dachau was open. Its first prisoners were not Jews, but rather Hitler’s prominent political opponents. By April, Jews had been purged from the civil service, and opposition political parties were illegal. By May, labor unions were banned and students were burning banned books. Within the year, public criticism of Hitler and the Nazis was illegal, and denouncing violators paid well for those who did it.

Bitecofer writes that Trump has promised mass deportations “that he cannot deliver unless he violates both the Constitution and federal law.” To enable that policy, Trump will need to dismantle the merit-based civil service and put into office those loyal to him rather than the Constitution. And then he will purge his political opponents, for once those who would stand against him are purged, Trump can act as he wishes against immigrants, for example, and others.

Ninety years ago, as American reporter Dorothy Thompson ate breakfast at her hotel in Berlin on August 25, 1934, a young man from Hitler’s secret police, the Gestapo, “politely handed me a letter and requested a signed receipt.” She thought nothing of it, she said, “But what a surprise was in store for me!” The letter informed her that, “in light of your numerous anti-German publications,” she was being expelled from Germany.

She was the first American journalist expelled from Nazi Germany, and that expulsion was no small thing. Thompson had moved to London in 1920 to become a foreign correspondent and began to spend time in Berlin. In 1924 she moved to the city to head the Central European Bureau for the New York Evening Post and the Philadelphia Public Ledger. From there, she reported on the rise of Adolf Hitler. She left her Berlin post in 1928 to marry novelist Sinclair Lewis, and the two settled in Vermont.

When the couple traveled to Sweden in 1930 for Lewis to accept the Nobel Prize in Literature, Thompson visited Germany, where she saw the growing strength of the fascists and the apparent inability of the Nazi’s opponents to come together to stand against them. She continued to visit the country in the following years, reporting on the rise of fascism there, and elsewhere. 

In 1931, Thompson interviewed Hitler and declared that, rather than “the future dictator of Germany” she had expected to meet, he was a man of “startling insignificance.” She asked him if he would “abolish the constitution of the German Republic.” He answered: “I will get into power legally” and, once in power, abolish the parliament and the constitution and “found an authority-state, from the lowest cell to the highest instance; everywhere there will be responsibility and authority above, discipline and obedience below.” She did not believe he could succeed: “Imagine a would-be dictator setting out to persuade a sovereign people to vote away their rights,” she wrote in apparent astonishment.

Thompson was back in Berlin in summer 1934 as a representative of the Saturday Evening Post when she received the news that she had 24 hours to leave the country. The other foreign correspondents in Berlin saw her off at the railway station with “great sheaves of American Beauty roses.” 

Safely in Paris, Thompson mused that in her first years in Germany she had gotten to know many of the officials of the German republic, and that when she had left to marry Lewis, they offered “many expressions of friendship and gratitude.” But times had changed. “I thought of them sadly as my train pulled out,” she said, “carrying me away from Berlin. Some of those officials still are in the service of the German Government, some of them are émigrés and some of them are dead.” 

Thompson came home to a nation where many of the same dark impulses were simmering, her fame after her expulsion from Germany following her. She lectured against fascism across the country in 1935, then began a radio program that reached tens of millions of listeners. Hired in 1936 to write a regular column three days a week for the New York Herald Tribune, she became a leading voice in print, too, warning that what was happening in Germany could also happen in America. 

In an echo of Lewis’s bestselling 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, she wrote in a 1937 column: “No people ever recognize their dictator in advance…. He always represents himself as the instrument for expressing the Incorporated National Will. When Americans think of dictators they always think of some foreign model. If anyone turned up here in a fur hat, boots and a grim look he would be recognized and shunned…. But when our dictator turns up, you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.” 

In less than two years, the circulation of her column had grown to reach between seven and eight million people. In 1939 a reporter wrote: “She is read, believed and quoted by millions of women who used to get their political opinions from their husbands, who got them from [political commentator] Walter Lippmann.” The reporter likened Thompson to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, saying they were the two “most influential women in the U.S.”

When 22,000 American Nazis held a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden in honor of President George Washington’s birthday on February 20, 1939, Thompson sat in the front row of the press box, where she laughed loudly during the speeches and yelled “Bunk!” at the stage, illustrating that she would not be muzzled by Nazis. After being escorted out, she returned to her seat, where stormtroopers surrounded her. She later told a reporter: “I was amazed to see a duplicate of what I saw seven years ago in Germany. Tonight I listened to words taken out of the mouth of Adolf Hitler.” 

