#judicial oversight

[gwydionmisha]

This win was essential for saving democracy and a huge relief.

[kesarijournal]

Understanding Chevron Deference and Its Overturning by SCOTUS

What is Chevron Deference?Chevron Deference originated from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This legal doctrine mandated that courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes that the agency administers. The rationale was that agencies possess expertise in their specific fields and thus should be trusted to…

[alwaysbewoke]

the fix is in!!

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Co-sponsor The Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024!

59 so far! Help us get to 100 signers!

A group of House Democrats, led by Reps. Melanie Stansbury, Ilhan Omar and Jamie Raskin, have introduced legislation that would strengthen oversight of the Supreme Court. I’m writing in support of it.

The Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024 would authorize the creation of an office of the inspector general to investigate allegations of misconduct in the judicial branch. The inspector general would also investigate alleged violations of the Supreme Court code of ethics, issued in November; conduct and supervise audits; and recommend changes in laws or regulations governing the judiciary. The inspector general would be required to inform the attorney general when they believe there has been a violation of federal criminal law.

Congress must pass this bill. Confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, and there’s good reason for that. Several of its justices are deeply compromised and everyone can see it.

Please co-sponsor The Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024 right away, so the provisions in it can begin to restore Americans’ faith in our highest court. Thanks.

▶ Created on April 19 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PWCSGV to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[rosielindy]

This site is on my 2023 survival list, especially for exposing SCOTUS shenanigans trying to restrict our voting rights. Please check out Democracy Docket and Marc Elias on social media to stay up to date.

The Moore v Harper oral arguments were heard by SCOTUS on Dec 6. We need to engage in what happens next. Congress has the power to reign them in, which could happen if more Rs come to their senses and fight for voting rights. I’ve expressed this hope before, which is really more of an expectation now.

I know we are collectively better than this! I see trends bringing people together to solve problems that government never will, to form communities that don’t rely on the power structures we currently have in place. I’m ready to open my mind, ask questions, explore misconceptions, dispel mistruths, and become a living example of a better way.

[bitterrobin]

You know what I've realized these past several months on Tumblr and just...years of consuming content?

It's pretty rare for the fandom to acknowledge Gotham as a city. A real, living city with people in it. Like, sure we always get cutesy posts about Batman or the others from outside perspectives or fics that include interesting ocs (I love u if you do that btw).

But what I mean isn't that. What I mean is: does anyone think of Gotham and its citizens as actual people? Because I've sure seen kind of the opposite.

I see constant arguments or heavily biased (mostly misinformed) posts regarding what Bruce does and how the Batman helps the city. That his riches would get lost in corruption and no one can save the city unless there's violence. You could try and make the argument, sure. But we've seen time and time again in comics that Bruce uses his money to the benefit of the city. We've seen in comics that he employs people who are disadvantaged and gives them opportunities. People know Bruce Wayne gives jobs and treats his employees well. He donates heavily to charities, creates his own organizations, funds Leslie Thompkin's clinic, and consistently updates the safety of his own buildings. People (at least post-Crisis) would know that Bruce Wayne did everything he could to save Gotham after the Cataclysm earthquake/No Man's Land - that he went up against Congress. Of course, not everyone would like Batman. Not everyone would trust the Wayne name. They'd see a stranger who prowls nightly and may or may not rescue you. They'd see the privilege of an old rich name who gets to exert his influence over the city. If you go to him for help, you go to him with the fear, and anticipation of rejection or with the knowledge that he will be safe.

I've also seen the (imo) ridiculous notion that Crime Alley citizens would trust the Red Hood. Maybe some would now, after the reboots and actual comic book evidence that he's doing something. But I cannot fathom living in a city with such heavy crimes occurring and then trusting what is essentially a cop. People don't know the Red Hood. They don't know Jason Todd. They would only know: 1. he has tried and succeeded various times to take over organized crime and drug routes 2. he can and will kill if he sees it fit. In some people's eyes, he would be a cop with even less judicial oversight. In some families, he would be the killer of their breadwinner, of their fathers or family members or lovers. A man with a gun. Eyes without a face. If you go to him for help, you go to him for blood.

