#government by Federalist Society

[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]

[thenewdemocratus]

Dan Mitchell: 'The Fiscal Case For Federalism'

Source:Dan Mitchell being interviewed by federalism.  “Fixing entitlement programs is the the most pressing fiscal need in Washington. In a discussion with the Club for Growth Foundation, I explain that we also need federalism – i.e., shifting programs to the state and local level. Some of those activities should be left totally to the private sector (agriculture, housing, etc) while others could…

[msclaritea]

Fani Willis' testimony evokes long-standing frustrations for Black women leaders - ABC News

Fani Willis' testimony evokes long-standing frustrations for Black women leaders

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ testimony about her relationship with a special prosecutor in Georgia’s election interference case against former President Donald Trump was a familiar scene for many Black women

By MATT BROWN and JOCELYN NOVECK Associated Press

February 17, 2024, 12:13 AM ET

• 6 min read

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is used to prosecuting high-profile, challenging cases. But as she parried questions about her own personal conduct from the witness stand against the legal teams for defendants her office has accused of election interference, many Black women recognized a dispiriting scene.

“It absolutely feels familiar. There is no secret that the common sentiment among Black women in positions of power (is that they) must over-perform to be seen as equals to their counterparts," said Jessica T. Ornsby, a family litigation attorney in the Washington, D.C., area.

“Here, Ms. Willis is being scrutinized for things that are not directly related to her job performance, in ways we see other Black women regularly picked apart,” Ornsby said.

Willis testified during an extraordinary hearing that could result in her office being removed from the state’s election interference case against former President Donald Trump. She was questioned Thursday about her relationship with the attorney leading her office’s prosecution, Nathan Wade.

Willis and Wade have acknowledged they had a “ personal relationship ” but have denied any improper conduct.

Regardless of the legal merits of the claim by Trump and his co-defendants that Willis' conduct was improper, relationships between coworkers are often prohibited or must be disclosed in many workplaces, including at major private law firms. Willis has faced criticism from many legal experts otherwise supportive of the case due to her relationship with Wade.

Still, few people who find themselves in such circumstances have the most intimate details of their lives aired so publicly.

In interviews with The Associated Press, many Black women leaders expressed frustration and disappointment that public attention had turned from the merits of the criminal case to the personal conduct of the Black woman overseeing the prosecution. For them, the court challenge to Willis echoes familiar experiences of tests of their authority, competence and character.

“I love that she stood up for herself, but I hate the fact that she had to," said Melanie Campbell, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. She said that when she saw video of the testimony she felt: “Why are you all treating her like SHE’S on trial?”

“Black women feel like we’re under attack. And that’s a fact," Campbell said.

Willis, who has a reputation as an incisive trial attorney, was visibly upset when she took the stand Thursday to reject allegations that she improperly profited from the prosecution because of the relationship.

“It is a lie,” the district attorney said of allegations in court filings.

“You’ve been intrusive into people’s personal lives. You’re confused. You think I’m on trial,” Willis testified. “These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.”

For many Black women, the inquiries into Willis' romantic and financial life were rife with tropes and accusations often unfairly levied at Black women.

Keir Bradford-Grey, a partner at the law firm Montgomery McCracken in Philadelphia, found the questions about Willis' personal life “disgusting.” She also said the episode had disturbing implications for Black women in leadership roles: “I can’t imagine a world where we have to continue to be treated like this as we seek leadership roles, and we do them well."

LaTosha Brown, co-founder of voting rights group Black Voters Matter, despaired of the fact that Willis was having to answer questions about “whether she has money, whether she has cash or not and why she has cash, who she sleeps with, who is she flying on an airplane with.”

“So, what is this really about?” Brown added. “When white power, particularly white men, are being held to account ... the first thing to do is to disqualify the people that are holding them accountable,” especially when those people are Black women.

Scrutiny of Willis' personal life has diverted attention away from the allegations against Trump.

He has been indicted four times in the last year, accused in Georgia and Washington, D.C., of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, in Florida of hoarding classified documents, and in Manhattan of falsifying business records related to hush money paid to porn actor Stormy Daniels on his behalf. Trump has railed against individual prosecutors, judges and the legal system as a whole. But he reserves special, often coded rhetoric for his attacks on women and people of color.

“Donald Trump knows that he can make an easy target for his base out of a Black woman," said Brittany Packnett Cunningham, a racial equality activist and podcast host. “What we should recognize is that across many indictments, this particular attack to disqualify through her personal activities is uniquely pointed. Of all the prosecutions that he has endured, this is not the approach he has taken. But he took that in particular with a Black woman.”

The testimony from Willis also reminded many of similar public questioning of Black women's leadership, including the recent ouster of former Harvard University President Claudine Gay and the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Images from the court proceedings also reflect many of our day-to-day experiences: defending ourselves against a sea of individuals who do not share our background and harbor biases both implicit and explicit," Ornsby said.

On Friday, Willis' team did not call her back to the stand. While the court weighs whether she will be disqualified from the criminal case, it remains largely in limbo.

“We’re not talking about the things that actually matter, which include, but are not limited to bringing this country at least a tiny step back from the brink of fascism. No, instead we’re evaluating a Black woman’s looks, character and professionalism when all she did was do her job,” Cunningham said.

“The standards by which they are judged, with their actions scrutinized at every turn, just seem to be a little different, not a little, a lot different than what I see of our male counterparts,” Bradford-Grey said. “I wish there would be a day that women stand together and say we want the same bar of treatment that men get.”

Matt Brown is a member of the AP’s Race and Ethnicity team. Follow him on social media.

No, I won't be following Matt Brown and it was the media that conveniently turned former Harvard President, Gay, into a racial martyr. She was nothing of the sort. Claudine Gay was a plant and a convenient scapegoat for Harvard. They also liked her because of her last name and you can't convince me otherwise. Names are important in Freemasonry.

Black ass also seems to be important to them and it's probably one of the biggest reasons the black community and its women have been so screwed over. ABC News KNOWS IT, and can go to hell.

[nuadaargetlamh]

One is a convicted criminal that wants to:

Institute a dictatorship “on day one only” (with majority support from his party!)

Give a greenlight to Project 2025

Use a weakened Schedule F to install THOUSANDS of cronies

Institute military tribunals for his political enemies (and allies!)

Gun down “enemies from within”

Support Russia in wiping Ukraine off the map

Use the combo of the removal of the Chevron deference/the Supreme Court allowing people to openly bribe them/Schedule F to extend the far-right’s reach into every government agency and deregulate everything to the benefit of his rich capitalist buddies

Has gotten total immunity for “official acts” (what counts as “official”? Whatever his Schedule F appointed judges choose of course.)

Already took away so many freedoms from racial minorities/queer people/women/anyone-that-isn’t-a-rich-white-man that it would take ages to list them all in this post

and so so so so SO MUCH MORE.

The other is a typical neoliberal politician.

Remember also, you’re not just choosing a president, you’re choosing their cabinet, potential Supreme Court justices, federal employees as well. With the above listed ALONE, Trump would do so much more damage than just what he can do himself. That’s not including everything else his Federalist Society Supreme Court would and have given him on a silver platter. Supreme Court Justices are for LIFE, and we’ve already seen the potentially irreparable damage this far-right activist court has done to the fabric of democracy.

Project 2025 really deserves a part to itself just to list some of what it includes: complete abortion/contraceptive ban (no exceptions), destroying worker’s unions and protections, remove Social Security/Medicare/Affordable Care Act, end civil rights protections in government, ban teaching the history of slavery, remove climate protections while gutting the EPA, end equal marriage and enforce the “traditional family ideal”, use the military to gun down protests, mass deportation of legal immigrants (especially Muslims), ending birthright citizenship, pack the lower courts, and plenty more. The far-right wasn’t able to take full advantage of Trump’s presidency the first time since it was so unexpected. They’re preparing so that they won’t make the same mistake again. THERE ARE OVER 900 PAGES OF POLICIES AND PLANS THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL IMPLEMENT IF THEY WIN. READ IT. Anyone that says they won’t is either a liar or already drank the Kool-Aid. Isn’t it interesting that every politician that supports it, including his vice president, wants Trump to win?

Not to mention, if you care about Palestine (like I do, a lot), Trump would be MUCH WORSE for Palestine than the other candidate, supporting Bibi going “from the river to the sea” and already cut off millions in aid to Palestine in 2018 (which Dems reversed!). If you support a free Palestine and don’t vote blue, you have categorically hurt them more than if you did. Even Palestinians themselves want the Democrat candidate over Trump. There is no quick and bloodless peace deal that both Palestine and Israel would ever agree to. The road to an end of the Palestine-Israel conflict is going to be long and difficult, probably decades of dedicated de-radicalization in both states, and will involve far more than one person’s decisions in the end. Unless Trump takes power, and avoids all that by sending enough bombs to turn the Gaza Strip into dust.

