#from the executive to the judicial and legislative branches

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Well maybe now congress will actually do its job and pass laws.

that's a HUGE maybe. congress is dysfunctional and inefficient and unwieldy. it is constantly mired in petty politics, mindless bickering, and perpetual gridlock. Really smart leaving the day-to-day regulations that govern the nation up to them! Then, when they eventually do get around to passing oppressively narrow regulations y'all will complain about how impossible it is to remove said regulations.

[wilwheaton]

The violent attack on Congress on 6 January 2021, and all the ancillary attempts to steal the 2020 election, were a coup attempt led from the executive branch of the federal government with support from Republicans in the legislative branch. 1 July 2024 – this Thursday – was a more successful coup attempt orchestrated by six judges of the judicial branch. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in an opinion joined by justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, after the US supreme court’s conservative majority ruled that Donald Trump holds “absolute immunity” for “official acts” done while president. Part of what’s shocking about the state of the union right now is that an entire party and the US supreme court’s conservative majority have abandoned almost everything – the truth, the rule of law, their own legitimacy, their place in history and the fate of the nation – to serve one man. They could not have picked a more outrageous man to throw their weight and reputations behind – a psychotic clown who’s also an indicted felon found liable in civil court for sexual assault, barred from doing business in New York, a stealer of state secrets, a would-be thief of an election and the instigator of a violent attack on the legislative branch of government and the constitutionally mandated transition of power after an election. A grifter who in 2016 won a minority victory in a corrupted election – his conviction earlier this year was on charges for one small part of that corruption. A man who has gloated about seizing dictatorial powers and never letting go and a worshiper of tyrants denounced by dozens of his former cabinet members and senior staffers. January 6 was an attack on the constitution and so was 1 July. That no one is above the law has been a pillar of this nation and a cherished value since the 18th century; to knock it down in the 21st destabilizes structures and values that have stood these two centuries and more. A president with total immunity poses obvious threats to the rule of law, the balance of powers and democracy itself, and if that president is the vindictive criminal on the Republican ticket the dangers are immediate and obvious.

The US supreme court just completed Trump’s January 6 coup attempt

[beauty-funny-trippy]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with the other two Democrat-appointed justices, powerfully said in the dissenting opinion: the Supreme Court has made “a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

"When [a president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,... In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," wrote Justice Sotomayor.

This corrupt, extreme far-right Supreme Court has just opened the gates and paved the road for a fascist America. It means politicians, judges, their families, etc., will be in fear if they speak out against the president, or don't do what he wants, they could be arrested or killed. If you protest, you and your family could be imprisoned or shot.

When the Executive branch of government has the power to threaten members of the Legislative and Judicial branches, all "checks and balances" preventing the abuse of power have been destroyed.

Why isn't anyone losing their minds that Biden could now become a dictator or order assassinations? Because everyone knows he is a decent man who would never do such a thing.

However, if Donald Trump wins this election, there is literally nothing to stop him from fulfilling his heart's desire and becoming America's first dictator. He, and any future president, can now, legally, stage a military coup and hold on to power for life and his vice president would be the next to reign for the rest of their life. No more real elections.

Now, more than ever, Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to America.

In this election, not voting, is a dangerous choice.

[odinsblog]

The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.

Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.

Since 1984, federal courts have applied Chevron in about 18,000 decisions in every conceivable area of the law: energy policy, education, food and drug safety, labor, the environment, consumer protection, finance, health care, housing, law enforcement—the list is pretty much endless. It has become the background principle against which Congress enacts all legislation.

That all ends now.

(continue reading)

[contemplatingoutlander]

"The gerrymandering alone undermines Wisconsin’s status as a democracy. If a majority of the people cannot, under any realistic circumstances, elect a legislative majority of their choosing, then it’s hard to say whether they actually govern themselves."

--Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times

Jamelle Bouie points out the disturbing way that Republicans in Wisconsin have basically destroyed democratic representative government on all levels by:

Creating an unbreakable gerrymander to ensure a Republican legislative majority, even if more people vote for Democrats.

Weakening the power of a Democratic governor,.

Targeting a liberal Wisconsin supreme court justice for removal or suspension so that the state SC won't have the power to rule against gerrymandered districting maps, and won't be able to prevent a 19th century ban on abortion from becoming law.