This doesn't even begin to lay out the insane amount of vigilantes who live/operate in Gotham. The Batman is not the only figure. The Red Hood is not the only figure. If you boil down Gotham to only the conflict between these two characters, you miss the nuances and varied opinions of the city by miles. If you boil down Gotham to just Batman-affiliates, you miss even more.

For every person who doesn't trust Batman, there's someone who'd prefer Huntress. For every child who lives in fear but can't trust an adult, there's Robin or Batgirl. For an abused woman, there's other women out there who help: Catwoman or Black Canary or Holly Robinson. There's people who'd never trust a vigilante but want safety, they'd have Leslie Thompkins (who operates in Crime Alley) or Lucius Fox who could give them a job.

Not to mention, Batman is very obviously white. There would be some people who would rightfully mistrust white men, and would prefer figures like Orpheus or Onyx or Batwing or the Signal or Huntress (post-N52). There's the Creeper, who would be terrifying but some might prefer the monster over the man. There's Ragman, an explicitly Jewish vigilante who was literally called the Tatterdemalion of the Oppressed and trusted by the poor and homeless. There's Batwoman, Mother Panic, Spoiler, Nightwing, Red Robin, Azrael, Bluebird, the enigmatic idea of the Oracle, Anarky, Ghostmaker, Gotham Girl/Boy, Catman, Alan Scott-Green Lantern, Wildcat.

Hell, maybe someone who lives in Gotham would just straight up trust Superman or the Flash or Wonder Woman more than anyone else. Maybe they'd never once trust someone acting for a perceived view of justice and would just trust an employer like Two-Face or the Riddler or any mobster.

I'm stressing my point here: when you write anyone who lives in Gotham City, keep in mind that they don't know they live in a comic book world. Secret identities are foreign to them, they only know the base actions of each vigilante. Each person's opinion will heavily vary. Every experience colors their view of the city and vigilantes as a whole. Just, idk, widen your horizons and consider about what someone living in a place like Gotham would really think.

To that end, read the comics!!! Research actual cities!!! Take in experiences and history!!! It's all interesting and just adds so much more.

You want one comic that shows Bruce helping Gotham and the various views of Gothamites, read Gotham Knights #32, published in 2002 and titled "24/7." Read it online illegally if you have to!!

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

☝️😡

“What was eye-catching was her explanation of why. In her ruling, Mizelle wrote she had consulted the Corpus of Historical American English, an academic search engine that returns examples of how words and phrases are used in select historical texts. Mizelle searched “sanitation,” a crucial word in the 1944 statute that authorizes the CDC to issue disease-prevention rules, and found it generally was used to describe the act of making something clean. “Wearing a mask,” she wrote, “cleans nothing.”

Searching large linguistic databases is a relatively new approach to judicial analysis called legal corpus linguistics. Although it has gained in popularity over the last decade, it is barely discussed outside of an enthusiastic group of right-wing conservative legal scholars. Which raises the question: How did this niche concept wind up driving such a consequential decision in the country’s health policy?

Now, new disclosures seen by HuffPost shed some light. Just weeks before she issued the ruling, Mizelle had discreetly attended an all-expenses-paid luxury trip from a conservative group whose primary mission is to persuade more federal judges to adopt the use of corpus linguistics. For five days, Mizelle and more than a dozen other federal judges listened to the leading proponents of corpus linguistics in the comfort of The Greenbrier, an ostentatious resort spread out over 11,000 acres of West Virginia hillside.

The newly formed group that picked up the tab, the Judicial Education Institute, received more than $1 million in startup funding from the billionaire libertarian Charles Koch’s network and DonorsTrust, a nonprofit that has funneled millions in anonymous donations to right-wing causes and has been dubbed “the dark money ATM of the conservative movement.”

Trump appointed Mizelle to the federal bench in late 2020 over objections from the American Bar Association that she had not been practicing law long enough to be qualified. A search of her other rulings found she had never previously applied corpus linguistics.

Neither Mizelle nor the Judicial Education Institute responded to requests for comment.

