#judicial education project

[odinsblog]

BREAKING: Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo paid Ginni Thomas OFF THE BOOKS—$80,000, with at least one $25,000 payment being routed through Kellyanne Conway.

Leo specifically said that the payments should not mention Ginni Thomas.

Conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo arranged for the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work just over a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing paperwork, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

In January 2012, Leo instructed the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use that money to pay Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the documents show. The same year, the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in a landmark voting rights case.

Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25K,” the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

Conway’s firm, the Polling Company, sent the Judicial Education Project a $25,000 bill that day. Per Leo’s instructions, it listed the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting,” the documents show.

In all, according to the documents, the Polling Company paid Thomas’s firm, Liberty Consulting, $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012, and it expected to pay $20,000 more before the end of 2012. The documents reviewed by The Post do not indicate the precise nature of any work Thomas did for the Judicial Education Project or the Polling Company.

The arrangement reveals that Leo, a longtime Federalist Society leader and friend of the Thomases, has functioned not only as an ideological ally of Clarence Thomas’s but also has worked to provide financial remuneration to his family. And it shows Leo arranging for the money to be drawn from a nonprofit that soon would have an interest before the court.

In December 2012, the Judicial Education Project submitted an amicus brief in Shelby County v. Holder, a case challenging a landmark civil rights law aimed at protecting minority voters.

(continue reading)

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 4, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 5, 2023

Today began with another story about yet more ties between Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and Republican billionaire Harlan Crow. Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott, and Alex Mierjeski of ProPublica reported that Crow paid the private school tuition for Thomas’s grandnephew, to the tune of more than $6,000 a month, ultimately adding up to an amount that may have been more than $150,000. Thomas did not report the payments.

Then news broke that a jury in Washington, D.C., found four members of the far-right extremist group the Proud Boys—Enrique Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl—guilty of seditious conspiracy for their participation in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. A fifth defendant, Dominic Pezzola, was found not guilty of seditious conspiracy but, like the others, was found guilty of other serious charges including obstructing Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results and conspiring to prevent Congress and federal officers from discharging their duties.

In a statement, Attorney General Merrick Garland noted that the Department of Justice has secured more than 600 convictions for criminal conduct surrounding the events of January 6, including fourteen “leaders of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers for seditious conspiracy��specifically conspiring to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power. Our work will continue,” he said.

It is unlikely that Garland’s statement about ongoing work was casual.

Defense attorneys for the Proud Boys emphasized that their clients believed then-president Trump—who, after all, had told them in September 2020 to “stand back and stand by”—had called them to Washington to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Although there were no explicit orders to attack the Capitol, members of the Proud Boys testified that they believed there was an implicit agreement to prevent Biden from becoming president.

Tarrio, convicted today, was not at the Capitol during the attack, but a jury convicted him of seditious conspiracy nonetheless, suggesting that leaders who incited the violence can be found guilty, even if they weren’t present.

Today attorneys for E. Jean Carroll, who is suing the former president in a civil trial for battery and defamation connected with his alleged rape of her, rested their case. So did Trump’s lawyers, but District Judge Lewis Kaplan gave Trump the weekend to rethink testifying. “He has a right to testify which has been waived but if he has second thoughts, I’ll at least consider it and maybe we’ll see what happens,” Kaplan said.

Other investigations of the former president continue. The New York Times today broke the story that prosecutors in the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith investigating the storage of classified documents are talking to a confidential witness who worked for Trump at Mar-a-Lago. There are questions about whether Trump deliberately moved boxes containing documents in order to hide them from the Justice Department.

Meanwhile, the debt ceiling crisis has not gone away. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines today told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats that a U.S. default on our debts would enable both Russia and China to say “such an event [demonstrates] the chaos within the United States, that we’re not capable of functioning as a democracy, and the governance issues associated with it." She explained: “It would be…almost a certainty that they would look to take advantage of the opportunity.”

Moody’s Analytics has weighed in on the economic effects of House speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) plan, noting that with a clean debt limit increase, real gross domestic product is expected to grow 2.25% this year. Under McCarthy's plan, that growth will be 1.6%. “The significant government spending cuts in the [plan] are substantial headwinds to near-term economic growth,” it wrote. “Adding to the economic headwinds created by the legislation is the considerable uncertainty created by having to address the debt limit again a year from now.”

Weirdly, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) at a Senate Budget Committee hearing today blamed Democrats for not raising the debt ceiling themselves last year without help from the Republicans. Kate Riga of Talking Points Memo broke down this argument. If the Democrats had raised the debt ceiling through reconciliation, without Republican votes, Republicans would have insisted that it was the Democrats, not them, who had burdened the country with debt when, in fact, the Republicans added almost $8 trillion to the debt under Trump.

Romney’s complaint amounts to berating the responsible Democrats for not protecting the country against the Republicans, who are willing to burn down the country. As Riga put it: “Darn you Democrats for not taking care of the debt ceiling then, because you knew we’d refuse to raise the limit unless you conceded to our demands, and look what a sticky spot we’re in now.”

Meanwhile, the editorial board of the Fresno Bee, from McCarthy’s district, today called out the speaker for approving the huge increases of the Trump years and, now that a Democrat is in the White House, insisting on drastic cuts. The board reiterated that the debt ceiling and the budget are separate issues. “McCarthy is pandering to the hard-right members who only backed him for House speaker on the 15th vote in exchange for concessions on the issues like the debt,” it said. “Speaker McCarthy, don’t take America to the brink of default. Stop the posturing, raise the debt ceiling, then have the honest budget debate the nation needs.”

Finally, the day ended where it began, with another scandal involving Justice Clarence Thomas.

This evening, Emma Brown, Shawn Boburg, and Jonathan O'Connell of the Washington Post broke the story that right-wing judicial activist Leonard Leo, who as a leader of the Federalist Society that backs originalist judges has been key to transforming the federal judiciary, a decade ago arranged for payments of tens of thousands of dollars to Thomas’s wife Ginni. Leo and Thomas are close friends.

In January 2012, Leo told Kellyanne Conway, who was then a Republican pollster, to bill the Judicial Education Project, a nonprofit organization with which he was associated, and then pass the money on to Ginni Thomas. He told Conway to “give” Thomas “another $25K,” and emphasized that she should include “No mention of Ginni, of course,” in the paperwork. She did so. Later that year, the Judicial Education Project filed a brief before the court in the landmark Shelby County v. Holder case, in which the court, by a vote of 5–4, gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Thomas voted on the side of the Judicial Education Project.

And this is the profound national crisis at the heart of the stories emerging about Thomas. His votes were decisive not only in Shelby County v. Holder, but also in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, also decided by a vote of 5–4, which opened the floodgates for dark money in political campaigns. Those decisions dramatically undermined our democracy. It now seems imperative to grapple with the fact it appears a key vote on the court that decided those cases was compromised.