Two years later, In 1941, Thompson returned to the issue she had raised when she mused about those government officials who had gone from thanking her to expelling her. In a piece for Harper’s Magazine titled “Who Goes Nazi?” she wrote: “It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi,” she wrote. “By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.”

Examining a number of types of Americans, she wrote that the line between democracy and fascism was not wealth, or education, or race, or age, or nationality. “Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi,” she wrote. They were secure enough to be good natured and open to new ideas, and they believed so completely in the promise of American democracy that they would defend it with their lives, even if they seemed too easygoing to join a struggle. “But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis,” she wrote. “Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi.”

In Paris following her expulsion from Berlin, Thompson told a reporter for the Associated Press that the reason she had been attacked was the same reason that Hitler’s power was growing. “Chancellor Hitler is no longer a man, he is a religion,” she said.

Suggesting her expulsion was because of her old article disparaging Hitler, in her own article about her expulsion she noted: “My offense was to think that Hitler is just an ordinary man, after all. That is a crime against the reigning cult in Germany, which says Mr. Hitler is a Messiah sent by God to save the German people…. To question this mystic mission is so heinous that, if you are a German, you can be sent to jail. I, fortunately, am an American, so I merely was sent to Paris. Worse things can happen….” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[contemplatingoutlander]

Apocalyptic rhetoric is just as dangerous as the violent kind

Paul Waldman is absolutely correct about how the Republican's "apocalyptic rhetoric" about the Democrats could ultimately lead to violence just as much as the violent rhetoric. The GOP frames Democrats now as deliberately wanting to "destroy" America. (Ironically, it is the GOP who have turned toward autocracy and seem determined on establishing one party rule at all costs. This suggests that once again, Republicans are projecting onto Democrats.)

“I cannot stand these people that are destroying our country,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to a crowd of Donald Trump’s supporters at the Iowa State Fair this past weekend while the former president looked on approvingly. Gaetz then added: “Only through force do we make any change in a corrupt town like Washington, D.C.” The second part of that statement made headlines, as it’s not every day that a member of Congress advocates “force” to achieve political goals. But the first part ought to be just as troubling, because the two parts operate together. The idea that our opponents are purposely attempting to lay waste to America is often the justification for all kinds of radical action — violence very much included. Barely a day goes by without prominent Republicans repeating that claim. Trump regularly says his political opponents will “destroy the country,” or have already nearly destroyed it. It’s a staple of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s rhetoric. “If woke ideology takes over, it will destroy this country,” DeSantis says. If President Biden is reelected, the governor insists, “the left is gonna absolutely destroy this country.” [...] Yes, liberals have made dire warnings about a second Trump presidency. But that’s unique to Trump, who actually tried to overturn a lawful election and retain power, and last year called for the “termination” of the Constitution. So the assertion that if he became president it could mean the end of democracy is at least not too far-fetched.* The talk of the United States ending its run some time in the next few years because Democrats passed some modest expansion of health coverage or kept pushing for a transition to green energy, on the other hand, is bonkers. Yet, unlike other kinds of rhetorical calls to extremism, we don’t police it at all. Journalists tend to be very attuned to hints of political violence. When a candidate says he wants to start “slitting throats” in the federal government, as DeSantis recently did, we condemn it and explore its troubling implications. We press Republican contenders to admit that Biden fairly won the 2020 election and to repudiate the violent insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021. In contrast, we treat partisan apocalyptic rhetoric as mere hyperbole. But it’s the premise that turns anger into action. If you actually believed your opponents were literally trying to destroy your country, what wouldn’t be justified? Threatening election officials? Storming the Capitol? Assassinations? You might protest that Republican politicians don’t really believe this talk. But clearly, many of their supporters do. Which is no surprise given how often they’re told that it’s true. [...] Any rational Republican knows the truth about the next election: If Biden wins, it will mean nothing more than four years of policies they don’t like. That will be deeply unpleasant for them. But it won’t mean the end of America, and they shouldn’t be allowed to say so without challenge. We ought to treat apocalyptic rhetoric just like we treat violent rhetoric: Take note of it, condemn it, challenge candidates to defend it, and explain the threat it poses. Why? Because many of the voters who are listening think the Republicans spinning out wild tales of America’s imminent destruction mean what they say. [emphasis added]

____________ *In my opinion it isn't just Trump, many on the left have legitimate concerns about extreme right-wing Republicans like DeSantis and white Christian nationalists who seem to want autocracy/ one-party rule because they have either said and/or shown that they do.