There are a few reasons you would choose to vote third party in a FPTP system (support ranked choice voting btw) or not vote “in protest” while ignoring all the state and local elections that affect your area more than the president. Either you’re privileged enough to not be affected by what Trump would bring, you’re ignorant of the consequences, or you care more about doing nothing perfectly rather than doing something, anything that isn’t 100% ideologically “pure” to fight against the far-right fascist movement.

Am I a democratic socialist? Yes. Am I a realist? Also yes. In every single down-ballot race, and through my activism, I will fight for the rights of the oppressed and working-class. But the Presidency isn’t fucking winnable right now, and probably won’t be for decades. Pro-corporatist/anti-worker sentiment is baked into the fucking bones of this country and its people. A majority of eligible voters wouldn’t vote for Bernie, and he’s barely center-left. Voting for anything other than one of the two big parties is a useless feel-good gesture at the moment. Or you’re a dumbass accelerationist, and if you are, honestly go fuck yourself.

Let’s say you want a socialist revolution, full-tilt government takeover. I want that too, in my wildest dreams! We’re on the same page there. So how are you going to do it. How? HOW? What pro-worker activist groups are you working with? Are you encouraging your workplace to form a union? Volunteering for/donating to your local farmers’ co-op? Canvassing for pro-worker legislation? Hell, even something as small as distributing free copies of high-school/college textbooks, so that those of poorer means have a better chance at affording advanced education? Are you doing anything to help? Any praxis at all, rather than typing wishful thoughts of revolution alongside insults to people who aren’t as “correct” as you on the internet?

Every voter that still supports Trump is energized by every cruelty he enacts, while millions of Democrats and third-partyists care more about purity tests and manifesting socialist revolution tulpas than avoiding a fascist dictatorship.

Have a brain, touch grass, and vote blue all the way down that fucking ballot.

[qqueenofhades]

I don’t have any words right now for what’s happened. Where in the fuck do we go from here?

I don't know. I really, truly don't know. We can't sugarcoat how bad things are going to get, and we can't pre-emptively give into it anyway. This is going to be an unprecedented time in American history (if, sadly, not world history) and the forces conspiring to make you obey will gain much of their power from you doing so in advance, without a struggle. It seems fair to say that America as it has always been historically constituted is over, and may not return in our lifetimes, but we also do not know that for a fact. If nothing else, the fascists will find it very hard to cancel competitive elections, and we cannot sit back, throw up our hands, conclude that voting is clearly meaningless, and let them do that. There are a lot of other things that we need to do, but that's one.

There are various postmortems to be written and nits to pick, but Harris was thrown into an impossible situation and did the best she could in 100 days. Even her critics agree she ran a pretty much flawless campaign. But this country simply decided that a well-qualified black woman could not be preferred over the most manifestly and flagrantly unfit degenerate to ever occupy the office. They decided this for many reasons, not least because large swathes of the country now live in curated misinformation bubbles that, under Government Czar Musk, will only get much, much worse. They were helped by the cowardice and complicity of the "mainstream media" that could have ended Trump's career exactly like they did to Biden after the first debate, but chose to preserve the profits of their billionaire oligarch owners and did not do so, giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and normalization at every turn. They also hounded Biden relentlessly over the four years of his presidency, never reported on the good things he did, and drove him to the historically bad approval ratings lows for a president who was by any metric, quite successful (and will quite possibly be our last ordinary American president for a very long time). Along with the searingly ingrained racism and misogyny and misinformation, Harris could not overcome that.

Democrats clearly had a messaging problem, but it's also true that the country, quite simply, does not care about "democracy" when the economy is perceived to be at stake. Not to over-egg the Hitler parallels, but yeah. This is how Hitler returned to power in 1933 -- on the backs of widespread economic collapse of the Weimar Republic; voters decided they just didn't care about the overtly fascist stuff, which he then proceeded to you know, do with genocidal vigor. Except the American economy in this case was actually doing well, which makes it even more baffling and indefensible. Enough people simply memory-holed Trump's crimes (aided at every turn by SCOTUS, Mitch McConnell not convicting him after January 6, Merrick Garland being far too slow and timid, the corporate media), liked the racist fascist behavior or felt that it wasn't a dealbreaker, and decided that in this election, he was the "change" candidate. It's insane by any metric, but that's what happened.

The country is deeply sick. We do not know what will happen. It's going to get bad. Barring a miracle, we will not have federalized abortion rights again in my lifetime, and there will be widespread attacks on public health, women's rights, immigrants, transgender people, and other vulnerable people. Even and especially the ones who voted for Trump. Never Thought Leopard Would Eat My Face, etc. Alito and Thomas will swiftly step down and allow their seats to be replaced by 40-year old wingnuts hand-selected from the worst the Federalist Society has to offer. SCOTUS is gone for the next generation at least. There is very little prospect of it being ever fixed in the foreseeable future.

Trump will never face a scintilla of consequences for his previous crimes; all the open federal cases will be closed as soon as he takes office and fires Jack Smith. The best we can hope for is that he dies in office, but then we get Vance and the cadre of alt-right techno billionaires ruled directly from the Kremlin. Putin is celebrating this morning and with good reason; he's gotten everything he wants. Trump will egg on Netanyahu in Gaza and abandon Ukraine. Democracy across the world will remain even more fragile and badly under threat. Authoritarians will be empowered and American withdrawal from international systems will percolate in very dangerous ways that cannot and will not be fixed in the short run. I really hope all the leftists who celebrate this as the "defeat of the genocide candidate" will enjoy all the genocide and suffering that's about to come. And yes, I do think the Israel-Palestine war fucked us in a large way. Jewish voters perceived the Democrats as insufficiently pro-Israel due to the presence of far-left antisemitism, even as the far left attacked the Democrats relentlessly and never targeted the Republicans. Arab voters abandoned them, possibly deservedly. What would have happened without the war? We don't know. You get the historical period that you get. Netanyahu and Trump can now do anything they want. Hope it was worth it.

As I said, I can't sugarcoat it. We are going to be paying for this in some form for the next decade, and probably longer. I'm not as absolutely shattered as I was in 2016, but I am much, much angrier. We all thought, we all hoped, America was better than this. It isn't. That, however, is something that has also happened before. What we decide to do next will shape how the next chapter unfolds.

This would be a great time to stock up on needed medicines, renew your passport online, and anything else you need to do in preparation for next year. Many of us simply do not have the wherewithal, whether financial or otherwise, to leave the country. I don't know what will happen with me. I don't know what will happen to any of us. This was utterly avoidable and yet, America didn't want to avoid it. At some point, there's nothing else you can do. You can point to media cronyism, Russian influence, etc etc., but the fact that two of the most qualified presidential candidates who happened to be women have now lost to Trump twice makes it unavoidable. The virulent rightward shift of young men (of all races) in particular paints a grim picture as to how the reactionary misogyny of the 21st century is going to essentially undo most of the progress for social and gender equality in the 20th. The patriarchy has been a problem for most of human history. Doesn't really seem like it's going to change.

The end result of this, however grim: we're still here. We are still living within our communities. If (and this is a big if) Democrats can retake the House, they can put some checks on the process for the next two years. At this point, we are in full-out buying-time, trying-to-prevent-the worst mode. We could have continued fixing things, but we won't be doing that. We will only be trying to preserve ourselves and our friends and our smaller spheres of influence. It sounds very trite to say that we have to have courage, but we do. There's not much else.

It's going to be an awful winter. We have two and a half months to see this coming and know how bad it's going to be, and... yeah. I don't know how soon the buyer's remorse will inevitably set in, but it will. Tough luck, people. You voted for him. You get the country that you decide to have. But the rest of us are also here, and what Gandalf says is still true. We wish the Ring had never come to us, we wish none of this had happened, but we still have to decide what to do with the time that is given to us.

I don't have a lot more. I'll probably be logging off for a while. I don't need to look at the internet for.... yeah, a long time. (Will I do it anyway? Probably.) I don't know what else to leave you with, aside from again:

Do not obey in advance. Do not act as if everything is foreordained and set in stone. Fascist regimes end. They always do. We are going to have to figure out how, and it will suck shit, but the alternative is worse.

Take care of yourselves. I love you.

[contemplatingoutlander]

The Supreme Court began another term this week. Most court watchers and other analysts have been reluctant to accept the truth of something I’ve long argued: that the Roberts Court is as agenda-driven as the House or Senate Republican caucuses. They have already put their thumbs on the scale in this election and are poised to intervene again if the results don’t suit them. 

We are at least a decade past the point when we should be convinced of what Abraham Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address: 

"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.1 " [emphasis added]

[...] The interests behind the Federalist Society (FedSoc) – in particular the Kochs, Leonard Leo, and other plutocrats and theocrats – are the same interests who have spent the 21st century funding and organizing the MAGA takeover of the Republican Party. I’ve coined the portmanteau “plutotheocratic” as a compact way of describing this coalition of interests. (See the Appendix for a brief overview of the history and major players in the plutotheocratic coalition.)  The six FedSoc justices are properly understood not as “umpires” scrupulously “calling balls and strikes,” but as politicians in robes. However, it’s important to recognize what kinds of politicians we are dealing with. The FedSoc Six are first and foremost Federalist Society operatives. That means that they usually act in the interests of the Republican Party – except when the partisan agenda of the day conflicts with the long-term plutotheocratic agenda.  [...]