In response to the new disclosure, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who chairs the subcommittee on federal courts and oversight, called for more disclosure surrounding when judges attend ideological educational retreats.

“The multi-pronged billionaire-funded scheme to influence the judiciary includes flying amenable judges to luxury resorts to bathe them in the latest fantastical right-wing legal theories,” he said in a statement to HuffPost. “At the very least, the public ought to know when judges are attending lavish ‘seminars’ promoting the agenda of partisan special interests. The Judicial Conference should take a close look at tightening its rules to ensure transparency around such junkets.”

[madstronaut]

got totally blindsided by a whole fucking beautiful chapter on IRL a/b/o pack dynamics in a sociological nonfiction nyt bestseller book I was reading

EVERYONE SAY THANK YOU, ISABEL WILKERSON FOR INCLUDING THIS CHAPTER IN CASTE (great and challenging read btw, highly recommend) i am also honestly like why is there a whole chapter dedicated to this is she secretly an A/B/O fan LMAO

a few choice quotes for all my fellow a/b/o fiends out there:

"True alphas, the behaviorist told me, are fearless protectors against outside incursions, but they rarely have to assert themselves within the pack, rarely have to act with aggression, bark orders, or use physical means of control." speak softly carry big dstick vibes

"True alphas command authority through their calm oversight of those who depend upon them. They establish their rank early in life and communicate through ancient signals their inner strength and stewardship, assert their power only when necessary. An alpha generally eats first, decides when and who will eat afterward, inspires trust through firm shepherding for the safety and well-being of the pack."

"An alpha is not necessarily the biggest or fastest but usually the innately self-assured one who can chastise a pack member with a mere look or low voice. A true alpha wields quiet power judiciously apportioned."

"You know that you are not seeing a true alpha, or, put another way, you have encountered an insecure alpha, if he or she must yell, scream, bully, or attack those beneath them into submission. That individual does not have the loyalty and trust of the pack and endangers the entire group through his or her insecurities, through his or her show of fear and lack of courage."

"We owe our misperceptions about alpha behavior to studies of large groupings of wolves placed into captivity and forced to fight for dominance or to cower into submission. In nature, wolf packs are more likely to consist of extended family systems, packs of between five and fifteen wolves, led by an alpha male and an alpha female, whom the pack trust and has reason to trust for the survival of them all." ok let me interject here to briefly proclaim *clears throat* ALPHA FEMALE SUPREMACYYYY

"The main characteristic of an alpha male wolf is a quiet confidence, quiet self-assurance...you know what's best for your pack. You lead by example. You're very comfortable with that. You have a calming effect."

"At the bottom of the hierarchy is the omega, the underdog, the lowest-ranking wolf, arising from natural personality traits in relation to others in the pack. The omega generally eats last and serves as a kind of court jester who acts as an escape valve, often picked on by other wolves. He bears the brunt of the tensions they face in the wild, where they are subject to attack from predators or from rival packs and during lean times in the hunt for prey."

"The omega acts as a kind of social glue, allowing frustration to be vented without actual acts of war...the omega is so critical to the pack structure that when a pack loses its omega, it enters into a long period of mourning, where the entire pack stops hunting and just lays around looking miserable, as if there were no longer a reason to go on. The loss of an omega can threaten social cohesion and put the entire pack at risk. Depending on the composition of the pack, an omega might not be easily replaced. The new omega would mean a demotion for one of the lower to mid-level pack members. Either way, the pack is destabilized. After all, these roles are not artificially assigned based upon what an individual wolf looks like, as with certain other species, but emerge as a consequence of internal personality traits that surface naturally in the forming of a pack."

tagging my fellow a/b/o + werewolf au fans/moots/beloveds:

@obsidiangravity @the-californicationist @ghostgorlsworld @http-paprika @deadbranch

@gemmahale @frogchiro @yeyinde @ghouljams @shotmrmiller

(i bless you all with enough inspo and hcs and fic ideas to rival loads of rut/heat-induced knotti-)

anyway, HAPPY JULY FOLKS WHAT A GREAT WAY TO START THIS MONTH

[opencommunion]