[friend-of-kyoshi]

Transcript:

“3 things happened last week that I have yet to see a new story or article link together, but they’re best understood as one story. Trump has repeatedly made threats about going after people that he views as opponents, but he’s stayed vague on the who and how. This 3-piece story sheds some light on both those questions. On Wednesday the 20th, Trump posted on social media demanding that the Senate not pass the PRESS Act. This had been a bipartisan bill to codify Biden administration protections for journalists. The law would prevent federal law enforcement from forcing journalists to turn over confidential sources or sensitive documents other than in a few very rare exceptions. On thursday the 21st, the House passed HR 9495, which includes something that at first even some House Democrats didn’t recognize for how dangerous it is. The bill would allow the Treasury Secretary to designate a nonprofit as a terrorist-supporting organization if they’re found to have been giving material support or advice to terrorist groups in the last 3 years. That means that the IRS would remove their nonprofit status. Lawyers for groups like the ACLU very quickly pointed out that the phrasing of this law would allow the Treasury Secretary to make a designation like this without providing any explanation or any evidence. So it can be used as a way to label ANY nonprofit, including universities, as terrorist-supporting organizations based on nothing but the unilateral decision of a presidential appointee. The bill will now go to the Senate, where Democrats can only vote against it by also voting against the rest of the bill, that provides tax protection for Americans that are taken hostage overseas. Lastly, on Friday the 22nd, Trump posted on social media saying that he plans to name the Wall Street financier Scott Bessent to be the Treasury Secretary. Bessent has openly supported Trump’s plans to permanently extend tax cuts for the wealthy and implement extreme tariffs on imports. And this is despite warnings from economists about how harmful both of those plans are. So to summarize, what do these three things telling us? Republicans are pushing a law that would allow a Trump loyalist to declare any nonprofit, including universities, as a terrorist-supporting group without any proof or explanation. Trump has ordered Republicans in the Senate to block a bill that will keep him from targeting journalists and making them reveal their confidential sources. This suggests to me that these threats of retaliation… he’s not gonna be going after people like Biden who have hurt his ego in the past; he’s gonna be going after journalists and nonprofits who get in his way in the future. This will let him go directly after confidential sources to make it more dangerous to speak up and talk to the media. It will let him go after groups like the ACLU or Earthjustice who take his administration to court, or universities that don’t punish campus protesters. He could end their tax exempt status and stigmatize donating to them because they’re labeled as a terrorist-supporting organization.

So what can you do?

Well, the one thing that might work is pressuring the Senate. See, Republicans don’t yet have a majority there, so passing HR 9495 would require some Democrats to give into the pressure over the other part of that bill. For the PRESS Act to pass, Democrats need to push it through. And remember there were Republicans who planned on voting for that bill before Trump told them not to. So if you have a Democratic senator, call them and tell them to pass the PRESS Act and block House Resolution 9495. If you have a Republican senator, call them and tell them the same thing. You can find their phone numbers, email addresses, whatever, by going to this URL at the Senate website. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, and have a good weekend.”

[boreal-sea]

Something I don’t see people discussing properly on tumblr is how progress happens. I don’t mean the mechanics, I mean the overall momentum.

I’m going to use geology here for a moment. For a long time there were two schools of thought about geologic processes: catastrophism and uniformitarianism. The first posits that all major geologic change happens in sudden and catastrophic moments. Volcanoes suddenly appear, landslides occur, earthquakes tear apart the ground. Uniformitarianism instead states that all geologic change is slow and constant. Mountains erode over millions of years, tectonic plates move only centimeters per year, rivers carve out a course over thousands of years.

Now, even a non-geologist can look at this and correctly observe that in fact BOTH of these types events happen. Volcanoes and erosion exist side by side. And geologists agree. Today it’s accepted that much of geologic history is typified by long slow processes interspersed with rare moments of catastrophe.

And social change is a lot like geology. It feels like a lot of people fall into catastrophism or uniformitarianism and these two groups are at odds with one another. Catastrophists in particular are extremely frustrated with the slow periods of social change. Uniformitarianists tend to be wary of the "burn it all down" crowd, citing the harm that would do to vulnerable groups.