This is chilling. Below are some excerpts from the column:

For more than a decade, dating back to the Republican triumph in the 2010 midterm elections, Wisconsin Republicans have held their State Legislature in an iron lock, forged by a gerrymander so stark that nothing short of a supermajority of the voting public could break it. [...] In 2018, this gerrymander proved strong enough to allow Wisconsin Republicans to win a supermajority of seats in the Assembly despite losing the vote for every statewide office and the statewide legislative vote by 8 percentage points, 54 to 46. No matter how much Wisconsin voters might want to elect a Democratic Legislature, the Republican gerrymander won’t allow them to. [...] Using their gerrymandered majority, Wisconsin Republicans have done everything in their power to undermine, subvert or even nullify the public’s attempt to chart a course away from the Republican Party. In 2018, for example, Wisconsin voters put Tony Evers, a Democrat, in the governor’s mansion, sweeping the incumbent, Scott Walker, out of office. immediately, Wisconsin Republicans introduced legislation to weaken the state’s executive branch, curbing the authority that Walker had exercised as governor. Earlier this year, Wisconsin voters took another step toward ending a decade of Republican minority rule in the Legislature by electing Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee county judge, to the State Supreme Court, in one of the most high-profile and expensive judicial elections in American history. [...] “Republicans in Wisconsin are coalescing around the prospect of impeaching a newly seated liberal justice on the state’s Supreme Court,” my newsroom colleague Reid J. Epstein reports. “The push, just five weeks after Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the court and before she has heard a single case, serves as a last-ditch effort to stop the new 4-to-3 liberal majority from throwing out Republican-drawn state legislative maps and legalizing abortion in Wisconsin.” Republicans have more than enough votes in the Wisconsin State Assembly to impeach Justice Protasiewicz and just enough votes in the State Senate — a two-thirds majority — to remove her. But removal would allow Governor Evers to appoint another liberal jurist, which is why Republicans don’t plan to convict and remove Protasiewicz. If, instead, the Republican-led State Senate chooses not to act on impeachment, Justice Protasiewicz is suspended but not removed. The court would then revert to a 3-3 deadlock, very likely preserving the Republican gerrymander and keeping a 19th-century abortion law, which bans the procedure, on the books. If successful, Wisconsin Republicans will have created, in effect, an unbreakable hold on state government. With their gerrymander in place, they have an almost permanent grip on the State Legislature, with supermajorities in both chambers. With these majorities, they can limit the reach and power of any Democrat elected to statewide office and remove — or neutralize — any justice who might rule against the gerrymander. [color/emphasis added[

"It’s that breathtaking contempt for the people of Wisconsin — who have voted, since 2018, for a more liberal State Legislature and a more liberal State Supreme Court and a more liberal governor, with the full powers of his office available to him — that makes the Wisconsin Republican Party the most openly authoritarian in the country."

--Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times

[edited]

[simply-ivanka]

Harris and Schumer Target the Supreme Court

Democrats make clear that if they win, they’ll push measures to destroy the judiciary’s independence.

By 

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman -- Wall Street Journal

Democrats have made clear that if they win the presidency and Congress in November, they will attempt to take over the Supreme Court as well. Shortly after ending his re-election campaign, President Biden put forth a package of high-court “reforms,” including term limits and a “binding” ethics code designed to infringe on judicial authority. Kamala Harris quickly signed on, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has made clear that bringing the justices to heel is a top priority.

Democrats proclaim their devotion to democratic institutions, but their plan for the court is an assault on America’s basic constitutional structure. The Framers envisioned a judiciary operating with independence from influences by the political branches. Democratic “reform” proposals are designed to change the composition of the court or, failing that, to influence the justices by turning up the political heat, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt achieved with his failed 1937 court-packing plan.

Now as then, the court stands between a Democratic administration and its ambitions. The reformers’ beef is precisely that the court is doing its job by enforcing constitutional and statutory constraints on the powers of Congress and the executive branch.

Roosevelt sought to shrug off limits on the federal government’s reach. What’s hamstrung the Obama and Biden administrations is the separation of powers among the branches. President Obama saw his signature climate initiative, the Clean Power Plan, stayed by the court, which later ruled that it usurped Congress’s lawmaking power. The Biden administration repeatedly skirted Congress to enact major policies by executive fiat, only for the courts to enjoin and strike them down. That includes the employer vaccine mandate, the eviction moratorium and the student-loan forgiveness plan.

That increasingly muscular exercises of executive power have accompanied the left’s ascendance in the Democratic Party coalition is no coincidence. The legislative process entails compromise and moderation, which typically cuts against radical goals. That was the lesson self-styled progressives took from ObamaCare, which they’ve never stopped faulting for failing to establish a government medical-insurance provider to compete directly with private ones. Similarly, Congress has always tailored student-loan relief to reward public service and account for genuine need.

Then there’s the progressive drive for hands-on administration of the national economy by “expert” agencies empowered to make, enforce and adjudicate the laws. The Supreme Court has stood as a bulwark against the combination of powers that James Madison pronounced “the very definition of tyranny.” Decisions from the 2023-24 term cut back on agencies’ power to make law through aggressive reinterpretation of their statutory authority, to serve as judge in their own cases, and to evade judicial review of regulations alleged to conflict with statute. By enforcing constitutional limits on the concentration of power in agencies, the Roberts court has fortified both democratic accountability and individual liberty.

That explains the Democratic Party’s attacks on the court. The New York Times’s Jamelle Bouie recently praised Mr. Biden for identifying the court as the “major obstacle to the party’s ability” to carry out its agenda and commended the president’s “willingness to challenge the Supreme Court as a political entity.” That explains the ginned-up “ethics” controversies: The aim is to discredit the court, as has become the norm in political warfare.