Creating a Death Spiral for Democracy 

For about 40 years, we saw a fairly predictable ebb and flow in the federal commitment to advancing greater freedom and equality and to constraining corporate threats to consumers, working people, and the environment. Under Republicans, this commitment would ebb; under Democrats, it would flow. But beginning in 2010 with the Citizens United decision, if not a bit earlier, Roberts’s agenda-driven majority turned that ebb and flow into a death spiral for American democracy. 

Decision after decision shifted more and more electoral power to the FedSoc Six’s plutotheocratic sponsors – who in turn used that power to take greater control of Red state governments and purge Republican congressional caucuses of RINOs – which in turn was used to place more and more Federalist Society true believers on the Federal bench, and eventually the Supreme Court. 

[See more excerpts below the cut.]

[...] The Supreme Court has, of course, made many rulings that overturned previous major precedents or led to significant social change. But consider:

Brown v. Board of Education - Earl Warren and the other eight justices joining him did not owe their positions to a cabal of civil rights activists who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns.

Roe v. Wade - Harry Blackmun and the six justices joining him on Roe v. Wade did not owe their positions to a cabal of pro-choice activists who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns. 

Gideon v. Wainwright - Hugo Black and the eight other justices joining him did not owe their positions to a cabal of indigent prison inmates who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns.  

But the members of the Roberts majority do owe their positions to a cabal of plutocrats, who directly benefited from rulings like Citizens United and Loper Bright, and theocrats, who have a fierce ideological commitment to outcomes like Dobbs and Hobby Lobby, who together have contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns. Again, per Lincoln, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

The Federalist Society literally planned and executed an unprecedented transfer of unchecked political power to their own loyalists.5 They brag about this in unguarded moments and in their “safe spaces.”

[sirfrogsworth]

Early voting to beat the lines... the best-laid schemes of mice and men often go awry.

So... yesterday was quite the day.

After being stuck in bed for the past 6 weeks with some mystery slump, I was finally feeling better. So I decided I would try to cram as many errands into my day as possible. That works better for me when I drive out into the world because I end up only having to do one big recovery instead of a bunch of little recoveries.

My to-do list...

Go to the doctor

Vote early

Return oxygen machine to FedEx store for scammy eBay guy

Return Amazon package to the UPS store

Get gasoline for my whip

Go to Discount Tire to get my tires filled for free

Drop a check off for my lawn guy

Mail a secret package to Katrina at the US Post Office

It would have been nice if I could have gone to just one shipping place instead of all three, but the universe has a sense of humor and likes to do shit like that to me on a regular basis.

So, I get my checkup, it goes quick, no long wait, I'm feeling good.

As I get in my car, it starts to rain. It was an ugly day and it actually has not stopped raining to this very moment a day later. Just gray, windy, chilly, and wet. I look up the voting place and start the GPS.

Wipers and music on full blast, it's time to get my vote on.

When I reach my destination, I realize early voting is at some kind of private golf club. And at the center is a recreation center—which is a public building.

So it's like this private/public turducken situation.

I was expecting this errand to take 20 minutes. Because early voting always seemed like a way to get in before the crowds of election day for a more convenient voting experience.

But the parking lot was packed and I feared my expectations were about to be subverted.

As I walk through the parking lot I see a bunch of signs in the ground.

And a particular one caught my eye.

This is bullshit.

Like, just a straight up lie. No truth to it whatsoever.

Amendment 3 in Missouri basically restores abortion rights in the state. And Republicans have taken issue with the following language...

"The Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions."

They claim the phrasing "but not limited to" means you can give an 8-year-old kid "sex change surgery."

This is how their online flyer puts it...

It could also include a free puppy.

Or a zillion bucks.

Or a clown will come to your house after the abortion and honk your nose.

It's ridiculous and desperate. I honestly don't know how it is legal for them to put a lie like that outside of a polling location, but here we are.

The organization "Missouri Stands with Women" is run by... a man.

It was set up by a lawyer named "Edward Greim" on behalf of the Federalist Society.

His law firm has a lovely biography about him. And a bunch of publicly available contact information. I say that for no reason whatsoever.

The Federalist Society funds all kinds of shit like this. Their main thing is installing conservative judges all over the country who will reinterpret or negate legislation. And they do it all to "stand with women" by taking away their reproductive rights.

Here is the board of directors of the Federalist Society.

Ya know, before I looked this up, I said to myself, "I bet it's going to be a sausage fest." I am psychic.

I think it would be more accurate to say they stand with A woman.

Just one.

And she sucks.

Nicole is a law professor at Notre Dame. She chose her Catholicism over her right to choose. The Catholic Church will fuck your rights and your children and Nicole will help them do it.

Anyway... back to my quick and easy voting experience...

So as I'm walking in to vote I keep passing a ton of these awful signs. I notice an older woman standing next to the aforementioned "child sex change" sign and she says, "Can I talk to you about Amendment 3?"

At this point, I'm pretty angry. I look her dead in the eyes and say with my most assholish tone, "NO." as I walk past her.

And then she finishes her sentence...

"...to protect the reproductive rights of women."

Ah, dammit.

I thought she was an old Karen but she was cool as heck. Standing out in the rain telling people the sign is bullshit. I wanted to turn around and apologize but I was stuck in full social anxiety mode so I just kept walking.

If that old lady happens to have a Tumblr and follows me and is willing to read this giant story... I just want to say I am sorry. I thought you were awful and I should have let you finish your sentence. You're super cool and I'm happy there are folks like you fighting for what is right.

I get inside and a young woman greets me. She tells me the line is in the next room and points. I still wasn't quite sure what the situation was. The parking lot being full gave me pause, but I was still hopeful I could have a swift early voting experience.

But I walk through the doors and into a huge gymnasium and my heart sinks.

It's hard to represent in pictures how long this line is.

It goes all the way to the end of the gym, loops around, and comes back. At first I was not too discouraged, because there was a nice gentle ramp at the start of the line.

But then I notice several sets of stairs at different stages of the line. And I'm just thinking how hard it would be to stand in this line and then also having to go up and down several sets of stairs.

So I go back to the young woman working there and ask what their accessible voting options are. And she told me I could do curbside voting and points outside. I then notice a line of cars wrapped around the parking lot. I don't know how I didn't see them walking in, but I guess I was too busy being a jerk to elderly progressive women.

My biggest concern was time.

The longer this takes, the more energy I use up, the longer my eventual recovery will be.

They tell me the car option is the slowest. And I could be in line for 2 to 3 hours. And then an old man who seemed to be in charge walks over and tells me the fastest option is to stand in line.

So I walk back out to my car and grab my cane and decide to try the long serpentine gynasium line.

I start walking up the ramp and some of the other folks see how slow and labored I'm walking and they start encouraging me. "You can do it! You got this!" Which I suppose was meant to be a positive helpful thing. But I found it to be embarrassing.

I get to the end of the line and notice most of the line has bleachers directly next to it. So I decide to sit down and rest and figure out how I am going to survive this experience.

It took me a while to recover from the long walk to this spot. I watched a bunch of people pass me by and the line was actually getting much longer as I rested. I was not really sure what to do. I was trying to problem-solve this situation but the answer that kept popping up in my mind was just... "go home."

But I felt this was too important and that wasn't really an option.

My best idea was to ask someone if they would hold my spot in line. Perhaps I could just sit in the bleachers and follow them around in the line, staying as close to them as I could. But my social anxiety was set to maximum and I was not finding the courage to ask someone.

After about 10 minutes of sitting, resting, and thinking, I basically say, "Fuck it, I'll try to stand in line."

I get up and start walking to the end of the line.

Then I hear a voice yell out to me.

"Hey, man! Come over here! This is your spot!"

A young man was waving at me. He was accompanied by his wife. Both of them were dressed in black and they had a sort of goth skater aesthetic going on. He had a competitively bushy beard, but with less gray. And she had very vivid purple hair.

I was a little confused and still processing what was happening. Then they both started waving at me to join them in line. They remembered I got there just before and told me I should be in front of them. I walk over and thank them. Then he suggests...

"Hey, why don't you just sit in the bleachers and follow us around the line."

He suggested my idea!

Without me asking!

I felt like he read my mind or something.

Can bearded people read each others' minds? Was this some beard skill I was unaware of?

"I got you, man. You just sit and we'll keep your place."

And his violet hair'd significant other agreed. "Yeah, we got you."

The kindness of strangers was more accessible than my polling place and I was just so thankful in that moment.

So I sat in the bleachers and watched them traverse the line. In the middle of the gym there were some teenagers playing basketball. And so I just rested and watched them play.