But social change does in fact move at two paces. It tends to plod along, with groups slowly gaining rights over decades. One small law here, another there. When you look back over the course of 50 years you can see significant change! But in the moment, it feels like nothing is happening at all. However, there are moments where there is significant and sudden change. The Civil War is one example. Brown v. Board of Education is another example.

And like nature, these watershed moments, these leaps forward for human rights, are usually the result of a culmination of social pressure, of the slow incremental change that happened in the decades prior. The Civil War didn't come out of nowhere. Neither did Brown v. Board of Education. These moments of upheaval need the work of the slow and steady folks.

Again, to use geology, I think about it like how earthquakes work. An earthquake does not (usually) come out of nowhere. It is instead the result of pressure building up between two tectonic plates. This pressure finally becomes too much, the friction between the plates is overcome by the shear force, and the plates violently lurch. In some places, there are lots of little earthquakes: it doesn't take much force to cause the plates to slip, and the resulting earthquakes aren't very big. In other locations though, pressure has been building for a very long time. When that pressure is released the earthquake is massive.

A lot of people who comment angrily on my posts begging them to vote for the Democrats are catastrophists. They want change NOW. They are tired of the slow and steady work. But I think Roe v. Wade being overturned is an important lesson in how sometimes, those catastrophic moments don't always have staying power, especially if other slow behind-the-scenes progress is not done to enshrine those rights -- and with regards to abortion, the blame is entire on the Democrats. They failed to enshrine those protections into federal law, and instead simply assumed Roe v. Wade would never be overturned.

I'm not against sudden progress, but I do not think it's something you can artificially manufacture. You cannot intentionally make this volcano explode, you cannot trigger an earthquake on purpose. To borrow something from a Folding Ideas video (In Search of a Flat Earth), it seems as though some of these people are attempting to manufacture the circumstances needed to bring about catastrophic change through any means necessary, including allowing Trump to become president again. The harm this may cause is irrelevant; the ends justify the means to these people.

So when I propose we stay the course, vote Democrat, and continue to push for ranked-choice voting, the catastrophists see this as paramount to agreeing to everything the current system is doing. I don't want everything to change right now, so clearly that means I must completely agree with, enjoy, and benefit from the system as-is. This of course could not be further from the truth. I actually want society to change almost completely. I want election reform, I want us to stop being capitalists, I want bigotry to fade into a distant memory, I want us to do everything we can to fix global warming and pollution. The idea world I imagine is very different from the world we currently live in.

I do think another catastrophic lurch forward will happen. I don't know what it will look like. It will probably be the culmination of many years of effort. Maybe it will be an election many years from now in which every state uses ranked-choice voting and a 3rd party candidate actually wins. Maybe it will be something that happens tomorrow. Biden could pass away, leaving Harris to take his place as the nominee. That might seem like it's not the result of decades of effort, but Harris even being in the White House is a result of slow effort.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

I don't understand people sometimes. I was scrolling through a little earlier and saw someone call Trump a fascist which isn't uncommon but it wasn't from someone I'd have expected to it come from. But nothing about Trump is fascist. Sure he's nationalistic but fascistic and nationalistic are not the same.

What's more when it comes to Dems v Reps I don't see how anyone can vote for Dems especially when they've gone full Neo Progressive. What do I mean? Well let's look at the most general of what the parties have represented across the US.

The right has been pro border security and this has been exemplified by Rep states either reinforcing their own borders, or sending them to sanctuary states.

The right has been historically and still is anti abortion. And while I didn't personally fully after with the stance, it SHOULD be left to the states to decide.

The right are for protecting the second amendment and even IF not all politicians on the right are for it, the SCOTUS justices that do understand the conservative values of the Constitution have given us more freedoms back. Many red states in fact now have constitutional carry.

Also of note those same justices have removed the Chevron act. Meaning that 3 letter agreements etc can't just wildly interpret the law as they please.

Now having said all this yes, there are war hawks on the right. There are racists on the right there are sexists on the right. But those same people very much exist on the left with no shortage at all

The left supports full term abortion and doesn't even consider the child alive until it's outside the womb.

The left is STAUNCHLY anti gun and anti second amendment.

The left is staunchly anti first amendment as seen by their calls to "hate speech".