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emma Brown, Shawn Boburg, and Jonathan O'Connell at WaPo:

Conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo arranged for the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work just over a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing paperwork, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

In January 2012, Leo instructed the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use that money to pay Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the documents show. The same year, the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in a landmark voting rights case.

Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25K,” the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

Conway’s firm, the Polling Company, sent the Judicial Education Project a $25,000 bill that day. Per Leo’s instructions, it listed the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting,” the documents show.

In all, according to the documents, the Polling Company paid Thomas’s firm, Liberty Consulting, $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012, and it expected to pay $20,000 more before the end of 2012. The documents reviewed by The Post do not indicate the precise nature of any work Thomas did for the Judicial Education Project or the Polling Company.

The arrangement reveals that Leo, a longtime Federalist Society leader and friend of the Thomases, has functioned not only as an ideological ally of Clarence Thomas’s but also has worked to provide financial remuneration to his family. And it shows Leo arranging for the money to be drawn from a nonprofit that soon would have an interest before the court.

In response to questions from The Post, Leo issued a statement defending the Thomases. “It is no secret that Ginni Thomas has a long history of working on issues within the conservative movement, and part of that work has involved gauging public attitudes and sentiment. The work she did here did not involve anything connected with either the Court’s business or with other legal issues,” he wrote. “As an advisor to JEP I have long been supportive of its opinion research relating to limited government, and The Polling Company, along with Ginni Thomas’s help, has been an invaluable resource for gauging public attitudes.”

Of the effort to keep Thomas’s name off paperwork, Leo said: “Knowing how disrespectful, malicious and gossipy people can be, I have always tried to protect the privacy of Justice Thomas and Ginni.”

Leo’s statement did not address questions about whether he had arranged other work for Ginni Thomas or how much money he directed to her in all from the nonprofit.

Conway, who was a senior adviser in the Trump White House, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The Thomases did not respond to messages seeking comment. Ginni Thomas, a political activist and former GOP aide on Capitol Hill, has long maintained that she and her husband keep their careers separate.

In December 2012, the Judicial Education Project submitted an amicus brief in Shelby County v. Holder, a case challenging a landmark civil rights law aimed at protecting minority voters. The court struck down a formula in the Voting Rights Act that determined which states had to obtain federal clearance before changing their voting rules and procedures. Clarence Thomas was part of the 5-to-4 majority.

Thomas issued a concurring opinion in the case, arguing that the preclearance requirement itself is unconstitutional. Thomas’s opinion, which was consistent with a previous opinion he wrote, favored the outcome the Judicial Education Project and several other conservative organizations had advocated in their amicus briefs. He did not cite the Judicial Education Project brief.

Legal ethics experts disagreed about whether the arrangement outlined by Leo and the payments from Conway should have led Thomas to recuse himself from the Shelby case.

Federal law requires justices to recuse if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” a standard that has not been well-defined as applied to filers of amicus briefs, the experts said. Law professor Kathleen Clark of Washington University said that if the Judicial Education Project paid Ginni Thomas $100,000 in the year and a half before it filed its brief, the size and timing of the payments would have been enough to cast doubt on Clarence Thomas’s impartiality and require his recusal. Law professor Stephen Gillers of New York University, however, said that as the rule is now interpreted, the link appeared too “attenuated” to require recusal.

[...]

Leo, 57, has for years been the behind-the-scenes leader of a network of interlocking nonprofits that has raised and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to support conservative judges and causes. Marble Freedom Trust, one of the organizations Leo chairs, received a contribution worth $1.6 billion in 2020 from a Chicago businessman, Barre Seid.

The Judicial Education Project was part of that network, although Leo was not listed on its tax filings or incorporation records. Leo’s allies founded the Judicial Education Project in 2004. Its mission was to “conduct research and educate the public on the role of the judiciary as laid out in the U.S. Constitution,” according to its tax filings. It secured tax-exempt status in 2011 and was not initially well-funded, filing paperwork with the IRS indicating it brought in less than $50,000 annually.

In 2012, it received about $1.5 million from donors whose identities were not publicly disclosed, the tax filings show. The Judicial Education Project spent $150,000 on “polling” that year, according to its tax filing. The filing does not identify which firm did the work.

The president of the Judicial Education Project that year was Neil Corkery, a Leo ally and bookkeeper for several of his nonprofit groups. Corkery certified on the group’s 2012 tax filing that no one other than the group’s officers or key employees had control over the nonprofit.

Corkery declined to comment.

Clarence Thomas has been under scrutiny since ProPublica revealed in April that Texas billionaire Harlan Crow took him on lavish vacations and also bought from Thomas and his relatives a Georgia home where Thomas’s mother lived; the transaction was not listed on the justice’s annual disclosure forms.

Senate Democrats this week held a hearing focused on Supreme Court ethics. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. declined an invitation to testify, offering instead a statement signed by all the justices in which they reaffirmed their commitment to abide by “foundational ethics principles and practices.”

During the hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) mentioned Leo, who The Post has reported used the nonprofit network during the Trump administration to conduct publicity campaigns in support of nominees he helped select. “This guy doesn’t have business before the court,” Whitehouse said. “His business is the court.”

Leo’s ties to the Thomases go back decades and span their personal and professional lives.

Leo advised Clarence Thomas through his contentious confirmation process in the early 1990s and made Thomas the godfather of one of his children. Leo also has hosted the justice at his New England vacation home, according to the New York Times.

The Washington Post reported that Federalist Society head Leonard Leo arranged for Ginni Thomas to be paid, while having her name left off of billing paperwork. 

This story is yet another why Clarence Thomas must resign from SCOTUS. 

Read the full story at Washington Post.

[townpostin]

Jharkhand Cabinet Approves Key Development Initiatives, Caste Survey

Major Decisions Spanning Caste Survey, Education, Infrastructure, and Law Enforcement Jharkhand Cabinet approves multiple initiatives for state development and governance under Chief Minister Champai Soren. RANCHI – The Council of Ministers, led by Chief Minister Champai Soren, approved several crucial decisions aimed at enhancing state development and governance in a recent meeting. Focus on…

[mariacallous]

Democrats and liberal pundits are already trying to figure out how the Trump campaign not only bested Kamala Harris in the “Blue Wall” states of the Midwest and the Rust Belt, but gained on her even in areas that should have been safe for a Democrat. Almost everywhere, Donald Trump expanded his coalition, and this time, unlike in 2016, he didn’t have to thread the needle of the Electoral College to win: He can claim the legitimacy of winning the popular vote.

Trump’s opponents are now muttering about the choice of Tim Walz, the influence of the Russians, the role of the right-wing media, and whether President Joe Biden should not have stepped aside in favor of Harris. Even the old saw about “economic anxiety” is making a comeback.

These explanations all have some merit, but mostly, they miss the point. Yes, some voters still stubbornly believe that presidents magically control the price of basic goods. Others have genuine concerns about immigration and gave in to Trump’s booming call of fascism and nativism. And some of them were just never going to vote for a woman, much less a Black woman.