That young man in the red pants was like a goddamn Harlem Globetrotter. He was just embarrassing the others. He was bouncing the ball behind his back and through his legs and then he just danced around his opponents like a figure skater. It was such an unbalanced matchup. He might as well have been playing 4th graders. Not only was he significantly faster and more maneuverable, but he was consistently hitting 3-pointers.

And then during a break, he ran towards the hoop, jumped from the free throw line, flew all the way to the net, grabbed onto the rim, and proceeded to do several pull ups as if they were the easiest thing in the world. I don't think I've seen anyone jump that far and that high in real life and it was just a bonkers display of athleticism.

I spent the entire wait watching him humiliate the others—hoping he would get a full ride scholarship to some prestigious university.

And I hoped the other boys paid attention in school and got straight As, because basketball was not going to work out for them.

As my new goth skater friends progressed through the line, I would make sure to keep sight of them. Every once in a while I'd give them a head nod to acknowledge we were in this together. After an hour and a half they were at the final segment of the line, so I sat next to the wheelchair folks.

I probably could have argued to sit with them in the first place. But I really did not feel like making the case that I was just as disabled as them and needed that level of consideration. The old man running things seemed quite stressed and was putting out 8 fires at once. And my anxiety wasn't really cooperating enough to be assertive in my needs.

But it worked out in the end, so I'm not going to dwell on the lack of accommodation for people who weren't *visually* disabled.

My new bearded friend neared the end and waved me over. I thanked him and his wife profusely.

I joked, "Thank you for adopting a voter."

They seemed confused by my joke.

"No problem, man. Happy to help."

I told him and his wife they truly saved me. "I honestly don't think I would have made it through the line." And then I looked back...

I said, "As crazy as this is, I do find this kind of turnout encouraging." His wife agreed and said, "We were saying the same thing!" And then I thought, "Can the wives of bearded people absorb the mind reading ability? I hope she can't read my mind right now. Although, I'm mostly thinking that her hair is a really cool shade of purple, so she'd probably find that complimentary."

As I waited to get my ballot I could hear the happy couple behind me. They were very cute. They were making fun of each other in a very lovey-dovey fashion. I had high hopes they were going to grow old and gray and purple together based on their chemistry. And I was just so thankful they were able to recognize that I needed help without me asking. Because I probably would have just caved to my anxiety and not asked for help otherwise.

I got my ballot and sat down to fill in all of the appropriate squares. Thankfully I had prepared a cheat sheet on my phone.

It was an exact replica so I was able to copy it and finish quite rapidly.

Then I fed my votes into the vote-eating monster and they gave me a sticker.

My quick 20 minute adventure to vote early only took 2.5 hours!

And because I didn't want to buck tradition, I stood outside in the wind and the rain and took a voting selfie.

Yep, that seems about right.

Ah, crap... that was only the second thing on my to-do list.

Let's speedrun the rest of this story, shall we?

I drove to FedEx. I hauled a 40 pound box inside. I plopped it on the counter and said, "Man, this thing is heavy!" as I tried to catch my breath. The 20 year old working there then lifted it like it was a feather and I felt great about that.

I drove to the gas station because I was nearly on empty—that is both a metaphor and not a metaphor. I filled my ride with go juice.

I noticed I was a mile from the tire store and they fill up tires for free. So I did that and the guy was super nice and complimented my tires. I felt both weird and proud about having my tires complimented. Like, I had nothing to do with my tires being nice. But I accepted the praise on their behalf.

I drove to the UPS store. The last time I was there I made a scene. They refused to box up a return and I got upset and wasn't feeling well and they had to find a chair for me to sit in because I was going to faint. So I was hoping the same woman wasn't there, but she was. She didn't recognize me, so it was fine.

I drove to my lawn guy's house. He wasn't home. I dropped a check in his mailbox. My checks have corgis on them. My checks are cute.

I drove to the post office. I sent a secret package to my bestie, Katrina. I'd tell you what is in it, but it is an inside joke and you wouldn't get it. The woman noticed my voting sticker and I couldn't help thinking about what I just accomplished to get that sticker.

On my way out I noticed a miracle.

2 of the 4 doors were fixed!

I mean, I don't know why they couldn't fix all 4, but now the employees won't freeze in the winter. So I take that as a win. It only took a year and a half to accomplish and I'm sure all of my phone calls and emails did not help at all. But I'm going to pretend I saved the day regardless.

And then... I drove home.

5 hours of errands.

I was so fucking tired. My back was on fire with pain. I immediately collapsed into my bed. I passed out. And I slept for 14 hours.

The End

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

Imagine being an employee so toxic that you were fired by a guy who boasted to his co-workers about beating a dog to death with a shovel. Now imagine that you are still less sketchy than the guy using the dating app he started to solicit 18 year old girls, offering them free trips to LA to “hook up.” What do these people have in common? They are key figures in Trump’s effort to redesign the federal public sector. The guys who should trigger calls to HR want to become the HR system for government.

I am speaking of Paul Dans, the head of Project 2025 until he exited in July, John McEntee, who led the screening of Republican political appointees for both Trump and Project 2025, and Kevin Roberts, the President of the Heritage Foundation overseeing Project 2025. Both Dans and McEntee are people who would not have held any positions of power in a normal presidential administration. McEntee was kicked out of the White House when he failed a security check due to frequent gambling. He had no obvious qualifications apart from being the guy who carried Trump’s bag and being unswervingly loyal to Trump. But when Trump brought him back to the White House, he ordered that McEntee also be put in charge of the enormously important Presidential Personnel Office.

One of Tump’s own appointees voiced concerns about McEntee, saying “Mr. President, I have never said no to anything you’ve asked me to do, but I am asking you to please reconsider this. I don’t think it is a good idea.” Trump grew apoplectic: “You people never fucking listen to me! You’re going to fucking do what I tell you to do.” Paul Dans was another Trump loyalist, one who struggled to find a place in the administration despite volunteering on the Trump campaign. He had no relevant experience in government, and had failed to make partner in an unremarkable legal career. Despite his lack of qualifications, Dans had a different explanation, which was that he was one of a group of “people getting sandbagged because somebody thought that they were too ‘America First’-y or too Trumpist.” He finally broke into government with a position in HUD thanks to a Federalist Society connection with James Bacon, a college student working for Ben Carson. Bacon would later get recruited by McEntee to join him at the Presidential Personnel Office, and in turn brought Dans on board.

“Toxic and Abusive Behavior”

From the Presidential Personnel Office, Dans star finally rose. He was deployed to the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the career civil service. At OPM he championed Schedule F, the directive that would allow appointees like Dans to fire long-time career public servants. The Director of OPM resigned when she was told by McEntee that she now answered to Dans, who became the de facto leader of the agency. Dans’ inexperience with government showed. Anytime he encountered a delay he assumed it was deliberate: “He questioned everything from the point of view that there was a conspiracy against him and the president,” said a fellow Republican appointee. He would lose his temper and “just throw bombs into senior staff meetings” making him an intimidating figure. The pattern of abusive workplace behavior did not stop him from being handed the plum assignment of leading Project 2025. And when Dans exited in late July, Heritage praised him, with Kevin Roberts posting that Dans “built the project from scratch and bravely led this endeavor over the last two years.” New reporting paints a darker story. Dans was fired for being a toxic colleague. He yelled and swore at co-workers, demeaning them. Colleagues said that Dans “always struggled to maintain collegiality” and described “toxic and abusive behavior” especially toward female colleagues. He failed to listen to repeated warnings, including from Roberts, to behave professionally. After an internal investigation, he was fired for what the Heritage Foundation now acknowledges was “professional misconduct and mistreatment of colleagues.”

The “Deputy President”

When the Trump administration ended, McEntee could have followed the route of other ex-Trumpers and joined a think tank. While he would eventually return to this world via Project 2025, his priorities were elsewhere. With backing from the tech billionaire and Trump/Vance supporter Peter Thiel, McEntee launched a dating app aimed at conservatives, called “The Right Stuff.” In explaining his motivation for creating the app, McEntee wrote: “Washington, D.C. is a very liberal city, and I'm super conservative. How could I find people who had the same values as me? I found I couldn't really use the apps because it was tough to find someone on there with similar opinions…Personally, I have never and would never date anyone who doesn't share the same political views as me.” McEntee’s app received mixed reviews. Users complained about the Ashley Madisonesque lack of women on the site.

[...]