An even bigger lie is the refrain that the court is “out of control” and “undemocratic.” Consider the most controversial decisions of recent terms. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) returned the regulation of abortion to the democratic process. West Virginia v. EPA(2022) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) constrained agencies’ power to say what the law is, without denying Congress’s power to pursue any end. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (2024) elevated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury in fraud cases over the SEC’s preference to bring such cases in its own in-house tribunals. And Trump v. U.S. (2024), the presidential immunity ruling, extended the doctrine of Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) to cover criminal charges as well as lawsuits, without altering the scope of presidential power one iota.

Meanwhile, the administrative state has scored wins in some of this year’s cases. In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association, the justices rejected a challenge to the CFPB’s open-ended funding mechanism. A ruling to the contrary could have spelled the agency’s end. In Moody v. NetChoice, it reversed a far-reaching injunction restricting agencies’ communications with social-media companies seeking to censor content. And in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, it reversed another injunction, against the FDA over its approval of an abortion pill. The last two decisions were notable as exercises of judicial restraint. In both cases, the court found the challengers lacked standing to sue.

What Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Schumer and their party are attempting to do is wrong and dangerous. They aim to destroy a branch of federal government. For faithfully carrying out its role, the court faces an unprecedented attack on its independence, beyond even Roosevelt’s threats. Unlike then, however, almost every Democratic lawmaker and official marches in lockstep, and the media, which were skeptical of Roosevelt’s plan, march with them.

As Alexander Hamilton observed, the “independence of the judges” is “requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals” from the actions of “designing men” set on “dangerous innovations in the government.” The political branches have forgone their own obligation to follow the Constitution, which makes the check of review by an independent judiciary all the more essential. Ms. Harris and Mr. Schumer would put it under threat.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Mr. Grossman is a senior legal fellow at the Buckeye Institute. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A federal judge on Monday dismissed the classified documents case against Donald Trump, a shock ruling that clears away one of the major legal challenges facing the former president.

In a 93-page ruling, District Judge Aileen Cannon said the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution. She did not rule on whether Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents was proper or not.

“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote.

The ruling by Cannon, a judge Trump appointed in 2020, comes on the first day of the Republican National Convention. Even though a trial before the presidential election was considered highly unlikely, many legal experts had viewed the classified documents case as the strongest one of the four cases that were pending against the former president.

The White House referred requests for comment to the Justice Department. Smith’s office has not responded to a call for comment.

Smith had charged Trump last year with taking classified documents from the White House and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials. He pleaded not guilty.

In a separate criminal case brought by Smith against Trump in Washington, DC, the special counsel was pursuing federal charges stemming from Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump also faces a state-level election subversion case in Georgia and he was convicted of state crimes in New York earlier this year for his role in a hush money payment scheme before the 2016 election.

Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case under the appointments clause was seen as a long shot, as several special counsels – even during his own presidential administration – were run the same way.

But the fringe argument gained steam when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas threw his support behind the theory, writing in a footnote in the high court’s presidential immunity decision that there are “serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

Still, Cannon held a hearing on the issue several weeks ago, pushing attorneys to explain exactly how Smith’s investigation into Trump was being funded. The judge’s questions were so pointed that special counsel attorney James Pearce argued that, even if Cannon were to throw out the case due to an appointments clause issue, the Justice Department was “prepared” to fund Smith’s cases through trial if necessary.

Cannon said in her order that the special counsel’s position “effectively usurps” Congress’ “important legislative authority” by giving it to the head of a department – DOJ, in this case – to appoint such an official.

“If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so,” she wrote.

COULD CASE BE REVIVED?

Cannon said in her ruling Monday that the Justice Department “could reallocate funds to finance the continued operation of Special Counsel Smith’s office,” but said it’s not yet clear whether a newly-brought case would pass legal muster.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible,” Cannon wrote. “The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed.”

She noted in her ruling that Smith’s team “suggested” at a court hearing on the matter that they could restructure the office’s funding to satisfy her concerns.

[acediathemelancholy]

There are at least two three part concepts included in this cover. The first is the Trinity: Pater, Filius, and Sanctus Spiritus (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). It’s the concept from Christianity of one god with three parts. (This concept really caught steam with Roman Catholicism in the first couple of centuries after Christianity existed, and to clarify not all Christian sects believe in the concept of the Trinity but most do). 

The other named three part concept here is the branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. This idea of a government that finds balance from separating its power into three parts is from the Enlightenment, specifically from De l'esprit des lois (The Spirit of the Laws) by Montesquieu published in 1748. Briefly, the legislative branch should make law, the executive branch should enforce the law, and the judicial branch is the courts. 

Now within Servamp, it’s clear that Tanaka Strike is connecting the Trinity concept with the necessary elements to create a servamp. The human vessel, the demon of the sin itself, and the spirits of those used to create the servamp all combine to make one entity. It’s also generally implied Servamp’s Saint Germain is around a similar age to the Trinity concept since his character seems to be influenced by Theosophy’s version of Saint Germain more than the potential historical figure. 