But in the end, a majority of American voters chose Trump because they wanted what he was selling: a nonstop reality show of rage and resentment. Some Democrats, still gripped by the lure of wonkery, continue to scratch their heads over which policy proposals might have unlocked more votes, but that was always a mug’s game. Trump voters never cared about policies, and he rarely gave them any. (Choosing to be eaten by a shark rather than electrocuted might be a personal preference, but it’s not a policy.) His rallies involved long rants about the way he’s been treated, like a giant therapy session or a huge family gathering around a bellowing, impaired grandpa.

Back in 2021, I wrote a book about the rise of “illiberal populism,” the self-destructive tendency in some nations that leads people to participate in democratic institutions such as voting while being hostile to democracy itself, casting ballots primarily to punish other people and to curtail everyone’s rights—even their own. These movements are sometimes led by fantastically wealthy faux populists who hoodwink gullible voters by promising to solve a litany of problems that always seem to involve money, immigrants, and minorities. The appeals from these charlatans resonate most not among the very poor, but among a bored, relatively well-off middle class, usually those who are deeply uncomfortable with racial and demographic changes in their own countries.

And so it came to pass: Last night, a gaggle of millionaires and billionaires grinned and applauded for Trump. They were part of an alliance with the very people another Trump term would hurt—the young, minorities, and working families among them.

Trump, as he has shown repeatedly over the years, couldn’t care less about any of these groups. He ran for office to seize control of the apparatus of government and to evade judicial accountability for his previous actions as president. Once he is safe, he will embark on the other project he seems to truly care about: the destruction of the rule of law and any other impediments to enlarging his power.

Americans who wish to stop Trump in this assault on the American constitutional order, then, should get it out of their heads that this election could have been won if only a better candidate had made a better pitch to a few thousand people in Pennsylvania. Biden, too old and tired to mount a proper campaign, likely would have lost worse than Harris; more to the point, there was nothing even a more invigorated Biden or a less, you know, female alternative could have offered. Racial grievances, dissatisfaction with life’s travails (including substance addiction and lack of education), and resentment toward the villainous elites in faraway cities cannot be placated by housing policy or interest-rate cuts.

No candidate can reason about facts and policies with voters who have no real interest in such things. They like the promises of social revenge that flow from Trump, the tough-guy rhetoric, the simplistic “I will fix it” solutions. And he’s interesting to them, because he supports and encourages their conspiracist beliefs. (I knew Harris was in trouble when I was in Pennsylvania last week for an event and a fairly well-off business owner, who was an ardent Trump supporter, told me that Michelle Obama had conspired with the Canadians to change the state’s vote tally in 2020. And that wasn’t even the weirdest part of the conversation.)

As Jonathan Last, editor of The Bulwark, put it in a social-media post last night: The election went the way it did “because America wanted Trump. That’s it. People reaching to construct [policy] alibis for the public because they don’t want to grapple with this are whistling past the graveyard.” Last worries that we might now be in a transition to authoritarianism of the kind Russia went through in the 1990s, but I visited Russia often in those days, and much of the Russian democratic implosion was driven by genuinely brutal economic conditions and the rapid collapse of basic public services. Americans have done this to themselves during a time of peace, prosperity, and astonishingly high living standards. An affluent society that thinks it is living in a hellscape is ripe for gulling by dictators who are willing to play along with such delusions.

The bright spot in all this is that Trump and his coterie must now govern. The last time around, Trump was surrounded by a small group of moderately competent people, and these adults basically put baby bumpers and pool noodles on all the sharp edges of government. This time, Trump will rule with greater power but fewer excuses, and he—and his voters—will have to own the messes and outrages he is already planning to create.

Those voters expect that Trump will hurt others and not them. They will likely be unpleasantly surprised, much as they were in Trump’s first term. (He was, after all, voted out of office for a reason.) For the moment, some number of them have memory-holed that experience and are pretending that his vicious attacks on other Americans are just so much hot air.

Trump, unfortunately, means most of what he says. In this election, he has triggered the unfocused ire and unfounded grievances of millions of voters. Soon we will learn whether he can still trigger their decency—if there is any to be found.

[porterdavis]

A great long read from Tom Nichols of The Atlantic:

“Democrats and liberal pundits are already trying to figure out how the Trump campaign not only bested Kamala Harris in the “Blue Wall” states of the Midwest and the Rust Belt, but gained on her even in areas that should have been safe for a Democrat. Almost everywhere, Donald Trump expanded his coalition, and this time, unlike in 2016, he didn’t have to thread the needle of the Electoral College to win: He can claim the legitimacy of winning the popular vote.

Trump’s opponents are now muttering about the choice of Tim Walz, the influence of the Russians, the role of the right-wing media, and whether President Joe Biden should not have stepped aside in favor of Harris. Even the old saw about “economic anxiety” is making a comeback.

These explanations all have some merit, but mostly, they miss the point. Yes, some voters still stubbornly believe that presidents magically control the price of basic goods. Others have genuine concerns about immigration and gave in to Trump’s booming call of fascism and nativism. And some of them were just never going to vote for a woman, much less a Black woman.

But in the end, a majority of American voters chose Trump because they wanted what he was selling: a nonstop reality show of rage and resentment. Some Democrats, still gripped by the lure of wonkery, continue to scratch their heads over which policy proposals might have unlocked more votes, but that was always a mug’s game. Trump voters never cared about policies, and he rarely gave them any. (Choosing to be eaten by a shark rather than electrocuted might be a personal preference, but it’s not a policy.) His rallies involved long rants about the way he’s been treated, like a giant therapy session or a huge family gathering around a bellowing, impaired grandpa.

Back in 2021, I wrote a book about the rise of “illiberal populism,” the self-destructive tendency in some nations that leads people to participate in democratic institutions such as voting while being hostile to democracy itself, casting ballots primarily to punish other people and to curtail everyone’s rights—even their own. These movements are sometimes led by fantastically wealthy faux populists who hoodwink gullible voters by promising to solve a litany of problems that always seem to involve money, immigrants, and minorities. The appeals from these charlatans resonate most not among the very poor, but among a bored, relatively well-off middle class, usually those who are deeply uncomfortable with racial and demographic changes in their own countries.

And so it came to pass: Last night, a gaggle of millionaires and billionaires grinned and applauded for Trump. They were part of an alliance with the very people another Trump term would hurt—the young, minorities, and working families among them.

Trump, as he has shown repeatedly over the years, couldn’t care less about any of these groups. He ran for office to seize control of the apparatus of government and to evade judicial accountability for his previous actions as president. Once he is safe, he will embark on the other project he seems to truly care about: the destruction of the rule of law and any other impediments to enlarging his power.