"Al Mezan’s latest investigation reveals that since the onset of the genocidal military campaign against Gaza, Israeli forces have detained at least 3,000 Palestinian residents of Gaza, including women, children, elderly people, as well as professionals such as doctors, nurses, teachers and journalists. This aggressive detention campaign is unparalleled, with detainees subjected to multiple forms of cruelty, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment from the moment they are arrested and continue throughout their detention at interrogation centers. This occurs without any judicial oversight or legal protection, in blatant defiance of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

Based on its firsthand documentation and available information, Al Mezan has estimated that around 1,650 Palestinian residents of Gaza are interned in Israeli prisons under the Unlawful Combatants Law. This figure represents a substantial increase compared to previous reports. These detainees are held in total isolation from the outside world at Nafha and Negev (Ketziot) prisons. A ruling from the Israeli judiciary prohibits the release of information about them, and they are denied the right to appoint lawyers or receive legal representation.

The ‘Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law’—introduced in 2002 and lastly amended in December 2023—grants the Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli army the power to incarcerate individuals without charge based on suspicion of them being 'unlawful combatants.' This law deprives detainees of any meaningful judicial review and due process rights. ... Detainees held under this law are neither granted the status of prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention, nor afforded the protections of civilian detainees under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

An additional 300 Palestinian residents of Gaza, including 10 children, who are not currently detained under the Unlawful Combatants Law, are being held in Ashkelon and Ofer prisons pending investigation. The Palestinian Commission of Detainees Affairs reported the deaths of at least 13 Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons since 7 October 2023, while the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported the death of 27 Gaza detainees during the same period.

Over the past six months, Al Mezan has been actively monitoring and documenting arrest operations by the Israeli military in Gaza. Recently, Al Mezan lawyer managed to visit approximately 40 detainees in Ashkelon and Ofer prisons. This visit occurred after the Israeli Public Prosecution had exhausted all legal deadlines preventing lawyers from visiting detainees. The testimonies provided by these detainees to Al Mezan unveiled harrowing accounts of torture and inhumane treatment from the moment of their arrest. They were forced to strip naked, wear blindfolds, and have their wrists tied. They were also brutally beaten, deprived of sleep for several days, denied food and deliberately starved as a form of torture and collective punishment.

A 19-year-old detainee told Al Mezan lawyer that he was tortured from the moment he was arrested. He described how three of his fingernails were removed with pliers during interrogation. He also stated that investigators unleashed a dog on him and subjected him to shabeh—a form of torture which involves detainees being handcuffed and bound in stress positions for long periods—three times over three days of interrogation. He was then placed in a cell for 70 days, where he experienced starvation and extreme fatigue.

The detainee described the conditions within the detention rooms, stating that there was nothing in them but mattresses, which were brought in at 10 pm and removed after four hours. He stated that detainees were forced to shower in cold water and that food provisions were meager, with a breakfast of ten slices of bread and one small labneh container for the 12 detainees in the room. The second meal of the day consisted of three tomatoes and a plate of rice and the third meal of either one egg or one can of tuna for the entire room.

Al Mezan lawyer reported that all detainees suffer from acute emaciation, fatigue and back curvature due to being forced to bend their backs and heads while walking. They also bear marks from handcuffs on their wrists. Additionally, detainees are experiencing starvation and difficult psychological conditions, with many unable to even recall the names of people present in the room. The lawyer remarked that in his more than 20 years of working with detainees, he had never encountered conditions as appalling as those observed at Ofer prison. He noted seeing one detainee who, six months after his arrest, had become skeletal, with bruises on his face.

... Issam Younis, Director General of Al Mezan, stated, 'The evidence and testimonies gathered by our lawyer reveal a level of reprisals and torture that lacks any semblance of humanity. What Israel is doing to Palestinian detainees forms part of its genocide against the Palestinian people. It is imperative to halt this genocide and ensure accountability for those responsible for heinous genocidal acts.'"

15 April 24

[eco-lite]

My favorite moments from David Mack's Control. Most of them are Garak, even though he's barely in this book...