The left is mostly pro open borders

The left is and has been pro war for a long time. Need proof? Obama started almost 5 new wars.

The left has proven recently they are ABSOLUTELY above the law and will manipulate every word in existence to jail their political rivals.

The left is actively racist and actively promotes white supremacist ideology with stuff like affirmative action and DEI.

The left has gone out of their way to allow kids to transition and get surgeries before the age of 16 even and want kids introduced to and TAUGHT LGBT themes, and have pushed for graphic pornographic books to be in elementary schools.

Leftists states and federally have demanded higher taxes, reduced potentialities for crimes, have sold you out to China, and aim to replace you with illegals they can buy off.

Is this a commentary on ALL of the Left and Dems and ALL of the Right and Reps? No. There's good and bad on both sides. But if we look at policies pushed, and the media apparatus who's been lying non-stop for years who are very clearly leaving left we see the real pattern of behavior. And it bothers me. I'm a left of center, small l, libertarian. You'd think the Dems world actually be "my side" and yet, they aren't. Biden insists on being a tyrant and ignoring SCOTUS ruling WAY outside of his power, trying to forgive loans that he doesn't have the right to forgive since it comes out of the taxpayers dime. And what bothers me even more, is the fact that he has also repealed all of the legislation that Trump pushed forward that kept our border safe. Specifically remain in Mexico. Which was very reasonable legislation.

Looking at all of this objectively no sane person can go with Biden or the Democrats. And as far as I am concerned, if at this point you are on the side of the Democrats then you're in favor of anarcho tyranny. You're in favor of lawlessness. And your favor of being manipulated by the media Non-Stop and watching the dollar crater in value.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

ANNA BONESTEEL AND EVAN GREER at Them:

Pride Month is over. As the “LOVE IS LOVE” banners come down and companies lose the rainbow gradients from their logos, we’re faced with a painful truth: LGBTQ+ people, especially the most marginalized among us, are in the crosshairs of a queerphobic backlash that is targeting our health, our histories, and especially our youth. And things are getting worse, not better. According to NPR, half of all US states now ban gender-affirming care for people under 18. Eight states now censor LGBTQ+ issues from school curricula via “Don’t Say Gay” laws, and two more states are considering similar legislation this year. The number-one book targeted for censorship is a graphic novel memoir about gender identity.

This June, Democratic lawmakers marched in Pride parades and spoke on stages, vowing to protect our community and fight back against legislative attacks on queer youth. But some of these same lawmakers are actively pushing federal legislation that would cut LGBTQ+ youth off from resources, information, and communities that can save their lives. Currently, 38 Democratic senators support the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that is vocally opposed by many queer and trans youth, along with a coalition of human rights and LGBTQ+ groups. As a queer- and trans-led advocacy group focused on the ways technology impacts human rights, our organization, Fight for the Future, has seen bills like KOSA before: misguided internet bills that try to solve real problems, but ultimately throw marginalized people under the bus by expanding censorship and surveillance rather than addressing corporate abuses. KOSA’s most obvious predecessor is SESTA/FOSTA, a Trump-era bill that its supporters claimed would clamp down on online sex trafficking. Instead, the bill did almost nothing to accomplish its goal, and has actively harmed LGBTQ+ people and sex workers whose harm-reduction resources were decimated by the subsequent crackdown on online speech.

Like SESTA/FOSTA, some of KOSA’s supporters have positive intent. Many lawmakers and organizations support KOSA because they are concerned about real harms caused by Big Tech, like addictive design features and manipulative algorithms. But, also like SESTA/FOSTA, KOSA doesn’t touch the core issues with Big Tech’s extractive, exploitative business model. Instead, KOSA relies on a “duty of care” model that will pressure social platforms to suppress any speech the government is willing to argue makes kids “depressed” or “anxious.”

Under KOSA, platforms could be sued for recommending a potentially depression- or anxiety-inducing video to anyone under 18. We know from past experience that in order to protect their bottom line, social media companies will overcompensate and actively suppress posts and groups about gender identity, sexuality, abortion — anything they’re worried the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could be willing to argue “harms” kids. How do you think a potential Trump administration’s FTC would use that kind of authority?