Americans who wish to stop Trump in this assault on the American constitutional order, then, should get it out of their heads that this election could have been won if only a better candidate had made a better pitch to a few thousand people in Pennsylvania. Biden, too old and tired to mount a proper campaign, likely would have lost worse than Harris; more to the point, there was nothing even a more invigorated Biden or a less, you know, female alternative could have offered. Racial grievances, dissatisfaction with life’s travails (including substance addiction and lack of education), and resentment toward the villainous elites in faraway cities cannot be placated by housing policy or interest-rate cuts.

No candidate can reason about facts and policies with voters who have no real interest in such things. They like the promises of social revenge that flow from Trump, the tough-guy rhetoric, the simplistic “I will fix it” solutions. And he’s interesting to them, because he supports and encourages their conspiracist beliefs. (I knew Harris was in trouble when I was in Pennsylvania last week for an event and a fairly well-off business owner, who was an ardent Trump supporter, told me that Michelle Obama had conspired with the Canadians to change the state’s vote tally in 2020. And that wasn’t even the weirdest part of the conversation.)

As Jonathan Last, editor of The Bulwark, put it in a social-media post last night: The election went the way it did “because America wanted Trump. That’s it. People reaching to construct [policy] alibis for the public because they don’t want to grapple with this are whistling past the graveyard.” Last worries that we might now be in a transition to authoritarianism of the kind Russia went through in the 1990s, but I visited Russia often in those days, and much of the Russian democratic implosion was driven by genuinely brutal economic conditions and the rapid collapse of basic public services. Americans have done this to themselves during a time of peace, prosperity, and astonishingly high living standards. An affluent society that thinks it is living in a hellscape is ripe for gulling by dictators who are willing to play along with such delusions.

The bright spot in all this is that Trump and his coterie must now govern. The last time around, Trump was surrounded by a small group of moderately competent people, and these adults basically put baby bumpers and pool noodles on all the sharp edges of government. This time, Trump will rule with greater power but fewer excuses, and he—and his voters—will have to own the messes and outrages he is already planning to create.

Those voters expect that Trump will hurt others and not them. They will likely be unpleasantly surprised, much as they were in Trump’s first term. (He was, after all, voted out of office for a reason.) For the moment, some number of them have memory-holed that experience and are pretending that his vicious attacks on other Americans are just so much hot air.

Trump, unfortunately, means most of what he says. In this election, he has triggered the unfocused ire and unfounded grievances of millions of voters. Soon we will learn whether he can still trigger their decency—if there is any to be found.

[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.

[jessicamessicavillageofspillage]

Apparently transpeople will also die from the inaccurate recording of Sex within statistics

The collection of data on a person’s sex – that is, whether they are male or female – has become controversial in recent years, and a number of public bodies have moved away from collecting data on sex as a result. For example, Scotland’s chief statistician recently issued guidance stating that data on sex should only be collected in exceptional circumstances. This move has been greeted with alarm by quantitative social scientists who believe that data on sex is vitally important and that data on both gender identity and sex is needed.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) was also embroiled in controversy when it proposed to guide respondents to the 2021 England and Wales census that they may answer the sex question in terms of their subjective gender identity, rather than their sex. This was despite the fact that the 2021 census also included a new separate question on gender identity. The ONS was forced to change its proposed guidance on the sex question by a judicial review and went on to advise that people should answer the first question to reflect their legal sex. The Scottish census authorities have been criticised for disregarding the implications of that judgment.

Statistics on employment, health, crime and education have all been affected by this trend.

The Government Equalities Office has issued guidance to employers who are legally bound to report on their gender pay gap to provide data on their employees’ gender identity, not their sex, and to exclude employees who “do not identify as ‘men’ or ‘women’” from the data. This makes it impossible to assess whether natal males who identify as trans or non-binary may have different labour-market experiences from natal females who identify as trans or non-binary. Yet non-binary or transgender identification may not protect females from discrimination, for example, on the basis of pregnancy or maternity or the perceived risk of becoming pregnant.

The NHS decides who to call for routine medical screenings based on the gender marker a person has recorded with their GP rather than their sex as recorded as birth. The NHS’s failure to record biological sex on patient records has led to trans patients not being called in for screening for conditions that may affect them due to their sex, such as ovarian cancer or prostate cancer. If trans patients are not screened for such conditions, the consequences are potentially fatal. The use of gender identity rather than sex has also led to confusion for some trans patients attempting to use sexual health services.

Freedom of information requests have revealed that multiple police forces in England now record crimes by male suspects as committed by women if the perpetrator requests to be recorded as such. Even small numbers of cases misclassified in this way can lead to substantial bias in crime statistics.

Differences between the sexes are an important factor for analysis in most, if not all, of the areas that social and health scientists address. Sex, alongside age, is a fundamental demographic variable, vital for projections regarding fertility and life expectancy. Sex has systematic effects on physical health and is also linked to mental health. And the importance of sex extends to all aspects of social life, including employment, education and crime.

We know that many differences between the sexes have changed dramatically over time – education and labour market participation are two examples. Without consistent data on sex, social scientists would not be able to track this change over time or to understand whether efforts to improve the representation of women and girls in domains where they are underrepresented have been effective.

We have been losing data on sex, as public sector bodies have switched to collecting data on gender identity instead. But the tide may have turned. The UK Statistics Authority has recently published guidance that recommends that “sex, age and ethnic group should be routinely collected and reported in all administrative data and in-service process data, including statistics collected within health and care settings and by police, courts and prisons”. It also says data producers should clearly distinguish between concepts such as sex, gender and gender identity.

Both people’s material circumstances and their identities are important to their lives. We know that sex matters, and we have much to learn about the ways in which gender identity matters, too. Rather than removing data on sex, we should collect data on both sex and gender identity, in order to develop a better understanding of the influence of both of these factors and the intersection between them.

Original article in The Conversation

Professor Alice Sullivan’s academic profile

UCL Social Research Institute

[girlactionfigure]

An Excess of Democracy

The State of Israel is more endangered today than at any time since 1948, including 1973. She is tied down in Gaza while her enemies wait their turn in Lebanon, Syria, the PA, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran – which may already have nuclear weapons. An unprecedented campaign of antisemitic incitement is destroying popular support for her throughout the world, and government after government is punishing her by recognizing the “State of Palestine” on her territory. The more genocidal her enemies, the more she is falsely accused of genocide. Her decision to position herself as a satellite of the US has borne bitter fruit, as that country’s policies are increasingly decided by elements that want to see Israel disappear; at the same time, the enemies of the US treat her as an outpost of US power that must be eliminated.

Israel’s political, intelligence, and military elites have shown themselves incompetent. They failed to foresee, prevent, or even effectively react to the invasion of 7 October. They have turned the military successes of the war into what appears to be a surrender to all of Hamas’ demands.