[Text ID: “’I'm well aware that you're all fugitives of the highest order in the Federation. Nothing new for you, Doctor, or for your inamorata"—he let contempt drip off that last word—"though I have to imagine being the target of an interstellar dragnet must be something of a new experience for your friends.’” End ID]

Okay this is hilarious. David Mack establishes that Sarina Douglas (the genetically-engineered woman Julian helps in "Statistical Probabilities." Remember her?) and Julian have been in a relationship for a while, but he's also clearly a garashir shipper who loves to make Garak suffer. Jealous!Garak my beloved.

[Text ID: “Garak shot a wary look at his bodyguards, then he moved closer to Bashir. ‘Are you asking as a Starfleet officer? As a doctor? Or as a man in need of asylum?’ ‘I'm asking as your friend.... Help us, Elim.’ It might have been nothing more than Bashir's imagination, but he thought he saw the faintest hint of jealousy in Garak's eyes when the castellan glanced at Sarina. But then Garak looked back at Bashir and smiled. ‘Very well, Julian. For an old friend... anything is possible.’” End ID]

Poor Garak. This is truly painful. Especially since Julian recognizes his jealousy and doesn't ever address it.

[Text ID: “’Executions without judicial oversight? It's an obscenity masquerading as national security.’  ‘Yes. And it's also how the Obsidian Order kept total control over the Cardassian Union for nearly a century.’ That put an end to Bashir's perambulation. ‘Wait, no. I didn't mean to say—' ‘That any part of the Federation could ever have anything in common with the Obsidian Order? Or with the Tal Shiar? Oh, how I envy your naïveté, Doctor. To believe that any nation state could ever endure without having an appendage willing to stain itself in blood—what a luxury it must be to live in the arms of such delusion.’ He expected a tirade from Bashir. A red-faced defense of the Federation's principles, its integrity, its virtue. Instead the doctor reined in his dudgeon and approached Garak's desk. He set his knuckles on the polished wood and bowed his head while he drew a calming breath. ‘I can't deny there's rot in the core of Starfleet. In the heart of the Federation. I've seen it.’ He looked up at Garak, and his eyes had the hard, unyielding focus of a man ready to go to war. ‘I came to you because I need to know how to stop it. How to end it. How to destroy it.’ ‘Well, that's simple, Doctor. What worked for Cardassia will work for the Federation. To excise this cancer from your body politic, all you need to do is kill the body, burn it down to ash, then resurrect and rebuild it with wiser eyes and a sadder heart.’ Bashir's brow creased with scorn. ‘You mock me.’ ‘Not at all, Doctor. You saw what happened to this world at the end of the Dominion War—to all the planets of the Cardassian Union. The Dominion burned us to the ground. Slew all but a fraction of our population. Left us with nothing but cinders and cenotaphs. That is what it took to free Cardassia from the grip of the Obsidian Order. Are you ready to pay that price so the people of the Federation can bask in the purity of their liberty? Is it worth the blood of billions? Is it worth seeing your worlds on fire?’ ‘You make it sound as if there's no middle ground,’ Bashir protested. ‘No choice besides surrender or slaughter.’ Garak saw no reason to blunt the truth's cutting edge. ‘Why else would such programs exist, Doctor? What is the value of intelligence if it doesn't lead to action?’ This time Bashir rose to Garak's challenge. ‘What is the value of action if it betrays all that we stand for?’ His shoulders slumped as if they bore a terrible weight. ‘Garak, I didn't come here to be lectured, or to be told I'm too idealistic. I came here for advice.’ ‘Of what sort?’ ‘The kind that will help me stop Thirty-one. Permanently.’ Maybe the doctor was foolhardy. Perhaps his mission was doomed to fail. But there was no denying the man possessed the courage of his convictions. Garak tried to remember what that had felt like in his long-ago squandered youth—and then he realized, to his shame, that he had never known the sweet sting of such passions. ‘If you want to kill Section Thirty-one,’ he said, ‘you'll need to turn their greatest strength against them—transform it into their most dire weakness. They thrive on secrecy, on anonymity, just as the Obsidian Order once did. Take that away from them. Expose them and they'll be vulnerable—and that's when you strike the killing blow.’ He set his palms on the desktop and leaned forward to emphasize his final piece of counsel. ‘But make sure you leave nothing of your enemy intact. When your work is done, don't try to turn their assets to your advantage. Destroy them all, every last one—or else the monster will simply rise again.’” End ID]