Other features of the bill stretch its censorship potential further. Despite language claiming that the bill does not require platforms to conduct “age verification,” to meaningfully comply with the law, platforms will have to know who is under 18. This means they’ll institute invasive age verification systems or age-gating, which can completely cut off access for LGBTQ+ youth who have unsupportive parents, and/or make it unsafe for queer people to access online resources anonymously. KOSA creates powerful new ways for the government to interfere with online speech. For this reason, the bill is like catnip to extreme right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation, the coordinators of Project 2025, who have explicitly said they want to use it to target LGBTQ+ content. KOSA’s lead Republican sponsor, Marsha Blackburn, has also said in an interview she wants to use KOSA to protect minors “from the transgender.”

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) purports to protect children, but in reality, it’s a censorship bill that would impact LGBTQ+ youth. #StopKOSA #KOSA

[patriottruth]

This is an hourly reminder that on March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered donald j. trump to have 87 Democrats in both houses of Congress remove his insurrectionist disqualification from ever holding any federal office again. He failed to do so prior to November 5, 2024.

What that means is that between now and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is ticking!

Here's an evening update on why this will work. donald trump's legal tactics are deny, attempt to wiggle out of it on technicalities, and delay, delay, delay. Well, from November 2023 to March 4, 2024, donald trump not only said that he was never an officer of the United States, but that he also never swore an oath to support the United States Constitution. And then he said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about running for office, only holding office, and since he's only running for office, nothing can keep him off the ballot. And that's where this has finally caught up to him.

SCOTUS illegally took the case to begin with. SCOTUS was required to kick the case back to Congress immediately to force a two-thirds of both houses vote to remove donald trump's insurrectionist disqualification. But they illegally denied Congress the ability to vote on it at the time, illegally legislated from the bench to keep donald trump on the ballot by illegally amending Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and dismissed the clear two-thirds vote requirement to replace it with "Congress must pass new legislation and amend Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in order to keep insurrectionists off of the ballot and out of office in the future. All six MAGA SCOTUS injustices can now be immediately and permanently disbarred from ever judging or practicing law anywhere in the United States now and in the future for that illegal legislating from the bench; because the U.S. Constitution clearly says that the Judiciary can never interfere with Congress legislating, or with the President enforcing the laws of the United States.

donald trump and his allies figured that was a win, that SCOTUS couldn't be challenged, that the Democrats could never get legislation passed to keep him off the ballot or from holding office again, and the matter was dropped. But that's where he was wrong; because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still reads, and only legally reads, that the only way an insurrectionist can hold federal office again is by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; and that means that now that donald trump can't try and use the technicality of "I'm not even trying to hold office, I'm just running for office," and he's actively trying to hold office with no technicality wiggle room, donald trump's only path to the White House is to have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17th, 2017; and his favorite tactic of delay, delay, delay won't work because delaying means he can't be inaugurated, sworn in, and serve as the 47th President of the United States; and that means Kamala Harris would become 47th President of the United States by default.

If anyone is interested in fighting another trump presidency, contact every Democrat representative in the House of Representatives and the Senate and remind them that donald j. trump cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, and be the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025 unless 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification before December 17, 2024. Many of them have online contact forms. You may have to enter an address near their local office in their district for the contact form to go through, but I know they're going to want to be reminded of this by as many people as possible in order to save humanity and American democracy from donald trump. Plus, Kamala Harris can be contacted via the White House Vice President contact form; and as a presidential candidate and the President of the Senate, she and President Biden can do a lot to enforce donald trump having to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate before December 17, 2024.

Rachel Maddow: Why was donald trump's campaign telling his supporters not to vote, they don't need any votes, and to skip the polls?

[racefortheironthrone]

Sorry this is a silly question, but when US elections are around the corner I always see posts about like it’s either Trump or Biden and nothing else. Now I’m aware of the two-parties system, but I’ve also read there are other smaller parties as well. I guess I’m really baffled with how it always ends up with the same two people competing when the public seems generally dissatisfied with both. Aren’t they able to vote let’s say greens instead of democrats or republics? Or aren’t they able to vote for democratic leader A instead of B? (both in practice and theory). Again sorry if it’s a silly question, but I come from a country where the game is always in between 3-5 parties so I’m like ??? with America.

I mean, you've kind of answered your own question: the United States is a federal, presidential political system that uses first-past-the-post to run its elections and doesn't usually allow for electoral fusion. (With a very few exceptions.) In that context, a two-party system is the only logical method for doing electoral politics.