Over the years they have projected an image of Israel as a punching bag rather than the proud and powerful nation that she is. Despite our nuclear-armed military, they have allowed Iran to encircle us with terrorist proxies and even to establish a deterrent force in Lebanon that we fear to challenge. They have allowed Iran itself to obtain nuclear weapons.

On 13 April 2024, Iran launched an attack against Israel that included hundreds of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, the largest such attack in military history. All but a few were intercepted by Israel with some help from the US and others; the cost of this defensive operation to Israel was estimated at more than $1 billion. Had the attack succeeded, there would have been great damage to military and infrastructure targets, as well as loss of life. Israel retaliated a few days later by destroying some radar installations in Iran. The weakness of Israel’s response was a result of US pressure and the deterrent effect of Iran’s Hezbollah proxy.

At home, our leaders have allowed the PA to systematically gobble up parts of Area C in Judea/Samaria that are supposed to be under full Israeli control by international treaty. They have allowed, and then legitimized, illegal Bedouin settlement in the Negev. They have allowed the flourishing of Arab crime syndicates in the Negev and Galilee, and in the Arab towns and mixed Arab-Jewish cities.

Tens of thousands of Israeli citizens have fled from their homes: in the south from fear of resurgent Hamas terrorism, and in the north from daily bombardment by Hezbollah with rockets and anti-tank weapons, which have laid waste to cities and towns in the area. As I write this, large fires started by Hezbollah rockets are burning in northern cities.

Our governments are ineffectual, paralyzed by arguments over issues like the judicial reform and the Haredi draft, beset by powerful lobbies and popular groups that are manipulated by political actors. The two largest minority populations, Israeli Arabs and Haredim, maintain autonomous “states” within our state, where the laws and informal understandings that govern the rest of the population don’t necessarily apply.

Many Israeli Arabs, with the notable exception of the Druze and a small number of Bedouins, do not accept the principle that Israel is a Jewish state, do not serve in the military, and in many cases avoid taxation and other responsibilities. Haredim refuse to serve in the military and maintain an educational system in which “secular” subjects like mathematics and modern Hebrew language are not taught.

Because of the war, reserve soldiers are now to serve 90 days a year, which is destructive to family life, jobs, and especially independent businesses. At the same time, tens of thousands of yeshiva students have been exempted from the draft. Attempts to change this have been met by demonstrations which block major roads, and threats by Haredi politicians to bring down the government. Israeli governments have been trying to find a successful compromise to enable the sharing of the security burden for decades without success.

***

What can be done? What must be done to preserve the Jewish state, prevent another Jewish dispersion, and restore Israel’s role as the protector of the Jewish communities of the diaspora? As always, there are short-term and long-term answers. Today our most critical concern must be the war in Gaza. As long as Hamas continues to be in control of the strip, we effectively lose a large chunk of our country that will remain uninhabitable, and the IDF will be tied down and unable to respond to other threats. Even more importantly, if Israel is defeated by the terror tactics of Hamas – and make no mistake, an agreement along the lines of the one announced last week by the US president will be understood by the entire world as a crushing defeat – our enemies on all fronts will bring us more 7 Octobers.

Hamas’ victory strategy depends on two major Israeli weaknesses: the public concern for the hostages (and the manipulation of that concern by political actors that oppose the government), and Israel’s susceptibility to American pressure.

The cruelty of Hamas and the situation of the hostages is tearing at the hearts of all Israelis. But barring a miracle, there is no solution that will bring them home at a price the nation can afford. We must say to their families: we cannot trade the Jewish state for your people. We must do everything that we can to save them, but we cannot surrender to our murderous enemy in order to do so. It’s delusional to think that we can accept a 6-week ceasefire (not to mention the other concessions demanded), given the pressure from America and the other fronts of the war, and then return to finish off Hamas. It will not happen.

The US administration has done and is continuing to do everything it can short of military intervention on the side of Hamas to prevent Israel from achieving a decisive victory. Israeli leaders must understand that we cannot win if we obey the directives from Washington. They must tell the Americans whatever they need to hear, but order the IDF to finish the job, to remove Hamas from power and destroy its military capability.

***

It is painful to write this, but I fear that our present government may be incapable of taking the actions required for the state to survive. Worse, the political structure of our state may be ill-adapted to survival in today’s Middle East.

I would sum up the problem by saying that Israel suffers from an excess of democracy. There are many things that are wonderful about a truly democratic state: in theory, it can behave justly toward individuals with diverse interests and needs. It is a way to align the policies of a country with the “general will” of the populace, in the words of Rousseau. Unfortunately there are some specific situations where democracy is sub-optimal.

One of them is a state of war. In wartime, decisions must be made that will favor victory but which will cause popular suffering, or suffering of influential groups. Such decisions often cannot be made democratically.1 An example is the question of whether Israel should accept a deal that will free some hostages, but also release many imprisoned terrorists and place restrictions on her conduct of the war.

Another problematic case is that of large permanent minorities who utilize democratic institutions like elections to pursue “identity politics” rather than issue-oriented ones. In Israel, in addition to the ethnic and religious divisions, we find entrenched ideological and personality-oriented subgroups. In 2019-21 they combined with our complicated electoral system to produce four parliamentary elections in a period of two years. The tension between the elected Knesset and the independent bureaucracy, which represents Israel’s former ruling elite, guarantees gridlock on important issues. In addition, the almost decade-long attempt to take down PM Netanyahu utilizing the judicial system, and supported by most of the media and the academic establishment, has been a distraction and strain on both sides.

Israel is both almost permanently at war, and blessed with large ethnic/religious minorities. Thus her aspiration to be a democratic state works against the possibility that she will have an effective government. And the challenges to being a tiny Jewish state in the Middle East absolutely require leadership that functions optimally.

Given the power relationships in our political society, it is unlikely that there is a smooth path – for example, a constitutional convention – to a new form of government. But the responsibility of the state to her citizens, and to the Jewish people as a whole, demands that she make this transition in any case, regardless of the disruption of normal life that it is likely to entail. ______________________________________

1But didn’t the democracies defeat the Nazis in WWII? Actually, both Roosevelt and Churchill acted as virtual dictators. And Stalin…

[brightlotusmoon]

Annapolis, MD (June 17, 2024) - Today, as people across the country continue to suffer consequences of cannabis criminalization even in states where it is now legal, we celebrate a historic step toward ending this hypocrisy in Maryland. Alongside justice advocacy organizations, including Last Prisoner Project (LPP), Governor Wes Moore (D-Maryland) has signed an executive order granting the largest state cannabis pardon to date.

LPP applauds Gov. Moore and his administration’s actions to rectify racial disparities caused by cannabis prohibition, including this historic pardon that goes further than any previous cannabis clemency grant by including cannabis paraphernalia charges, in addition to possession charges. Together, more than 175,000 convictions will be pardoned.

Symbolically, Governor Moore has granted these pardons using LPP’s “Pen to Right History” – a pen that loved ones of people impacted by cannabis incarceration around the country have used to write letters to elected officials asking for justice. By using the pen, Gov. Moore joins LPP and all of their constituents in challenging other governors and leaders across the country to take up this “Pen to Right History” in their own states.