The separation of powers is from the Enlightenment (specifically Eighteenth Century France), which within Servamp is typically associated with the Aliceins and Lily. Beyond that, Abel is decapitated here when the guillotine was a main form of execution used during the French Revolution. Which leads me to believe a third three part concept is implied with this cover: the Three Estates of Pre-Revolutionary France. The Three Estates included The Clergy (First), The Nobility (Second), and The Commoners (Third). The King was separate from all Three Estates. 

Lily intends to make Mikuni the King. In this cover, Mikuni is in the center, not touching any of the corners. There are two fallen chess pieces by his feet: a bishop (the clergy) and the knight (the nobility). On its face, their scheme involves sacrificing the lives of the everyday people of Tokyo (the commoners). 

And this doesn’t even cover the Greco-Roman allusions in this cover which I’ll include in a part two...

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.

January 18, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JAN 17, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).

Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.

The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.

But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.

The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?

No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.

The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)

US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.

It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.

Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.

What is the Chevron deference doctrine?

Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.

And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.

What happened at oral argument?

In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)

I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.

Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[azspot]

The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

Elena Kagan is horrified by what the Supreme Court just did. You should be too.

[incorrect-skylanders-quotes]

Wolfgang: I’m sorry kid, you want me to what?

High Five: Well, Wolfy- Wait, am I allowed to call you ‘Wolfy’?

Wolfgang: 'Wolfgang' is fine, kid.

High Five: Right, I guess that would be kinda weird what with the whole ‘exile’ thing…

Wolfgang: Look, kid, I’m getting arrested here. You mind getting to the point?

High Five: Oh, right, yes, I guess you would be in kind of a rush considering your circumstances. Uh, look, I just have this music studies 101 paper that’s due like, eugh, tomorrow and, as you can imagine, music’s not really my forte, I’m more into aeronautics and that’s beside the point- Look, your dossier on the cultural impact of rock is revolutionary and, honestly, if it wasn’t for the fact that you’re a wanted terrorist, you’d be one of the biggest faces in the field, so I was wondering if I could leverage you for some…. uncredited help?

Wolfgang: ….

High Five: …Please?

Wolfgang: (tearing up) ...You think my work is revolutionary?

High Five: Is that a yes? Cause I can see the Trap Masters coming with the paddy wagon.

Wolfgang: (openly crying) Y-Yeah, sure kid, whatever…

----

Blades: (punches Golden Queen in the face)

Golden Queen: Gah!! Damn it!!

Blades: Answer the question, Goldie!

Golden Queen: You little brat, you’ll pay for this!

Blades: (starts choking Golden Queen out) If you know what is good for your health you will not make me ask again, now answer the question!

Golden Queen: Alright, alright!! …The three branches of government are legislative, executive, and judicial.

Blades: (letting go) Damn it! I knew I got that question wrong…

Golden Queen: (struggling to breathe) Wait a minute, you already took the test?!

Blades: Man, shut up! The fuck are you still doing conscious?! (punches Golden Queen’s lights out)

----

Dr. Krankcase: (mixing an alchemical brew) Hmm, yes, an interesting reaction.

Echo: …Bro, did you just mix oil and water and call it an ‘interesting reaction’?

Dr. Krankcase: You?! How did you get here?! How did you find my lair?!

Echo: I’m smart, and you’re basic.

Dr. Krankcase: I am not bas- What do you want?!

Echo: Well, I got a chemistry paper due tomorrow and Mags told me you’re apparently a great alchemist but, from what I’ve seen, I already know more than you. I’m out of here.

Dr. Krankcase: I’m a great alchemist! I know things! Where are you going?!

Echo: To go talk to- Get off me, man- To go talk to Pop Fizz or Bad Juju or any of the other ten million potion experts in Skylands.

Dr. Krankcase: But I know thi-!! Okay, I guess, just… forget I was here. Don’t tell Eon about us!

[deadpresidents]

What do you think is the best job to prepare someone for being president?

From everything I've read that former Presidents or people who worked in senior positions in various Administrations have written about the actual job of the Presidency, I don't think there really is anything to prepare someone for being President. If seems that many modern Presidents who took the job seriously and tried to govern in a normal, responsible manner were stunned by how big the job truly was once they got into it.

I think Governors tend to have a bit of an advantage compared to legislators because they were chief executives of their respective states and have a better sense of the structure of the job (on a much smaller scale), with their roles as administrator, commander-in-chief of military forces (Governors are commanders-in-chief of their state National Guard forces), with numerous executive departments reporting to them, etc. But it's still so much more intense than even the most populous states, and every President wants to hit the ground running on Inauguration Day, but they quickly discover that the world doesn't stop spinning just so they can get started. The problems that reach the President's desk usually tend to be those that everyone else has already tried to tackle without success and now the President is often the only person in the country -- and sometimes even the world -- who is left to make a decision about solving them. And those are the things that start popping up as soon as the President takes the oath of office, and they don't stop until the next person takes over.