But even if a left-wing party or (let's be honest) it's way more likely to be a right-wing party, given that right-wing third parties have been far more successful in American political history (relatively speaking) did well in the polls and had a totally level playing field in terms of ballot access, campaign finance, etc. I still don't think people would actually prefer them to the main political parties.

Most third parties are not very popular, even among people supposedly of similar ideological views. Most supposedly left-wing third parties (cough cough Greens cough cough) are disliked by the main demographic constituencies they would need to win over in order to win elections. Likewise, lots of conservatives dislike the Libertarians because they like the idea of using the government to impose their views on their enemies, and they're not that big of a fan of a bunch of "woke capitalists" with disturbing ideas about age of consent laws. And so forth.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

The Alito Scandal Is Worse Than It Seems

Over the last two weeks, The New York Times revealed that two political flags were flown at Justice Samuel Alito’s homes — an upside-down American flag in the days after Jan. 6, 2021, and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag in the summer of 2023. | Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images

By Ankush Khardori

05/30/2024 10:00 AM EDT

Ankush Khardori is a senior writer for POLITICO Magazine and a former federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, where he specialized in financial fraud and white-collar crime. He has also worked in the private sector on complex commercial litigation and white-collar corporate defense. His column, Rules of Law, offers an unvarnished look at national legal affairs and the political dimensions of the law at a moment when the two are inextricably linked.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has been infuriating his critics for years. He has gone on undisclosed luxury vacations with conservative donors who have business before the court. He appears to have leaked the result of a major case to conservative activists before the decision was announced. And that doesn’t even get into his jurisprudence, including the opinion that threw out Roe v. Wade.

But the revelations over the last two weeks from The New York Times concerning the political flags flown at Alito’s homes — an upside-down American flag in the days after Jan. 6, 2021, and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag in the summer of 2023 — have pushed Alito’s behavior into an entirely different realm, one that raises serious questions about Alito’s partisanship, his ethics and the integrity of the court.

The upside-down American flag has historically been used as a sign of distress by the U.S. military but became a symbol of support for Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement following the 2020 election, and the Appeal to Heaven flag has been used by Christian nationalists. Both were flown by Jan. 6 rioters.

The Alito household’s display of those flags — no matter what prompted it or whose decision it was to fly them — means that Alito should recuse himself from the cases pending before the court concerning Trump’s alleged efforts to steal the election. His stated refusal to do so in a letter to senior Democrats Wednesday runs afoul of the most basic judicial ethical norms: Judges are not supposed to signal their views on matters that are likely to come before the court.

But this whole episode also shows the fecklessness of Democrats, who seem to be reluctant to try to hold the court to account — which may have only encouraged the conservative justices to feel like they have free rein to flout judicial norms. President Joe Biden, in particular, has been far too reluctant to challenge the court, both with his early, toothless effort to float court reforms and now amid a series of clear ethical breaches by the justices.

There are a few problems with Alito’s behavior.

For one, Alito may have intentionally tried to mislead the public about what happened and to position himself and his wife as the victims. Alito told Fox News that his wife hoisted the first flag after a neighbor had put up a sign blaming her for the Jan. 6 riot and had used derogatory language toward her, “including the C-word.” But the Times’ latest story reports that verbal altercation took place weeks after the flag had flown and come down.

Even if Alito’s account is completely true, though, there would still be no excuse for a Supreme Court justice to allow such a partisan symbol to fly outside of their home, especially one whose message overlaps with a pending case.

In the letter that Alito sent to lawmakers explaining his decision not to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election, Alito claimed that he “had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of [the upside-down] flag.” He also said that his wife “has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit”; that she also flew the Appeal to Heaven flag but that neither of them was “aware of any connection” to Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement; and that no one could reasonably question his impartiality unless they were motivated by “political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases.”

His wife might have been the one who raised it, but given that it flew outside a house he lives in, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Alito explicitly or tacitly endorsed the message of the flag. As one sitting federal judge put it, “Any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And dumb.”

Alito himself has acknowledged the danger of overtly signaling political views. Here is what he said in his confirmation hearing when he was dodging questions about what he thought about Roe v. Wade or whether it was considered settled law: “It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, ‘If you bring your case before my court, I’m not even going to listen to you. I’ve made up my mind on this issue.