The Dog Killer in Charge

Overseeing all of this is the Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. And Roberts has his own problems: multiple former colleagues said he had boasted about killing a neighbor’s dog with a shovel. The timing is bad, of course, since a key policy message of Trump and JD Vance (who wrote the foreword for Robert’s new book), is that that it is immigrants are killing beloved pets. Instead, it seems to be the person in charge of the governing blueprint that Trump keeps trying to distance himself from. While Roberts deserves some credit for firing Dans, the anonymous Heritage leaks disparaging Dans appear to have come after he demanded a $3.1 million severance package, which Heritage rebuffed. At the same time, Heritage has nothing to say about their other Project 2025 employee, McEntee. While it might denounce toxic behavior in their workplace, predatory behavior by their employees is fine. Dans is a person that Heritage would not employ because of his toxic behavior. But they think his ideas are appropriate for massively restructuring the federal personnel system so that people like Dans and McEntee can fire whoever they want. McEntee is not someone you would want anywhere near younger women. But he is the person that both Trump and Heritage put in charge of recruiting the next generation of appointees.

Don Moynihan wrote another solid column on how three toxic men who seek to control the federal civil service sector should Donald Trump get back in.

[odinsblog]

When most people talk about expanding the Supreme Court, they're talking about adding a few Justices, two or four to the bench. But I am not most people. I do not think we should add a few Justices to get into an endless tit for tat with Mitch McConnell and his Federalist Society forces. I think we should blow the lid clear off this incrementally institutionalized motherfucker, and add 20 Justices.

I'd like to tell you about my Court expansion plan and explain why adding many Justices instead of fewer Justices is actually a better reform, fixes more underlying problems with the Court, and works out to be less partisan or political than some of the more incremental plans out there.

Let's start with the basics.

Expanding the number of Justices on the Supreme Court can be done with a simple act of Congress, passed by the Senate and signed by the President. Court expansion does not become easier or harder based on the number of Justices you seek to add to the Court. From a civics perspective, the process to add two Justices to the Court is just the same as the process to add 20.

Arguably, the rationale is the same too.

The current plan, supported by some Democrats, is to add four Justices to the Supreme Court. Their arguments are that the Court has gotten woefully out of step with the American people and the elected branches of government, which is true.

They argue that the country is a lot bigger now than it was in 1869, when Congress set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine, which is also true. Basically, all of these arguments flow together into the catchphrase, “we have 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal, and so we should have 13 Justices.”

See, back in the day, each Supreme Court Justice was responsible for one lower Circuit Court of Appeal. Procedurally, appeals from the lower circuits are heard first by the Justice responsible for that circuit. But now we have 13 lower Circuit Courts of Appeal, meaning some Justices have to oversee more than one. If we expanded the Court to 13 Justices, we'd get back to a one to one ratio for Supreme Court Justice per Circuit Court of Appeal.

But it doesn't actually matter how many circuits each Justice presides over, because all the Justices do is move an appeal from the lower court to the Supreme Court for the full Court to consider whether to hear the appeal.

Their function is purely clerical.

It doesn't matter.

One justice could oversee all 13 circuits while the other eight went fishing, kind of like hazing a rookie on a team. And it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in terms of the number of cases the Supreme Court hears. It's just a question of who has to work on Saturdays.

Indeed, I'm not even sure that I want the Court to hear more cases. These people are unelected, and these people already have too much power. More cases just gives them more opportunities to screw things up. I don't need the Court to make more decisions. I need the Court to make fewer shitty decisions. And for that, I need to reform how the Court makes those decisions. And for that, I need more people. And I need those people to make their decisions in panels.

Those lower courts, those 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal, almost all of them operate with more than nine judges. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has — wait for it — 29 judges!

All the lower courts use what's called a panel system. When they catch a case, three judges are chosen at random from all the judges on the circuit to hear the case. Those three judges then issue a ruling. If the majority of the circuit disagrees, they can vote to rehear the case as a full circuit.

The legal jargon here is called “en banc” when the full circuit hears the case.

But most of the time, that three judge panel ruling is the final ruling on the issue, with the circuit going en banc only when they believe the three judge panel got it clearly wrong.

Think about how different it would be if our Supreme Court operated on a panel system instead of showing up to Court knowing that six conservative Justices were against you, or the one or two conservative Justices that you invited onto your super yacht are guaranteed to hear your case.

You literally wouldn't know which Justices you'd get on your panel.

Even on a six-three conservative court, you might draw a panel that was two-to-one liberals, or you might draw Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett instead of Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, which could make a huge difference. Either way, you wouldn't know which Justices you'd get.

Not only does that make a big difference in terms of the appearance of fairness, especially in this time when some Justices are openly corrupt, it also makes a big difference in terms of what kinds of cases and arguments people would bring to the Court. Without knowing which Justices they'd get, litigants and red state attorney generals would have to tailor their arguments to a more center mass, mainstream temperament, instead of merely shooting their shot and hoping their arch conservatives can bully a moderate or two to vote with them.

Now, you can do panels with nine or 13 Justices, but you pretty much have to do panels with 29 Justices. Overloading the Court with Justices would essentially force them to adopt the random assignment process used by every other Court.

That would be good.

Sure, litigants could always hope for en banc review, where the full partisan makeup of the Court could be brought to bear. BUT, getting a majority of 29 Justices to overrule a panel decision requires 15 votes. Consider that right now you only need four votes, a minority of the nine member Court, to get the full Court to hear a case.

I'm no mathlete, but I'm pretty sure that 15 is just a higher bar.

That brings me to my next big point about expanding the Court to 29: Moderation.

Most people say that they do not want the Court to be too extreme to either side. Generally, I think that argument is bollocks. I, in fact, do want the Court to be extreme in its defense of voting rights, women's rights, and human rights. But maybe I'm weird.

If you want the Supreme Court to be a more moderate institution, then you should want as many Justices on the Supreme Court as possible. Why? Because cobbling together a 15-14 majority on a 29 member Court will often yield a more moderate decision than a five-four majority on a nine member Court.

Not going to lie. The law is complicated, and judges are quirky. If you invited five judges off the street over for a barbecue, they wouldn't be able to agree on whether hot dogs and hamburgers count as sandwiches.

It's simply easier to get five people to do something extreme than it is to get 15 people to do something extreme.

Think about your own life.

If you wanted to hike up a damn mountain, that is an activity for you and a couple of your closest friends. You're not taking 15 people to climb a mountain. That's not even a hike. That's an expedition, and you're expecting one or two of them to be eaten by bears on the way to the top. But if you're organizing an outdoor activity for 15 people, you're going to go to the park, and your friends will be expected to bring their own beer.

Most likely, adding 20 Justices would moderate the conservative majority just by putting enough people and personalities in the mix that it would be harder for them to do their most destructive work.

Just think about how the five worst senators you know, or the five worst congresspeople you can think of, often don't get their way because they can't even convince other members of their party to go along with their nihilist conservative ride.

Note, I said Conservative majority.

The astute reader will notice that I have not said that I want to add 20 fire-breathing liberal comrades who will stick it to Das Kapital for the rest of their lives. No, I believe the benefits of this kind of court expansion are so great — panels and the moderation from having more justices trying to cobble together en banc majority opinions — that I'd be willing to split the new justices ten and ten with conservative choices.

A 16-13 conservative leaning court would just be better than a six-three conservative court, even if my guys are still in the minority. The only litmus test I'd have for this plan is that all 20 have to be objectively pro-Democratic, self-government. All 20 have to think the Supreme Court has too much power. You give me 20 people who think the court should not be rulers in robes, and I'll take my chances.

However, there's no objective reason for elected Democrats to be as nice and friendly as I am when adding 20 Justices. Off the top, seats should be split eleven to nine, because Mitch McConnell and the Republicans must be made to pay for their shenanigans with the Merrick Garland nomination under Barack Obama. Republicans stole a seat. Democrats should take it back, full stop. I will take no further questions about this.

From there, this is where Democrats could, I don't know, engage in political hardball instead of being SAPS like always.

You see, right now, Republicans are dead set against court expansion because they are winning with the Court as it is. I can make all of the pro-reform, good government arguments under the sun, and the Republicans will ignore them because, again, they're winning right now.

But if you put forward a bill to add 20 seats, the Republican incentives possibly change: obstruct, and the Democrats push through court expansion on their own, and add 20 Justices of their own choosing, and you end up with people like, well, like me on the court. Or Mitch McConnell could release Senators to vote for the plan, and Republicans can share in the bounty.

It puts a different kind of question to McConnell: Join, get nine conservative Justices and keep a 15-14 conservative majority on the court, or Obstruct, and create a 23 to six liberal majority on the court, and trust that Republicans will take over the House, Senate, and White House so they can add 20 of their own Justices in the future.

Note that McConnell will have to run that whole table while overcoming a super liberal Supreme Court that restores the Voting Rights Act and strikes down Republican gerrymanders. Good luck, Mitch.

My plan wins either way.

Either we get a 29 person court that is more moderate, we get a 29 person court that is uber liberal, or McConnell does run the table and we end up with a 49 person court or a 69 person court. And while Republicans are in control of that bloated body, everybody understands that the Court is just a political branch there to rubber-stamp the acts of the President who appointed them.

Perhaps then, voters would start voting based on who they want to be in control of that court, instead of who they want to have a beer with.

The court is either fixed, or neutered.

It's a win-win.