Although the concept and plot of this book is really interesting, I was generally not impressed by the characterization in this book. But Garak is an exception. I love this passage because it's a brief return to Garak and Julian's cherished philosophical debates. And it so perfectly encapsulates Garak's world-view after all he's been through. He's under no delusions of how far a society will go to "protect itself." Or how hard it can be to dismantle a broken system. He's experienced both tragedies first-hand.

[Text ID: “’The codicil concerning Doctor Bashir indicated a ninety-four percent likelihood that he would seek the aid of his former lover and Deep Space Nine crewmate, Captain Ezri Dax. Instead, he ran to Castellan Elim Garak.’" End ID]

Ha. That's telling, isn't it...

[Text ID: “’Have you considered the possibility that you've chosen the wrong side?’ The question felt to Bashir like a vote of no confidence. He hoped he had heard Garak wrong. ‘What do you mean, the wrong side?’ ‘I merely mean to ask, Julian, if you've ever stopped to entertain the notion that perhaps Section Thirty-one serves a valid purpose?’ The question itself offended Bashir. ‘Don't be absurd, Garak. Thirty-one wields deadly power with absolutely no legal accountability or oversight. It commits countless crimes against Federation citizens and foreign peoples. It steals, defrauds, counterfeits, murders. It acts in the name of the Federation while betraying every principle for which we stand. Its continued existence is an insult to our entire civilization.’ Garak struck an imperious pose. ‘Really? An insult? What if that insult to your Federation is the only reason it still exists?’ He prowled forward, crossing Bashir's imaginary boundary of personal space. ‘Every nation-state in history has relied, at one time or another, on the services of such organizations for their very survival. Why should yours be any different?’” End ID]

Devil's advocate as always. But Garak has a point. Cardassia was only able to maintain it's strictly military society--the status quo--because of the Obsidian Order. Based on his own experience, it's reasonable to think that Section Thirty-one may be the only thing holding the Federation together. No matter how much its actions go against the holier-than-thou principles the Federation claims to uphold.

[Text ID: “’Beliefs are dangerous things, Julian. Once we invest in them, it can be hard to challenge them without invoking cognitive dissonance. But in this case, I suggest you try. Because if I'm correct, going to war with Section Thirty-one can only end badly for you. Either you will lose, and you and all your friends will suffer gruesome fates I'd rather not imagine; or you will win—and in so doing, end up inflicting more harm than good upon your beloved Federation.’" End ID]

Not Garak trying to predict the ending of the book. Somehow the real ending was a mix of both. And that "beliefs are dangerous things" line... Yeah.

[Text ID: (Referring to the décor of the Federation Headquarters in Paris, which is scientifically constructed to be soothing and discourage potential violent behavior) “Like the Federation's pervasive imperialism, the lobby's social controls were subtle and hideously effective.” End ID]

Damn, you said it, not me. I do love this book's determination to deconstruct every charitable feeling the reader might have about the Federation.

[Text ID: “Alone with Bashir, Garak looked at his friend. He circled in front of him. ‘Are you still with me, my dear doctor?’ He squatted in front of the hoverchair and tried in vain to make eye contact with his friend. ‘Are you blind to the sight of me? Deaf to the music of my voice?’ Bashir's silence and his wounded stare into an empty distance disturbed Garak in ways he feared to confront. This was not the man he remembered from Deep Space 9, or the confidant with whom he had trusted his private musings in the aftermath of the Dominion War. This man was detached from the world, in it but separated from it by a barrier as unbreachable as it was intangible. This was the shattered husk of a good man, the sorry remains of one who had refused to bend to the cruelties of the world and ended up broken instead.” End ID]

I didn't realize this book leads directly into Una McCormack's Enigma Tales (excellent book, go read it!) until this point. That knowledge makes this moment hurt more, I think.