The proposition that justices should not express opinions on issues that may come before them provides a basis for his recusal, but so does another basic and closely related principle that you can also find in the ethics code issued by the Supreme Court late last year, after a flurry of controversies involving Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. The code provides that a justice “should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.

That standard is met here too.

Many conservatives have rushed to Alito’s defense. After the first Times story, one Republican lawyer quickly derided the reporting and mounted a classic “they did it too” defense, pointing to liberal judges whose spouses engaged in activism related to cases before them. But none of them did anything remotely like what Alito’s wife did. Alito’s defenders have pointed to remarks that former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made about Trump — that he was a “faker” and would be bad for the country. They may be right that those comments were unwise and perhaps even improper, but she has long since passed away, so it is a debater’s point at best.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the Democratic Party are struggling to figure out how to react.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin has refused calls to bring Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts in for a formal hearing on the issue. Instead, he and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, another senior Democrat on the panel, merely asked Roberts to push Alito to recuse himself on cases related to the 2020 election and to come in for a meeting. According to White House aides, President Joe Biden is reluctant to engage on the controversy because he fears that criticizing the conservative justices will undermine the court’s legitimacy as well as the president’s claim to be a supporter of the country’s democratic institutions and norms.

The latest Alito scandal has crystallized some of the most disturbing dynamics surrounding the court.

First, Alito’s conduct, including his potentially dishonest public defense, demonstrates the contempt that he has for his critics and for people outside of his political tribe — which appears to be far-right religious conservatives and Trump supporters. Supreme Court justices have long been reluctant to engage in full transparency, but at a time of growing public skepticism toward the court, he owes the country far more detailed — and far more substantive — answers to the serious questions that have been raised about his conduct and the backstory to the raising of both flags at his homes, including the evolution of his accounts in the media.

Second, the concept of recusal at the court appears to be dead, at least for the conservative justices; some liberal justices still do. Clarence Thomas should already have recused himself from the 2020 election cases but hasn’t. Alito should do the same but won’t. Such a decision could ultimately tip the balance in Trump’s immunity case.

Third, the court’s relatively new ethics rules — which were self-imposed and are unenforceable — are basically a sham. Alito and Thomas in particular appear to think that they can do whatever they want, and they appear to be right that Roberts will do nothing unless he is somehow forced to change course by virtue of political circumstances and public pressure. In the meantime, Roberts has tried to convince the public into thinking that the court is attending to its ethical problems, when it clearly is not.

Finally, and just as importantly, the Democratic Party — and Biden in particular — has fallen down on the job.

The court is in desperate need of structural reform. But instead of seriously pursuing that effort after his election (be it expanding the court, instituting term limits or anything else), Biden convened a largely pointless commission to study potential reforms. Their work — a ponderous, 300-page report issued in late 2021 — was barely read and promptly forgotten, perhaps by design.

There are reasonable debates to be had about the political viability of such a reform effort, but the Biden White House has shown through its own actions that they will invest considerable time and political capital into legislative efforts that they believe are worthy of their attention. Just as importantly, even if a court reform initiative had failed, Biden and the White House could have raised the salience of the issue among the general public and begun building the necessary political momentum over time. (That, after all, is precisely what conservatives did in order to secure their supermajority on the court.)

That might have positioned Biden to make court reform a real campaign issue in the 2024 presidential campaign, which would have paired well with his drive to reenshrine abortion rights. Instead, he voluntarily ceded the ground, and an about-face on the issue in the run-up to November will likely look politically motivated to many people.

Ironically, Biden’s solicitousness of the Supreme Court could ultimately prove to be the downfall of his own presidency.

He has essentially stood idly by while the court has upended key aspects of American life — from abortion to affirmative action — and angered huge swaths of the country, likely contributing to the widespread national discontent that threatens his reelection. The conservatives also gutted one of Biden’s most significant domestic policy initiatives by striking down his student-loan relief program. And they may be on the cusp of letting Trump escape without a trial on the Justice Department’s 2020 election prosecution before November.

That case is the most politically and legally significant of Trump’s pending criminal cases, including the hush-money prosecution in Manhattan. If Trump were convicted in the federal election subversion case, the result could plausibly swing the election against him — and with good reason: The American public should probably know whether a candidate engaged in an egregious and unprecedented criminal conspiracy to steal the last presidential election.

Instead, Biden finds his political fortunes beholden to a court that he has failed to control and that, in the end, could doom his own presidency.