I know 20 is a big number. I know we've all been institutionalized to believe that incremental change is the only change possible. And I know it sounds fanciful to ask for 20 when the starting offer from the establishment of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and President Joe Biden, is zero.

But like a doctor with poor bedside manner, I'm less interested in people's feelings and more interested in fixing the problem.

If you give me two Justices or four Justices, I can reverse a number of conservative policies that they've shoved through a Supreme Court that has already been illegitimately packed with Republican appointees. If you give me a few Justices, I can reestablish a center-left, pro-democracy majority… at least until those new Justices die at the wrong time, under the wrong president.

But if you give me 20 Justices, I can fix the whole fucking thing.

—ELIE MYSTAL, In Contempt of Court

[viewwrangler]

You know...

I really wanted to believe my country wouldn't do this. I really did.

But I can't say I'm surprised. I can't say that I'm surprised that a critical mass of people in the right places wanted to send the country back to 1950 or earlier. I can't say that I'm surprised that a critical mass of people would go for an old white guy over a nonwhite woman. Not when the backlash to DEI and related issues has been so severe ... and so successful. Not when the country remains so deeply divided and deeply racist.

Unified control of the government ... that surprises me, a bit. Now there won't be even the pretense of any checks, with a compliant House and Senate.

With control of the Senate assured, and further judicial appointments vetted by the Federalist Society and the other people affiliated with the incoming administration, the judiciary will be even more captured and corrupted than it already is.

With control of both houses of Congress, the regulatory state will be shredded. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services will be decimated or destroyed. (RFK Jr, a devout antivaxxer, as head of HHS is ... a nightmare about to come true, it seems. Along with Elon Musk as ... whatever he wants, apparently.) The government will become a festival of cronyism. The civil service is slated to be decimated as well.

The Affordable Care Act will be, if not repealed, so severely limited and changed as to become worthless. So we have been told.

Our international allies will be left to scramble for themselves. Russia will have a green light to take Ukraine; there will likely be no more military aid after December.

Now we get to wait and see how many of the boasts and threats will manifest. Now we get to see just how far into fascism we'll be pushed, and what will happen. Now we get to see just how empowered the right wing will feel itself to be.

Now we get to see how much of Project 2025 and related items will be imposed upon us. Now we get to see just how captured and compliant the six conservative justices on the US Supreme Court will be, even more than we already have.

It's not that all this can't be fought at some level. It can. But it will be painful, in ways we can't even foresee right now. It will be long and difficult, and will need to be pursued even after the upcoming hellscape of this administration ends.

Assuming it does, of course. We have, after all, been promised that this was the final national election we'll ever have.

[agenericplaceholdername]

Election Night in Ninjago

Are you interested in what Ninjago’s politics might look like? Here’s my perspective that tries to stay canon-compliant and even explains some changes between seasons. Of course, most of this is purely invented by me, and probably only entertaining to me.

Ninjago existed under a feudal system with a hereditary monarchy until ~50 years before the Serpentine War, when the growth of Ninjago City created an urban elite as capitalism emerged. In the lead up to the Serpentine War, the royal family consolidated power from the feudal lords, creating the Empire of Ninjago. However, during the Serpentine War, in order to convince urban residents to support the fight against the united tribes (they were largely safe, it was rural areas and small villages that were under threat), the Emperor was forced to concede supreme executive power to an elected legislature, and areas that were previously governed by local lords established elected governments. The first major political issue concerned what was to be done about the defeated Serpentine – during the war, the Elemental Alliance had used magic flutes (dubbed “sacred flutes” as an act of war propaganda) to seal away the five tribes. However, a rift grew between some who wanted to allow the average Serpentine to be reintegrated into society and those who wanted them all sealed away. In the end, the anti-Serpentine faction won out, receiving support from the sons of the First Spinjitzu Master. The Serpentine were sealed and the Anacondrai generals banished to the Cursed Realm.

The anti-Serpentine faction would form a political party – the Traditionalists, who were rivaled by the Modernists, who had advocated for a more lenient sentence. The Traditionalists would perform well in rural areas, with a small government, anti-technology message, while the Modernists were mostly confined to Ninjago City, advocating for a larger government and investment into technology. Elections would be held every two years, and everything from federal races down to local elections (the Mayorship of Ninjago City being easily the most powerful) was up for grabs. However, even as the Royal Family ceded more power to the Ninjago Legislature, the national government was still fairly weak, and local governments held a substantial amount of autonomy under a federalist system. A key element of Ninjago’s Constitution was a prohibition on a standing army, a provision heavily favored by both parties. Following the Serpentine War, the Traditionalists feared an army could lead to tyranny of the majority and big government overreach while the Modernists thought that the army might become more loyal to the Royal Family and restore an absolute monarchy. Thus, while municipal police forces would be well-equipped, in the event of a rapidly developing nationwide conflict, irregular militias and local forces would be all that could stand against invaders or domestic threats – until the Ninja, that is.

When the Serpentine were first released from their tombs, the Traditionalists were in charge. They appeared poised for a landslide in the elections the following year, with anti-Serpentine sentiment reaching a fever pitch when the Great Devourer attacks. Even in Ninjago City, whose historically Modernist population was less anti-Serpentine than the average Ninjago resident, a “Take Back Ninjago” rally was held. Some Modernist politicians attempt to call this out as demagoguery, but these cries fall on deaf ears. However, fortunes would dramatically reverse after the so-called “Final Battle.” Tech genius Cyrus Borg’s invention of the hover car quickly made him the richest man in Ninjago, and he donated heavily to Modernist politicians. In general, the Modernists embrace the burgeoning tech revolution and manage to score a legislative majority. They put Dr. Borg (who had been leading unofficial repair efforts) officially in charge of the rebuilding of Ninjago City (renamed New Ninjago City), and some commentators claim the Modernists might have permanently defeated the Traditionalists. Relations are reopened with the Serpentine, now sealed under Ninjago City, although this was not widely publicized.

The “permanent Modernist majority” was short-lived, however. The Nindroid Crisis obliterates public support of the tech revolution, especially in Ninjago City. Few polls were conducted in the time between the restoration of power across Ninjago and Zane’s sacrifice, but the few that were showed Modernist popularity beneath 10%. One reform that had been achieved by the Modernists some 10 years prior was a provision in the Ninjago Constitution for a national recall election, which was now poised to backfire as a recall petition was rapidly gaining signatures. However, Zane’s sacrifice saves the Modernists from utter humiliation. A nindroid who sacrificed himself for humans, Zane became a Modernist hero overnight. Cyrus Borg’s speech at Zane’s funeral was widely praised as a mea culpa that boosted his popularity. Many Traditionalist politicians’ harsh words about nindroids are attacked as insulting a great hero, and the recall effort died out.

The Second Serpentine War is a further boon to Modernist hopes. Not only does a “rally-around-the-flag” effect boost the incumbent party, but the Serpentine joining with humans to defeat humans pretending to be Serpentine reduces anti-Serpentine sentiment. This indirectly helps the Modernists, and it becomes public knowledge after the conflict that Master Chen had been responsible for the First Serpentine War. There is serious discussion about the Modernists maintaining power after the next election, despite how unlikely it had seemed just months prior. However, the invasion of Stiix by the Preeminent dashes all hopes. While the Ninja became celebrities, their popularity was surface-level and their super-fans were almost exclusively young people in Ninjago City (low voter turnout). An anti-Ninja grassroots movement starts in Stiix and is absorbed by the Traditionalists, who walk a thin line between outright attacking the Ninja (who are still generally popular) and praising them, while the Modernists are firmly pro-Ninja. The notoriously leak-free Royal Family even gets involved, with one newspaper (a tabloid, really) writing that the Jade Princess Harumi is fervently anti-Ninja, although a rare statement from the Emperor denies this. In the end, the Nindroid Crisis hurt the Modernists too much to recover, and the Traditionalists are voted back into power.

Once in power, the Traditionalists quickly reward their allies. The Ninjago Museum of History receives a large grant for their “Hall of Villainy” exhibit, which is credited to curator Dr. Sander Saunders’ staunch support of the Traditionalists (and antipathy toward technology). Meanwhile, the new Traditionalist mayor of Ninjago City cuts back on police funding (high-grade weaponry is replaced with tasers) and the Hiroshi’s Labyrinth vault is closed down. Cyrus Borg’s “Infovision” kiosks are also removed. This is promoted as a curtailing of unnecessary government expenditures. Initially, the Traditionalists seem to be very successful. A wave of kidnappings by Serpentine bolsters anti-Serpentine sentiment, and Ninjago enjoys a year of peace afterward. Things aren’t perfect – in some areas, peasants are forced back into servitude as the Traditionalists’ push for regional autonomy allows local warlords to regain control – but generally the Traditionalists are popular. This changes dramatically as the Sons of Garmadon become more prevalent, and the pro-Traditionalist consensus utterly collapses when Emperor Garmadon takes over.