I imagine that the best preparation for the modern Presidency is having a diverse collection of career -- and real-life -- experiences rather than a certain job. I know he was only a one-term President, but someone like George H.W. Bush probably had a much easier time settling into the job because he was a combat veteran as a fighter pilot in World War II, a businessman, Congressman, a diplomat, a CIA Director, and a two-term Vice President, than his son, George W. Bush or his successor, Bill Clinton, who were both Governors but relatively inexperienced outside of their careers in state politics.

In A Promised Land (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO), Barack Obama writes that one of the challenges about the Presidency is that "It wasn't simply that each decision I made was essentially a high-stakes wager; it was the fact that unlike in poker, where a player expects and can afford to lose a few big hands even on the way to a winning night, a single mishap could cost a life, and overwhelm -- both in the political press and in my own heart -- whatever broader objective I might have achieved."

It takes Presidents a while to understand that -- and some don't ever recognize it in time to get re-elected. They all have their own political ideologies and agendas and hopes and dreams, and when they are elected, they immediately start thinking about all of those things that they plan to do once they are inaugurated. But they also have to practically build and staff an entire branch of the federal government from the ground up-- particularly if they are succeeding an Administration from the opposing party -- in two months that can be ready to run the country from Day One. And then there is everything that is going on or might be going on or will be going on around the world. And they have a Legislative Branch and a Judicial Branch to work with, which will not necessarily be harmonious or even the least bit helpful. And in this century, we're also usually in the midst of at least one war (not to mention the military conflicts of other countries) or a dangerous national/international economic climate -- along with the damaged and rapidly changing actual climate. So, all of the President's plans and hopes and dreams and agendas start taking a backseat to everything else as soon as they raise their right hand and repeat the oath on January 20th. But they still have to accomplish what they set out to do. And if they DO accomplish it, they have to sell it to the country, so that everyone realizes that they actually DID accomplish something. And, again, all this starts the moment they take office and doesn't pause and doesn't end until they move out of the White House.

So, yeah, there's nothing to really get someone ready for that.

[incorrectmlpstudentsixquotes]

Chrysalis: I’m sorry kid, you want me to what?

Silverstream: Well, your highness- Wait, am I allowed to call you ‘your highness’?

Chrysalis: Chrysalis is fine, kid.

Silverstream: Right, I guess that would be kinda weird what with the whole ‘exile’ thing…

Chrysalis: Look, kid, I’m getting arrested here. You mind getting to the point?

Silverstream: Oh, right, yes, I guess you would be in kind of a rush considering your circumstances. Uh, look, I just have this psychology 101 paper that’s due like, eugh, tomorrow and, as you can imagine, psychology’s not really my forte, I’m more into civil engineering and that’s beside the point- Look, you’re manifesto on cross-cultural psychology is revolutionary and, honestly, if it wasn’t for the fact that you’re a wanted terrorist, you’d be one of the biggest faces in the field, so I was wondering if I could leverage you for some…. uncredited help?

Chrysalis: …..

Silverstream: … Please?

Chrysalis: ….. (tearing up) You think my work is revolutionary?

Silverstream: Is that a yes? Cause I can see Flash coming with the paddy wagon.

Chrysalis: (openly crying) Y-Yeah, sure kid, whatever…

—-

Gallus: (punches Sombra in the face)

Sombra: Gah!! Damn it!!

Gallus: Answer the question, smokey!

Sombra: You little brat, you’ll pay for this!

Gallus: (starts choking Sombra out) If you know what is good for your health you will not make me ask again, now answer the question!

Sombra: Alright, alright!! … The three branches of government are legislative, executive, and judicial.

Gallus: (letting go) Damn it! I knew I got that question wrong…

Sombra: (struggling to breathe) Wait a minute, you already took the test?!

Gallus: Man, shut up! The fuck are you still doing conscious?! (punches Sombra’s lights out)

—-

Diomedes: (mixing an alchemical brew) Hmm, yes, an interesting reaction.

Ocellus: …. Bro, did you just mix oil and water and call it an ‘interesting reaction’?

Diomedes: You?! How did you get here?! How did you find our island?!

Ocellus: I’m smart, and you’re basic.

Diomedes: I am not bas- What do you want?!

Ocellus: Well, I got a chemistry paper due tomorrow and Swift told me you’re apparently a great alchemist but, from what I’ve seen, I already know more than you. I’m out of here.

Diomedes: I’m a great alchemist! I know things! Where are you going?!

Ocellus: To go talk to- Get off me, man- To go talk to Zecora or Twilight or any of the other ten million potion experts in Equestria.

Diomedes: But I know thi-!! Okay, I guess, just… forget I was here. Don’t tell Celestia about us!

[spaghetti4u]

The Worrying State of Europe

TL;DR: The increase of the Far-Right movement in Europe.

Map of European Union. Countries in shades of blue, 15 out of 27, represent Right to Far-Right Majority votes for the 2024 European Elections.