This action follows President Biden's continued call on governors to grant cannabis clemency after he pardoned an estimated 13,000 people for simple possession. LPP has amplified this call through our Pardons to Progress campaign that has sent tens of thousands of letters to governors across the United States. Having answered the call today, Governor Moore brings Maryland forward as a champion of cannabis justice, as evident in our State of Cannabis Justice Report.

Today marks another step toward reparative justice and to undoing the harms of the War on Drugs. These pardons will provide much needed relief for individuals looking for housing, employment, and educational opportunities. They will also help end the racial disparities caused by years of over enforcement as Black people have been arrested at twice the rate of their white counterparts in Maryland.

Sarah Gersten, Executive Director of Last Prisoner Project said, “It has been nearly a year since Maryland passed full cannabis legalization, and at the same time that some are poised to profit off of this burgeoning industry, millions more remain burdened by the collateral consequences of a cannabis conviction. LPP is proud to be part of today’s historic announcement which is a crucial step in beginning to right the wrongs of our failed approach to cannabis policy.”

We look forward to continuing to work with the governor's office, legislature, and judicial and state agencies to ensure all records are fully expunged and no remains in prison for cannabis in Maryland. There is also more to be done at the federal level for the over 3,000 individuals, including Marylanders like Jonathan Wall, who are still serving time for victimless cannabis offenses.

[beardedmrbean]

A father of two young children hopes a lawsuit will lead to more transparency and improve student outcomes in Baltimore's embattled public school system.

"I'm all for funding schools," Jovani Patterson, told Fox News. "However, you don't just keep giving money without investigation on where the money has gone, especially with the amount of corruption and misuse of funds that have taken place for years in Baltimore City."

Patterson and his wife allege the school system misused taxpayer funds, reported ghost students — children not actually enrolled — in order to gain more funding, falsified pupils' records to push failing students through to graduation and more. Their suit names Baltimore City School Board of Commissioners, city council and Mayor Brandon Scott as defendants.

"It's all about power and control," Patterson said of the school system. "There's a lot of money in education."

That's $1.62 billion a year in Baltimore City Public Schools, to be exact. Baltimore has the fourth-highest funded large school system in the nation, behind only New York, Boston and Washington, D.C. Charm City's school budget increased 16% this school year, according to the city.

All that money — approximately $21,600 per student — isn't adding up to better outcomes. Baltimore had the lowest graduation rate across Maryland during the last school year. At one high school, 77% of students read at an elementary or kindergarten level.

And in February, FOX45's Project Baltimore broke the news that 23 schools had zero students score proficient on a state math exam. The state then removed the data and re-uploaded a heavily-redacted version.

"I think that they're trying to hide that the public school system is in worse shape than we thought," a whistleblower who previously worked in the Maryland State Department of Education told Project Baltimore.

Patterson agreed, telling Fox News "there's clearly a cover-up going on here."

"There's clearly things that we see that they don't want the people of the public to know when it comes to educating our kids," he said.

The question is simple for Patterson: Should Baltimore City students receive a good education?

"If you believe the answer to that is yes, then you should be joined in with this lawsuit as well," he said.

Baltimore's education woes are uniting people across the political spectrum. Patterson made an unsuccessful bid for city council president as a Republican in 2020. But prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump has joined his lawsuit.

"If you don’t get a quality education, often times you find yourself a victim of the school-to-prison pipeline," Crump told FOX45. "Hopefully, with this lawsuit, we can get it right and that way it can help make – not just Baltimore better – but it can help make cities across America better."

A spokesperson for Baltimore City Public Schools called the Pattersons’ lawsuit "meritless because it fails to identify a current controversy justifying judicial intervention" in an email to Fox News.

"Even if the plaintiffs’ lawsuit identified current concerns with City School policies or procedures, there is a robust local, state, and federal infrastructure to handle these types of issues," the spokesperson continued, adding that "City Schools stands ready to demonstrate our steadfast commitment to providing a quality education to all students."

The legal process could drag on for years, according to Patterson's attorney. A judge allowed the case to move into the discovery and deposition phase late last year after denying the city and school system's request to dismiss the suit.

But Patterson said he's in it for the long haul.

"Someone has to stay and fight," he said. "I met my wife here, [had] both of my kids here, I was born here, bought my first house here. I planted my flag. So I'm going to fight as long and as hard as I can."

To see the full interview with Patterson, click here.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Thanks for US schooling explanation. 

In UK, we do have P.E, but it’s not as detailed or developed like you describe in the US. 

P.E is so rudimentary that no one takes it seriously, and it focuses on very basic aerobics style exercise…all depends on programme P.E teacher devises. It differs from school to school. 

In private school, you might have P.E as an option, but more often than not, the school insists that each pupil takes up a sport or two. The people who are good enough to join house/ school sports teams are exceptional, but everyone in the student body will have a sports in their educational arsenal. 

Keeping this conversation with Kate, look at the sports page of Marlborough school. 

https://www.marlboroughcollege.org/co-curricular/sport/

Quote from website:

Sport is part of daily life at Marlborough. We strive for every pupil to participate actively and to have a truly positive experience, developing a lifelong interest in and lasting enjoyment of sporting activity that will foster good habits long into adulthood.

Our talented and dedicated coaching teams strive to create the best possible environment for pupils to learn with a judicious mixture of challenge and open communication. There are many opportunities for pupils to represent the College in teams across a wide range of over 20 competitive sports, as well as participating in frequent high-energy house competitions, utilising our outstanding College facilities.

List of sports on offer:

https://www.marlboroughcollege.org/co-curricular/sport/all-sports/

Athletics, Basketball, Cricket, CrossCountry,  Equestrian, Fencing, Fives, Football, Golf, Hockey, Lacrosse, Netball, Polo, Rackets, Rugby, Shooting, Squash, Swimming, Tennis, Water Polo. 

It’s impossible to be a coach potato in a school where you are required to take up at least one from the above list of sports. 

Other schools eg Bryanston and Milfields whose raison d'etre is sports rather than academics will have a longer list of sports for their student body to choose from. 

***********

This is very interesting, anon -- thanks for following up and sharing! But now I wonder if it’s a chicken or the egg kind of a situation. Is Kate sporty because of Marlborough’s focus on athletic enrichment? Or was Marlborough a much better fit for Kate because she was sporty to begin with?

And, ah, aerobics...any time we had a sub in middle school PE (grades 6-8/ages 11-13), they’d throw us in the gym with a Billy Banks Tae Bo video projected on the wall.

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. 