The Traditionalists are blamed for the police budget cuts that allowed the SoG to rule (and public statements by the Police Commissioner attacking Ninjago City’s mayor don’t help matters), but more importantly, they were nowhere to be seen as part of the Resistance. Meanwhile, the Ninja receive massive accolades for dethroning Garmadon as old clips of Traditionalist politicians attacking the Ninja come to bite them. The Traditionalists try desperately to keep power – they allow Dr. Borg to store the Hiroshi’s Labyrinth items in his tower in the hopes that he won't get involved in the upcoming election, they finance the creation of a new Bounty as a stunt designed to reassure voters that the Traditionalists are pro-Ninja – but it doesn’t work. The Bounty publicity stunt ends up doing more harm when the Mayor doesn’t even make an appearance, likely fearing protests due to her actions (or rather, inaction) during Garmadon’s rule. In the elections held following the Oni Invasion, the Modernists are voted back into power.

The Modernists take power only to immediately be hit with a barrage of crises. Their key legislative goal was to achieve equal rights for both the Serpentine and artificial lifeforms, which they did achieve. Under the Modernist government, Serpentine, Nindroids, and later Prime Empire NPCs are allowed to obtain Ninjago citizenship, attend Ninjago schools, and are treated equally under the law. This doesn’t erase prejudice, but would have been a term-defining accomplishment – if not for the series of disasters that start less than a month into their term. First Aspheera invades Ninjago, which is fortunately brief and largely disconnected from modern-day Serpentine politics. However, the Prime Empire triple-whammy (800 people sucked into the game, there's a mass prison breakout, then an invasion of video game characters) reinforces in voters’ minds why the Modernists had been booted out 2 years prior – technology is scary! NPCs are allowed to stay in Ninjago and are guaranteed rights by the Modernists, a move which is seen as tone deaf. PIXAL, Zane, Okino, and Racer 7 (who later changes her name to Blazey H. Speed) all speak in favor of AI rights, however, and public sentiment largely ends up split. Ultimately, Wojira’s invasion, which carries the highest single-day death toll in Ninjago City, sounds the death knell for the Modernist government. Was it their fault? No – but with so much devastation, someone had to pay.

A recall election is held, and one of the key Traditionalist victories is that of Ninjago City Mayor U. N. Trustable, who runs on an explicitly anti-Ninja platform. There is a minor controversy during the campaign where it turns out a dark money campaign has been smearing the Ninja, but the source of these funds is never discovered. One conspiracy theory argued that somehow, despite being dead, Harumi was involved.* The Modernists attempted to use Trustable’s “Ninja-bashing” as insulting Nya’s legacy, but after doing the same thing with Zane just a few years prior, most voters didn't buy it. During the campaign, facing declining poll numbers, the Modernists successfully added Merlopia (under King Benthomaar) as an autonomous region with the ability to vote in Ninjago federal elections. This facilitates cultural sharing between the two kingdoms (including Merlopian pie recipes). It is also seen as a transparent ploy to gain more votes, as many Merlopians had strong support for the Modernist government after realizing how they were duped by Kalmaar. Human citizens overwhelmingly blame Merlopia for Wojira’s attack, and reject the Modernists in record numbers.

*an examination of Royal Family funds following the Crystal King's defeat validated this theory, with Harumi being alive all along

Mayor Trustable’s term starts out fine, with the New Ninja enjoying high popularity among voters. Public sentiment starts to turn on the Traditionalists after the blockbuster case Ninjago City v. Ninja, as voters are largely sympathetic to the Ninja’s goal of saving Nya. Moreover, many had voted for Trustable to express discontent with the ruling Modernists, not as a full rejection of the Ninja. Traditionalist support then collapses following the Crystastrophe. Clips of Trustable fleeing Ninjago City next to Traditionalist politicians endorsing him are played in every Modernist ad. Mayor Trustable resigns after prominent national Traditionalist politicians demand he step down, fearing that he might have single handedly destroyed the party.

In the regular elections held shortly afterward, the so-called “Neo-Modernists” win, running on pure pro-Ninja sentiment. Notably, however, the demagogic fear by the Traditionalists about Serpentine, NPCs, and Merlopians “infiltrating our society” dies down following the aid of all of those peoples to fight the Crystal King. The Neo-Modernists are in charge of Ninjago until the Merge, following which the national government essentially collapses. Municipalities like the Crossroads and Ninjago City (re)establish local police forces and governments, but there is a general sense that people are tired of politics, and elections are changed to every four years. Eventually a regional government is established over much of the greater Ninjago City metro area, including the Crossroads. The Modernist push for civil rights for non-humans is embodied in the new Ninjago constitution, which now protects the rights of all sapient creatures, from humans to Serpentine to skeletons to Mucoids and beyond. 

And that concludes my imaginary Ninjago politics story? Fanfic? I don’t know. I left out basically any mention of Ninjago’s economic situation, education, healthcare, foreign policy (towards Shintaro and Metalonia, I guess) so there’s certainly room to expand on this. I tried to identify changes that occurred in Ninjago over the course of the show (what does the “Take Back Ninjago Rally” mean for human-serpent relations, given that later on Frak and Arin meet at school? What happened to the Ninjago City police’s weaponry from Skybound to SoG?) and then wrote a mostly cohesive story. Hope you enjoyed it! And if you’re in the US, make sure to vote!

[tanadrin]

Five to Four is doing a series on the Federalist Society, which is very interesting--they're probably one of the most successful political movements in modern America, and the heart of the conservative legal movement. Why they have been so successful in shaping the judiciary, and taking ideas which were once part of the legal lunatic fringe and moving them to the mainstream, isn't particularly mysterious either. In the 1980s, within the legal profession conservative thought was very unpopular; in the legal sphere, liberals had achieved a lot of big policy victories, and were able to articulate a strong positive vision of the law and of policy, while conservatives in the same sphere were mostly left writing amicus briefs that said "nuh-uh" and bickering between their pro-business and libertarian factions.

The founders of the Federalist Society wanted to bring together conservative law students and lawyers, and articulate a positive, intellectual vision of conservative law. But more than that, they wanted that vision to have a material effect, and to win over people to their cause. This meant holding conferences to spread their ideas, networking and creating professional opportunities, especially under conservative judges and administrations, getting some big-name figures (like Scalia and Bork, both before their respective Supreme Court nominations) to back them, setting aside the differences of various factions within the nascent conservative legal movement so they wouldn't waste time on infighting, and, of course, no small amount of patience.

The results speak for themselves. Although the legal profession in the U.S. is still as a whole probably pretty liberal, Republican administrations are in charge about half the time, and the Federalist Society can furnish them with lists of candidates for judicial positions at every level from the lowest to the highest court. The demand for clerks under these judges and conservative legal bureaucrats under Republican Presidents means (so I gather) that there's a pretty robust pipeline from Federalist Society law student at a good law school to a promising career in government. And as a result of steady work over decades, dreams which were very distant in the 1980s, like overturning Roe or weakening the Voting Rights Act, have now been accomplished. Sure, people all over the country hate many of these decisions; but that's politics, babey!

And you don't need a theory of nebulous "elites" or difficult-to-discern incentives to understand the shifts in the judiciary since the 1980s, even for the most unpopular decisions. It's perfectly clear--it's the Federalist Society! And the Federalist Society succeeded because when they felt themselves a sidelined minor faction in law schools and in legal circles, they didn't collapse into despair. They got organized, they identified places they could exert influence, and they figured out how to make that a reality. It's a good lesson in politics.

[mariacallous]

Subverting the federal government was on the minds of state lawmakers Thursday in an hours-long civics lesson from far-right speakers. 

As promised in the 2023 session of the Tennessee General Assembly, the idea of nullification was heard during a summer study session in Nashville. The idea is, basically, for Tennessee to be able to nullify rules from the federal government that it does not like. 

(Read our cover story — “Who’s Got the Power?” — from March to get more details on Tennessee, state sovereignty, and nullification.)

Bills to outline a nullification process in Tennessee go back to at least to 1995. A similar resolution passed in 2021 but it was specific to Covid. It condemned the federal government for mandating vaccinations, restrictions, or requirements. 

Another came last year when state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Kingsport) and state Sen. Janice Bowling (R-Tullahoma) filed the ”Restoring State Sovereignty Through Nullification Act.” 

In it, the legislature could decide what federal rules they wanted to follow or not. Also, if a voter scraped together 2,000 signatures, they could submit a petition for a nullification to the Speaker of the Tennessee House.  

The bill gained very little traction, if any at all. Neither bill even got enough support to place it on the calendar for a full committee hearing. The idea was slated for a summer study review in 2023. However, that study was interrupted with a special session on school safety, in the wake of the Covenant School shooting that left six dead.  

But Bulsey and Bowling’s idea did finally get that summer study review, even if it was actually in the fall of 2024. True to form on these sessions, Thursday’s hearing yielded no votes or promise of any course of action. It was purely for review. 