As some of you may know, last weekend (06-09/06/2024) took place the European Parliament Elections for all countries members of the European Union. All citizens from all participating countries in voting age were asked to vote for one of their many national lists, composed of candadites from their own nations to represent them in the European Parliament from 2024 to 2029.

The results came in, and they are more than worrying. I haven't seen any major posts speaking of the results yet so here it is:

EUROPEAN ELECTIONS MASTERPOST

What is Europe?

Map of the EU countries - members in green

When people speak of Europe, they often mean the European Union. The European Union (UE for shorts) is a political and economical association of 27 countries spread all around Europe, union birthed from the traumatisms of World War Two. Its main goal is to break the gaps dividing the countries, and allow freer exchanges of resources, both physical and intellectual, as well as maintening good relationships throughout Europe.

On the paper, this idea is very neat, because it puts all members on the same level, and gives them the same chance to speak for themselves, thus avoiding the tragic consequences of post-war economy that led countries, like Germany in the 40's, to a situation where the living conditions were so poor, and liberalist bouregoisie so powerful, that extremism took root and skyrocketed - eventually leading to the tragedies we all know well. In reality though, the effects are much more different, because while Europe is founded on good intentions, the members are far less than equal, and its main goal less pure.

EU is more than allowing easier exchanges, for its citizens, it is first a nationality. Citizens residing in a country member of the EU also have the European citizenship, giving them all an access to specifics rights and perks only allowed when you are a member of the EU. People from each 27 countries live under the same set of rules that is given to them by the EU.

EU thus, also has powers and can impose, to a certain degree, its legislation to its members. It divides its powers in 3 branches like so:

EXECUTIVE POWER : Composed of the European Council (the leaders of each countries members), and the European Commission, currently lead by Ursula Von Der Leyen, who decided whomst of the 27th deputes she would exercise this power with. Both are in charge of enforcing the law, officilizing them, and deciding how, when and if they should be applied.

LEGISLATIVE POWER : Composed of the Council of the European Union (the national ministers of each country) European Paliament (eurodeputes of all countries, not directly affiliated with their current leading system: they are elected directly by the citizens of Europe. This the institution is the one concerned by the "European Elections"). Basically, their role is to guide Europe according to their convictions, and propose some rules and legislations to reinforce this stance. They are the laws makers.

JUDICIAL POWER : It is the Court of Justice of the European Union.

All in all, the functioning of the EU is pretty messy, and very dense, which is often emphasized by the fact that it doesn't really work the same way as most members current political system.

This diagram is summerizing the institutions of the EU, and how they work with one another. It shows perfectly how convoluted things are.

The EU is made of many countries, all of them with a rich history that lead them to their current system and culture. Every country has its own goals and identity, making it so difficult, though very enriching, to try to merge together into the EU unity.

I believe that, in theory, many citizens of the EU are happy it exists. However, the institution and its activity are very far from the reality many EU citizen experience in daily basis. For instance, I only get to hear about what is going on in Europe when I look up information about cybersecurity, or travelling abroad via an ERASMUS project - all in all, things that concern and benefit me, thus I'm moderately happy with EU. Many only hear about the EU when decisions impact their life directly , and seemingly out of nowhere because information in media lacks severely about the EU.

For example, the European Green Deal, goal proposed by the European Commission to make the EU "climatically neutral" by 2050 is in theory an amazing goal to achieve for sustainability and ecology of Europe, but it suddenness left the many workers angry.

This gets worse when decision affect wrongly one (or more) country(ies) disproportionately.

Let's assume that one country's economy mostly relies on agriculture, a decision that would moderately impact other countries in Europe would be terrible for them. This kind of climate create disparities between members, with members typically seen as "imposing their authority" (Germany, France...), and members being drained by those powers, because they're thrown into a very rigid economical and political system that isn't made for them, doesn't listen to them, and get sucked dry by the unfairness of requirements of the "leading" countries. This creates fair hostile climates for the EU from many countries in Europe.

European laws are supranational, which means their authority is beyond the authority of the country, if not respected, the EU can impose consequences on said-country, political or economical. For instance, Poland has recieved threats from the EU to removed funding after violiting the regulation of discrimination due to sexual orientation after many municipalities declared that they were "LGBT-free". This doesn't mean that it systematically happens, or that the repercursions are enough or fair though.

Anti-EU graffitis in Athens - Greece from Bleepsgr (or Bleeps) (V.(M.) Kakouris)

Many people suffer from the decision of EU, and mostly because they always fall short on our hands. It's very hard to know what is going on in EU councils, and what the next decisions will be, and not only because people already have to care about their own government, but also because finding the information is genuinely hard, and often only accessible through official reports, dense and not easy to read for anyone. That, coupled with that not a lot of citizens of the EU really know how it works, increases the frustration people feel.

Thus is born anti-EU movements (like BREXIT), and thus is fed far-right movements all across Europe.

The European Parliament Elections

Last weekend (06-09/06/2024), all of the EU citizens where gathered to vote for the next European Parliament, this in the only direct suffrage citizens are asked to do to represent their beliefs as to what Europe should be.