[p0ison-moon]

I have what’s going to be a really unpopular take but please just hear me out. Lately a lot of fellow Jewish bloggers on this website have (rightfully!!) been getting annoyed by random people going into their inboxes and asking if they’re Zionist, how they feel about Israel, etc. And I totally empathize with that because I’m an anti-Zionist Jew so I spend a lot of time correcting people’s assumptions that I must support Israel because I’m Jewish. Furthermore, I want Zionism to stop being seen as a central, undeniable part of being Jewish because that makes Jews like me feel pretty unwelcome. And I am aware that those asks often accuse us of dual loyalty, an antisemitic stereotype. So I’m not saying bloggers should have to answer those asks, or that they can’t get mad about them.

However, I think bloggers are wrong when they say that they can’t affect or change what happens in Israel because they’re American Jews (or otherwise diasporic, but it is almost always Americans who say this), not Israeli Jews.

Look. It’s one thing if you just don’t want to get involved (although I am totally judging you). But I can name a billion different ways American Jews have changed things in Israel, and stuff we can do right now! For example:

- protesting our tax dollars paying for weapons and bombs Israel uses to kill Palestinians, by pressuring our elected representatives, senators, and president into taking a stand against Israel

- supporting the Not on Our Dime Act, which is aiming to prohibit tax-deductible donations from being used to fund illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank

- working to change Jewish studies curriculum and summer camp + youth group programming to provide kids and students with more options than just Zionism, and a more complete + less biased education about Israel

- no tech for apartheid: Jewish Google workers protesting against Project Nimbus, which helps the Israeli government with surveillance of Palestinians

- using our position to educate people and make our opinions heard, so we don’t let Jewish Zionist organizations speak for us all and influence what gentiles think about Israel and current-day antisemitism

- I have my own opinions about the recent protests over Netanyahu’s judicial reform, but lots of American Jews supported them and they were definitely effective

- and that’s just a few of the many ways I’ve seen American Jews work towards creating real change in Israel. are we the only ones who can do this? no. but gentiles can’t shape the future of the American Jewish community, which altogether has quite a lot of influence in Israel. only we can do those things.

Saying that as American Jews our voices and actions don’t matter when it comes to Israel is actually such a weak, lame-ass excuse for refusing to take a stance for or against Israel. This isn’t something we get to be neutral about; silence equals support for Zionism.

That being said, I can’t control what individual people do. If you seriously want to refuse to support Palestine, fine. Whatever. Just please stop using “American Jews can’t help anyways!” as your excuse when that’s such a blatantly false claim.

[mariacallous]

During the 1990s, Mexico’s government, opposition parties, and civil society changed the country’s political system. The one-party state that had prevailed for more than 70 years was no longer enough to accommodate the demands of an increasingly complex society, and a larger, more educated middle class started demanding political pluralism.

The then-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) made legal reforms to allow Mexico’s political system to open and democratize, permitting more political representation in local governments and Congress. It also created autonomous institutions such as the Federal Electoral Institute to transfer political decision-making powers to agencies that followed technical guidelines. In 2000, an opposition presidential candidate won Mexico’s presidency for the first time since the Mexican Revolution.

This brief period of liberal, constitutional democracy was halted in 2018 by Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s presidential election victory. It was fully overthrown in June’s general election, when a coalition led by López Obrador’s Morena party gained the presidency for the second time, in addition to earning majorities in Mexico’s legislature. Morena swiftly proceeded to disfigure Mexico’s judiciary, and in the coming weeks, the remaining autonomous government agencies—including the Federal Economic Competition Commission, Federal Telecommunications Institute, and the national transparency institute—are likely to become compliant and subservient branches of the party as well.

From the start of his administration, López Obrador has pursued an agenda of institutional destruction. He has couched his de-institutional intentions in claims about the shortcomings of neoliberalism, both real and made up, claiming that he is simply remedying Mexico’s broken political system. Contrary to popular belief, however, López Obrador has not centralized power in the presidency—an institutional podium—but in himself and his chosen successors, including the incoming president, and his son, who is now seeking the Morena party leadership.

In June, López Obrador’s protégé, Claudia Sheinbaum, won the presidency by a landslide, securing more than 60 percent of votes. She will take office on Oct. 1, when López Obrador—who was term-limited from seeking reelection—will formally step down. But the new Congress, where the Morena-led alliance earned a majority, was inaugurated on Sept. 1, leaving him one final month to advance his legislative agenda before Sheinbaum takes over.

The election made it clear that many Mexicans are comfortable with a political system that concentrates power on one person at the expense of pluralism and dialogue. A 2023 study by the Pew Research Center found that 50 percent of Mexicans support being ruled by a “strong leader without judicial or legislative checks.” Yet as president, Sheinbaum won’t continue advancing the institutional collapse initiated by her political mentor. Instead, she will inherit a consummation.

The institutional demolition that began with López Obrador’s inauguration in 2018 has come to its natural outcome. The 18 constitutional reforms he proposed are not separate agenda items, but one single project with one single objective: to subvert Mexico’s political system.

In practice, there is no individual judicial, electoral, or autonomous agency reform; there is only a broader, more ambitious blow to the few remaining free spheres of political autonomy and professionalism that could not be subjugated during López Obrador’s administration. The federal judiciary and remaining autonomous agencies were the last bulwarks standing in the way of López Obrador’s radical project of de-institutionalization. The outgoing president has been successful in eradicating the basic checks and balances of the Mexican republic.

Most notorious, perhaps, is López Obrador’s radical measure undoing the judiciary, which will allow for 7,000 judges to be directly elected by popular vote in a process where all candidacies will be influenced by Morena. The creation of a discipline tribunal—with broad faculties to sanction and remove judges who deviate from a partisan interpretation of the law—is another mechanism for political control.

Although the proposal was approved by the Senate on Sept. 11, it was not a democratically made decision. The majorities in Congress needed to amend the constitution were obtained through a fraudulent interpretation of the law determining the formulas for proportional representation. Captured electoral authorities violated a constitutional provision that prohibits overrepresentation above 8 percent, giving Morena’s coalition 75 percent of the seats in Congress when it only obtained 54 percent of the vote in June’s election.

The destruction of Mexico’s judiciary is particularly concerning because of the country’s high impunity levels. Only 94 percent of crimes in Mexico are reported, and less than 1 percent are punished, according to Impunidad Cero, a think tank. Courts are the only civilized alternative to the more violent practices of self-defense that already corrode much of the country. Not having a professional and independent judiciary will anchor violence as the only resort for managing social conflicts.

It is a mistake to compare this new political regime to Mexico’s former one-party state. Although the PRI controlled the outcome of the elections during most of the 20th century and curtailed political freedoms, it was a disciplined party that built dozens of institutions and professionalized civil bureaucracies, the exact opposite agenda of Morena’s objectives.

Mexico will still function without checks and balances; an unpleasant percentage of the world’s governments are undemocratic and yet somehow functional. But on the foreign-policy front, López Obrador’s new political system will impact how international actors engage with the country.