The session was not a town hall. State Sen. Richard Briggs (R-Knoxville), the committee chairman, said he knew the idea was “controversial” but did not allow members of the public to speak, or clap, or boo. That right to speak came only for the experts called upon by the legislature. Those selected for this duty Thursday were roundly (and soundly) conservative. 

Jeff Cobble is an attorney and member of the conservative Federalist Society. Joe Wolverton is the inaugural constitutional law scholar for the ultra-conservative John Birch Society. Mark Pulliam is an attorney and writer who, in an August blog post, prayed “… a single juror would vote for President Trump’s acquittal in the circus-like show trial …” in Manhattan. 

The hours of their testimony ranged back to the Declaration of Independence, through the 1781 Articles of Confederation, and to 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was proposed. Lots of it dove deep into definitions of the words of the constitution, like “all,” for example. 

“I’m going to take you like elementary school students through this so this is plain,” said Wolverton in a detailed section of the Constitution to elected lawmakers. “We’re going to go through it phrase by phrase.”  

As for the meat of the separation of powers (and therefore what power Tennessee really does have in nullification), Wolverton presented his ideas wrapped like a click-bait-y YouTube video. “In an hour,” he began, “I can show you how the 14th Amendment is taught wrong.”  

“State — capitalized — has a specific meaning,” he said. “It’s got to do with the sovereign. Nations today are nation states. They are sovereign. 

“I’m suggesting to you something radical, something I did not learn in [constitutional] law. The states are sovereign over the federal government. Now, take that and chew on it. That’s what this bill’s about.” 

Some spice in the meeting came late as state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D-Nashville) began asking questions of the panel. He asked if the work of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) helping out now in East Tennessee was an example of what they were taking about.

Yes, Cobble said, “It’s usurpation, whether it’s used for good or bad,” adding that communities come together in times of tragedy, noting specifically that “the Amish, they build their own barns. They raise their owns houses.”

“You know, good things can happen without a government,” he said. “So, my answer is yes, FEMA is clearly unconstitutional.”

[jensorensen]

The Supreme Court ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine was largely overlooked in the wake of the debate, but possibly even more apocalyptic. In short, the Republican majority gutted the precedent that gave deference to scientists and other experts at setting regulations for pollution, safety, worker rights — i.e., basic functions of government. Everything now has to go through the courts, which are jam-packed with Trump appointees and other Federalist Society-backed corporate extremists.

Receive my weekly newsletter and keep this work sustainable by joining the Sorensen Subscription Service! Also on Patreon.

[qqueenofhades]

I love your essays; they are fascinating. Thank you for sharing your perspective! I have a follow up question, if you have the time or energy: in your last, you said, “It's a blueprint for a tiny group of extreme right-wing theocrats and fascists to get their way regardless of what the broader public says about it…”. Who ARE the tiny group of extreme right wing theocrats and fascists? Is it the politicians whom we see all over the news, like Vance and Boebert ands Haley and DeSantis? Or are they puppets whose strings are being pulled by donors behind the scenes, like…I don’t know, the Koch brothers and the Uleins (sp?)? I feel like whoever it is must have mind boggling amounts of money, to overcome the sheer number of people who don’t think like that, even people nominally republican who believe in traditional low taxes and small government, but are not completely bananapants. Or maybe that’s why they tagged trump, bc no one before him was willing to act like enough of an outright gangster to seriously move the needle…? How much more rich than disgustingly rich do they need to be?

Perhaps surprisingly, it's fairly easy to identify the Hall of Shame who are busily trying to end American democracy, not least because they have become increasingly open about it. Their motives are diverse but all terrible. The quick rundown is as follows:

First, the alt-right billionaires club such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Harlan Crow, and Leonard Leo (the last two are some of the chief funnelers of dark money to SCOTUS; Crow is Clarence Thomas's sugar daddy). They have reasons ranging from grandiose delusions about "remaking" the world in their preferred image (not at all terrifying) to attaching themselves to fascist politics in order to defeat workers' rights and labor unions, who they view as a threat to their mega-wealth. Thiel is the primary sponsor of JD Vance and the alt-right cryptobros clubs that draw the young right-wing white men who also primarily form the membership of neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups. They want to end democracy in order to punish women, minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone else who Nazis always hate. Crow and Leo have lavishly funded the corrupt SCOTUS in order to influence their preferred right-wing rulings, and there are undoubtedly more who we don't even know about. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I have no doubt that it's far, far worse than anything that has been publicly reported.

Next are the extremist right-wing interest groups that have cohered around and advocated for Project 2025, which is basically just the conservative-extremist wet dream put in one place and written down. They include the Heritage Foundation (the primary Project 2025 author) the Federalist Society and the John Birch Society of right-wing judges and policymakers, and Opus Dei, the secretive Catholic right-wing influence group who are straight out of a Dan Brown novel but are in fact some of the most consequential and powerful players in MAGA World. Their name means "work of God" in Latin, which is very much what they see themselves as doing, and their reach in DC is vast, particularly in the far-right evangelical and fundamentalist Christian groups that have attached themselves to Trump as a vehicle to push through their regressive-reactionary social and cultural politics, especially on abortion, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and other things that they view as "unholy." These are the diehard true believers who really, truly think that it's better for the US to be a fascist theocracy espousing "Right and Moral" religious views than a flawed, pluralist, and secular democracy. Hard Yikes.

Thirdly we have the useful idiots, such as Vance, Ron DeSantis, Boebert, Greene, basically pick-a-Republican-politician-here, who are pursuing fascist politics out of careerism, opportunism, some amount of genuine belief, and exploiting the age-old fissures of American racism, nativism, xenophobia, and other original sins that have dogged the country since its founding. Of course, Trump himself is chief among these useful idiots, because he's completely willing to end American democracy and install himself as Dictator-for-Life if it exempts him from having to face the consequences for all the crimes he did last time (and frankly, his entire life, which is now catching up with him). I don't think Trump has an actual consistent or coherent policy bone in his body; witness how quickly he was willing to flip-flop on the Florida abortion issue depending on what he thought was useful (and then after the backlash he received from his base). He's a malignant narcissistic sociopath who is incapable of complex reasoning and long-term planning. His only and overriding interest is himself, he will do absolutely whatever he has to in order to save himself, and as long as he has his death grip on the GOP, everyone who wants to succeed in the party or even have a future in it has to slavishly kiss Don Corleone Trump's ring. That is why many lifelong Republicans have been breaking ranks to say they will vote for Harris, because "being a Republican's" one and only qualification is now "being utterly loyal to Trump." That's it.

These are all actors based more or less in the US, but we also can't forget the fact that basically the entire Republican Party is in deep, deep hock to Vladimir Putin and other foreign autocrats (but most especially and dangerously Putin). We just had the DOJ indictment of MAGA influencers who were taking Russian black cash by the bucketload in order to spread damaging lies about Biden/Harris and pump for Trump, and this is consistent with Russia's pattern of extensive interference in American elections going back to at least 2016. It is hard to overstate how much Putin hankers to end American democracy for many reasons. He is a former KGB agent trained in the black-and-white us-and-them logic of the Cold War where the US was the USSR's archenemy, his constant mourning for the USSR's collapse has been well documented, and it would be the absolute defining and singular achievement of all of post-imperial Russian history for Putin to effectively end American democracy with a second Trump term.

This is for the simple reason that Trump is utterly in thrall to Putin and will do whatever he asks, whether it's cutting off aid to Ukraine and forcing them to accept annexation by Russia, pulling America out of NATO and letting Putin set his invasion sights on Poland and the Baltic states, and anything else. That is genuinely terrifying but very likely if Trump was re-elected, aside from the end of American democracy and the worldwide ramifications it would have to empower fascist authoritarians everywhere. Putin is trying to achieve this through a combination of good old-fashioned Soviet-style dezinformatsiya, paying off MAGA influencers, putting the entire resources of the Russian state into defaming Harris-Walz, and recruiting useful idiots like his asset Jill Stein, who has extensive Russian ties and only pops up every four years for idiot leftists to spoil their vote and ruin Democratic electoral prospects. So. Again. Hard yikes.

So that's the quick rundown of the people who are vested in Trump and Project 2025's success and why, and as you can see, while they're all different, they're all terrible. But yes: that really is a very, very small group of people, relatively speaking. And a vote for anyone except Kamala Harris and Tim Walz is a vote to empower them and also to ensure that you will never have the chance to vote again, due to living in an authoritarian fascist regime. Choose wisely.

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is such an important article, the above link is a gift 🎁 link so that anyone can read the entire article, even if they don't subscribe to The New York Times. Here are some highlights:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review. [...] He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.” [...] The provision in question is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” [...] The article concluded that essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.” It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” [...] The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president. “Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said. Professor Calabresi said those administrators must act. “Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so. [color/emphasis added]

Let's hope that election administrators across the US read this article and begin to set in motion the mechanism to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on ballots across the U.S., in case he does get the GOP nomination.