To understand how it works, let's take the example of France.

For those elections, French Citizens where asked to cast one single vote each the 9th of June. Their vote followed one of the 38 national lists that didn't exist in any other country in Europe, mostly reflecting the actual French political parties. For instance, out of those 38 were:

RN - France comes back! The National Rally: Far-Right Nationalist Movement, reprensented by actual Far-Right French political figures Marine Lepen and Jordan Bardella,

Need for Europe: "Centrist" movement, represented by Valérie Hayer and current Franch President Emmanuel Macron,

EELV - Europe Ecology : Left movement, represented by Manon Toussaint.

Each list already exists in the current French Political system, French can vote for them during pretty much any election. Those however had to align to an existing Group in the European Parliamant:

EPP - Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) (Right Liberals)

ECR - European Conservatives and Reformists Group (Far Right)

ID - Identity and Democracy Group (Far Right)

Renew Europe - Renew Europe Group ("Centrist" Liberals)

S&D - Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (Left)

Greens/EFA - Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Left - Ecology)

The Left - The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL (Far Left)

NI & Others - Non-attached Members, and Others

In blue Right-Wing movements, orange "Centrists" movements, and in red Left-Wing movements.

For instance, the France comes back! alligned with ID, Need for Europe alligned with Renew, and Europe Ecology with the Greens.

This goes for any other country, and any list. Some lists though, decide to remain "neutral" and not allign with any of the current European Group (NI and Others). We'll see about them later.

What citizens vote for here is the repartition of the French seats in the European Parliamant, numbers of seats depends on the total population of each country. France (68,070,697 inhabitants) has 81 out of 720 seats - for example, Lithuania with its population of 2,857,279 has 11 seats out of the 720.

The percentage of votes devides the numbers of seats (81) per political parties.

For instance, if the French votes results like so:

RN : 50%

Need for Europe : 30%

Europe Ecology : 20%

Then the repartition of the French seats ill be like so:

RN : 0.5*81 = 41 seats

Need for Europe : 0.3*81 = 24 seats

Europe Ecology : 0.2*81 = 16 seats

See Party-list proportional representation for more info.

There is, though, a little yet foundamental twist: If a list has under 5% of the total suffrage, the list will not have any seats to represent its voters.

Voting then becomes more strategic, since many of the 38 lists won't make the cut and fall under the significant 5%: if you want your list to be represented in Europe, you have to follow the bigger fish.

This can lead to several issues, especially when considering that out of the 38 possible lists in France, 22 of them were Left-Wing, while only 12 were Righ-Wing.

What are the 2024 European Election results?

This time around and like always, abstention was flagrant. In France only 48,51% of electors voted. This is rather common, people don't vote when they don't feel concerned. Many don't because no one really knows what is going on in EU, except several mesures a year at best.

But some people do vote, and here is how it turns out:

To compare, here is the current repartition (2019-2024):

So, not much seemed to have changed, right?

Yet it did.

Compared to the 2019 elections, two nations joined the far-right majority: Belgium, and Austria. Compared to 2019, 18 more of seats are reserved for the Far-Right, an increase from 17% (2019) to 18% (2024) of total seats. Centrist movements have a decrease from 14% (2019) of seats to 11% (2024), and Left (Left, Ecology and Far-Left) have a decrease from 35% to 31%.

This isn't counting the "NI" Non-attached Members, we talked about earlier. They are pictured in grey on the graphs. In Germany, 9 of those Grey dots belong to the "Alternative for Germany" Party, a Far-Right Movement that decided not to ally with the ID movement: their ideas though remain on the same side. This goes on, if all of the Far-Right Non-attached Member are taken into account, the number of Far-Right seats increases from 18% to 23% in 2024 of the total seats of EU making it (if you break down the Left in its 3 parties) the second most representated ideology after the RIght Christian Democrats.

This means that the Far-Right movements are increasing in many place all around Europe, opposing directly the very bases of what EU was supposed to prevent. This is a dangerous situation, because the more the Far-RIght will be able to install itselft in Europe, the weaker EU will get, and not as in economy, but in relationship. Deputees already put the interests of their countries before those of the EU, but the gap will grow, and the EU could shamble if this goes one.

Not all is over though, things can change, the European Parliamant is merely a reflection of voter's opinions, so please, for your next elections, no matter where you live, please let these news be enough to convince you, as the EU's situation is just an echoe of the political climate all around the world, especially the US:

IF YOU CAN, VOTE!

EU is still pushing forward for goods things to happen. If you are a EU Citizen in age to vote, please considere signing this EU Petition to ban Conversion Therapy from being forced on LGBTQ+ youth in Europe:

[miss-mollys-ballet-blog]

The staggering number of people who don't understand federalism and how our governments work is astounding and as a civics teacher, it's very upsetting as well.

For those of you who don't know, here's a basic rundown of federalism AND the function of each branch.