The frantic process of de-institutionalization means that the rules of dialogue and negotiation with Mexico will be more brittle and unpredictable. Businesses, investment, and foreign agreements will become more tenuous in a political system that is more personalized, corrupt, and opaque. In short: The rule of law will not be the rule in Mexico.

Take U.S.-Mexico relations. During Mexico’s liberal democratic period, the country attempted to navigate its intricate bilateral relationship with the United States by creating rules and institutions such as bilateral agreements, independent tribunals, and professional bureaucracies. The compartmentalization of topics in the bilateral relationship was an intelligent scheme for Mexico, the weaker partner of the two. But this political design presupposed the existence of institutions on both sides of the border.

Now, the United States will have to deal with a new phenomenon—a fragile and unprofessional neighbor that will likely try to hide its weakness and authoritarianism through sporadic gifts. These might be offered as occasional tributes—the detention of drug kingpins or tighter border controls—but they will never be more than momentary palliatives to hide the new chaos and rampant ungovernability of a country with weak and politicized institutions.

The relevant takeaway for Mexico’s partners around the world is that the Mexican government is in tatters. Sheinbaum has already deployed decoys to calm international markets and partners who are worried about Mexico’s institutional collapse. Some cabinet appointments have been presented as pragmatic and technical picks, such as Marcelo Ebrard as incoming economy minister. Yet it is a mistake to confuse these initial niceties with lasting cooperation and goodwill.

Most analysts are currently asking the wrong question: Can Sheinbaum be independent of López Obrador? The problem lies not in the answer but in what the question implies: an underlying weakness across Mexico’s whole political system, including a personalization of politics where personalities become more important than institutions.

Eventually, Morena will be a victim of its own success. The paradox of centralizing power is that it implies destroying the institutions that create order and governability. Sheinbaum, for her part, will soon find out she doesn’t have the leverage to carry out many of her policy plans. There is a fundamental contradiction at the core of Mexico’s new political regime: To carry out its policy proposals in the future, Morena will require institutions. Yet the party has destroyed those.

Mexico will soon be an example of how the concentration of power in a president or small political group can be accompanied by enormous weakness. Anarchy, improvisation, and incompetence will more than likely define the coming years.

Democracy is not the normal and natural state of politics—it’s an exception in history. Mexico has squandered its chance to build a democracy. Institutional power cannot be transferred to a person; if institutions are weakened or destroyed, that power disappears, clearing the way for a leader to act on their impulses. Under López Obrador and Sheinbaum, Mexico has become a very different country, and the consequences will soon have a regional impact. Everyone interested in democracy and the rule of law should be raising the alarm.

[reasoningdaily]

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

Seldom does a book have the impact of Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow. Since it was first published in 2010, it has been cited in judicial decisions and has been adopted in campus-wide and community-wide reads; it helped inspire the creation of the Marshall Project and the new $100 million Art for Justice Fund; it has been the winner of numerous prizes, including the prestigious NAACP Image Award; and it has spent nearly 250 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list.

Most important of all, it has spawned a whole generation of criminal justice reform activists and organizations motivated by Michelle Alexander’s unforgettable argument that “we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.” As the Birmingham Newsproclaimed, it is “undoubtedly the most important book published in this century about the U.S.”

Now, ten years after it was first published, The New Press is proud to issue a tenth-anniversary edition with a new preface by Michelle Alexander that discusses the impact the book has had and the state of the criminal justice reform movement today.

Named one of the most important nonfiction books of the 21st century by Entertainment Weekly‚Slate‚Chronicle of Higher Education‚ Literary Hub, Book Riot‚ and Zora

A tenth-anniversary edition of the iconic bestseller—“one of the most influential books of the past 20 years,” according to the Chronicle of Higher Education—with a new preface by the author

“It is in no small part thanks to Alexander’s account that civil rights organizations such as Black Lives Matter have focused so much of their energy on the criminal justice system.” —Adam Shatz, London Review of Books

[crowofjudgements-blog]

Heyy!

I saw your posts about your spidersona (?) Bonnie, and I wanted to ask if you have random fun facts about them (things like they usually dress their cat in cute clothing)!

I found you character really interesting, so I'd like to know more about them :)

Hi!! Thank you so much for your ask. I'm literally fiending for any reason to talk about this crazy cat lady

Bonnie grew up in and out of the foster care system up until her father went to prison when she was 14.

She took on her mother's last name because their father refused to sign the birth certificate of a daughter.

She raised her two younger twin siblings from the time she was 14

They had the entirety of her undergraduate degree (philosophy, housing, and Juris Doctor in New York paid for in scholarships and bursaries (she's a damn smart cookie).

During their post-secondary education, Bonnie worked as a cam girl to help support her siblings back home and would frequently make trips back to New Orleans to make sure they were taken care of.

She had a deep, irrational fear of clowns.

Bonnie's world and New York are harshly polluted and damaged to the point of no return. The age expectancy is like 50 years old because of how bad it is. There's literal acid rain every once in a while.

Bonnie lives in a tiny studio apartment with barely a pot to piss in. The contents of their apartment are as follows; an air mattress, a fold-out chair, a box television, ALL the cat necessities, and a spork. (This lady is destitute)

She takes better care of her cat than they take care of themself.

Fenêtre's full name is Fenêtre Maximilien Alexandre-Beauchamp Soileau and he is a distinguished little gentleman (street rat).

Bonnie, as it stands, is not currently working at the age of 32. They took bereavement leave after the death of her fiancé and could just... never bring herself to go back, couldn't stand their coworker's pity.

Bonnie was bitten by her spider later in life, around 31, around the time when her fiancé died and she had to terminate her pregnancy (that's right!! They were briefly pregnant)

She mainly survives on fiending and gambling.

The judicial system never gave her justice for the murder of her fiancé so, well, they had to take it into her own hands (she killed his murderers in cold blood).

Her New York thinks they're a villain.

Bonnie nearly beat the daylights out of Peter when they first met because he interrupted a poker game she was about to win big on (prick).

Fenêtre is just as sassy, if not more so, as Bonnie.

Bonnie never really celebrated holidays as a child so as an adult they go all out, but their decorations are always ass. Think of a bald Christmas tree. Literally no one tells them though, they just let her live in their delusional happiness.

She does, in fact, dress Fenêtre up in little sweaters, especially around winter cause they don't want their baby to freeze (he's a Serbian cat, a literal ball of fluff).

Bonnie has a terribly weakened immune system which only got worse after they were bitten so she's frequently sick and bed-bound.

Bonnie LOVES ferry boats, to an unhealthy degree.

Bonnie instantly became friends with Hobie Brown and those two are menaces together. They cause absolute chaos in the Spider Society and laugh about it over tea and buttered biscuits.

That's all I have for now!! Please let me know if you want any specific information or if you'd like me to dive into any part of this character. They're my passion project, I foam at the mouth for her. Thank you for your ask :) In the meantime, enjoy this image of a very happy Fenê.