Federalism means the US has three levels of government:

National government that makes laws and rules and runs the entire nation. This is also called the federal government. It is divided into the three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch is called Congress and is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate) and they make the laws and approve presidential appointments. The executive branch is headed by the President and includes the vice president and the agencies/departments such as the IRS and EPA, including the Justice Department and Attorney General. The judicial branch includes the US Supreme Court and the federal courts and they interpret the constitution and the laws.

State governments that make laws and rules for just their state. These governments all have three branches as well. The legislative branches are all bicameral (have two parts such as the House of Representatives and the Senate) and each state has different names. The executive branches are all headed by governors and also have the attorney generals and agencies/departments. The judicial branches all have a state Supreme Court and various court levels.

Local governments are responsible for just the localities (counties, cities, towns, villages) and their powers differ from state to state.

Separation of powers/checks and balances means each branch has different jobs and work to make sure no one branch has too much power. Here is what each branch does.

The legislative branch makes the laws, approves presidential appointments, declares war, and ratifies treaties.

The executive branch carries out the laws, which is the responsibility of the agencies. For example, if Congress passes a law about pollution and safety, it would be the job of the Environmental Protection Agency to make sure that law is followed. The President also picks people to head those agencies AND federal judges and Supreme Court justices. For example, Trump picked three Supreme Court justices: Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch. He also picked multiple federal judges.

The judicial branch interprets the laws and the constitution via lawsuits and prosecuting crimes. The national court system (also called the federal court system) has three courts: the district courts, the appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. Because our country is fucking huge, the lower courts are divided into either districts or circuits. District court is where 99% of court cases begin and there are 94 of them. If a decision from a district court is appealed, it will go to a court of appeals. The appeals courts are divided into 12 circuits (regions). If a decision from an appeals court is appealed, it will go to the US Supreme Court.

The reason why this is important is because who you vote for directly impacts all three branches, especially the executive branch. Yes, you are technically voting for two people (president and vice president), HOWEVER you are voting for an entire administration and judges/justices because the President picks the administration and the courts.

I've seen a lot of people blame Biden for the overturning of Roe v. Wade because it happened while he was president, however it happened because Trump got to pick three Supreme Court justices during his presidency, there was nothing Biden could do to stop it.

When it comes to people saying Biden could have codified abortion rights when the Democrats had the majority in both houses of Congress, that is also not true due to a little something called the filibuster. Because of the filibuster (essentially any Senator can stop proceeding on a bill for as long as they want to based on talking) being a pain in the ass, new procedures were created which requires a 2/3 supermajority to break the filibuster. This is has now led to any law needing 60 yes votes instead of a basic 51 majority. Biden has never had a Senate with a super majority, so any law could be stopped by Senate republicans, which we have seen multiple health care bills fall victim to.

The scary part of this upcoming election is if Trump wins, he absolutely will appoint people to the courts and heads of agencies that will 100% fuck us over, especially when it comes to abortion and reproductive rights. There wouldn't need to be a national abortion ban law passed, he could just appoint someone to the head of the Food and Drug Administration who would essentially say all abortion drugs and materials weren't safe and couldn't be sold. He could then appoint someone as the Attorney General to bring back the Comstock Act of 1873 which made it illegal to ship obscene materials and abortion instruments, so even if it technically wasn't illegal to get an abortion, the materials needed to perform abortions couldn't be shipped in the mail.

If he wins, I almost guarantee Justices Alito and Thomas would retire from the Supreme Court which would allow him to pick two new justices along the lines of Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch. Supreme Court Justices serve for life, which means if he got to pick two new ones, the court would have a conservative super majority for DECADES. We would be absolutely fucked for DECADES. He also would have plenty of federal judges to appoint, who also serve for life. With the most recent ruling overturning the Chevron deference, this is even more terrifying.

This is why understanding how our government works is so important and why it drives me INSANE when social studies is brushed aside as useless and boring. People not understanding it is what has led us to the place we are in today.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michael Sainato at The Guardian:

Chuck Schumer will introduce a bill in the Senate today to declare explicitly that presidents do not have immunity from criminal conduct, overriding last month’s supreme court ruling that Donald Trump has some immunity for his actions as president. The No Kings Act, which would apply to presidents and vice-presidents, has more than two dozen Democratic co-sponsors. “Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” the Senate majority leader said in a statement.

“With this glaring and partisan overreach, Congress has an obligation – and a constitutional authority – to act as a check and balance to the judicial branch.” The bill would stipulate that Congress, rather than the supreme court, has the authority to determine to whom federal criminal laws are applied. Last month the supreme court’s conservative majority ruled Trump has broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions while in office, drawing sharp criticism over the impact it could have on the justice department’s case against Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Joe Biden responded to the ruling earlier this week by calling for an overhaul of the supreme court and for a constitutional amendment that would limit the power of the executive branch, including a stipulation that presidents do not have immunity from federal criminal acts.

Senate Democrats propose an excellent bill called No Kings Act that would reaffirm that Presidents and Vice-Presidents are not immune from criminal conduct to counter the unjust Trump v. United States immunity decision by SCOTUS.