[Text ID: “There was naught left for Garak to do now but keep his friend safe, in a clean and well-lit place, and give him whatever time he needed to heal himself—or at least to die in peace, with his last measure of privacy intact and jealously guarded by someone who loved him.” End ID]

Time to curl up in a ball and stare into the middle distance for a while...

[nesiacha]

A Few Points to Correct Regarding the September Massacres of 1792

The massacres at Châtelet and Bicêtre. Anonymous engraving, Paris, BnF, department of prints and photography, 1792

Contrary to a widely held belief, it was not the poorest people of Paris who carried out the September Massacres (or not as many poor people participated as legend has it). Among the "Septembrists" were artisans, small business owners, and small property owners. In fact, contrary to Heffron’s film, which portrayed the massacres as spontaneous and instantaneous, these Septembrists gathered in improvised commissions, conducting swift judgments, and ended up killing up to 1,300 people, if I'm not mistaken. However, during the same period, approximately the same number of prisoners were spared. For instance, the Marquise de Tourzel was spared.

Do not take this fact as an absolution of those who committed these massacres. It actually makes it even more frightening, considering the expedited nature of these commissions, especially since many of the prisoners were common criminals. Even in the case of prisoners who were counter-revolutionaries, extra-judicial killings should never be condoned, and these massacres remain an indelible stain on the Revolution.

Moreover, both the Girondins and the Montagnards are responsible. The Girondins accused the Montagnards (particularly Danton, Marat, and Robespierre) of being responsible for the massacres, but the Girondins did nothing to stop them. In reality, it suited them quite well, as many of their enemies were eliminated. However, they condemned the massacres for political reasons, using them against the Montagnards.

As for the Montagnards , they did not condemn the massacres and therefore tacitly endorsed them. Later, people like Danton acknowledged that to avoid such problems, it was necessary, in his own words, to "administer terrible justice to prevent people from doing so themselves." Indeed, with the Battle of Valmy, the perception that justice was not proceeding quickly enough against those suspected of counter-revolution, and the collapse of the old regime, it became clear that strict oversight was needed to prevent such excesses.

One should remember the second revolution in Russia, which deposed the Russian monarchy. There were quick lynchings, including in Kronstadt, to the point that Kerensky (if I'm not mistaken, or at least the Russian provisional government) had to promise exemplary judicial punishments. So, ultimately, this is not surprising.

Now, regarding the suspects of counter-revolution in France, the case I have in mind is that of the Princess de Lamballe. On the excellent website "Les Amis de Robespierre," Stefania di Pasquale explains that Marie Antoinette's friend was a counter-revolutionary spy, which I can believe given her frequent travels to England. But Madame di Pasquale believes that she was assassinated because of her role as a spy and because she "had numerous contacts with foreign spies and members of the Legislative Assembly and the government" and may have known too much about the Girondin government in power. Here is the link: https://www.amis-robespierre.org/La-Princesse-de-Lamballe-grande.

Sources: Antoine Resche Stefania di Pasquale

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Noah Berlatsky at Public Notice:

The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday held a lengthy oversight hearing to badger Attorney General Merrick Garland and push the GOP’s false narrative about President Biden weaponizing the DOJ against Donald Trump. Even though the hearing was conducted in obvious bad faith, it was in some ways successful, at least in the limited sense that Republicans grabbed a lot of headlines and forced Garland to spend a day on the defensive. Virtually every major news outlet it extensive coverage, ranging from the New York Times to MSNBC to Newsmax.

The hearing meant that for at least a day, everyone talked about whether the DOJ is treating Trump unfairly, rather than about, say, whether Trump should step aside from the GOP presidential nomination given his felony convictions, or whether Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito should recuse himself after an insurrectionist flag was flown over his house. Congressional oversight hearings give Congress a chance to focus the national conversation on what members want to talk about. It gives them a chance to pressure executive branch officials to adopt congressional priorities, or to explain and potentially embarrass themselves. In contrast, Democrats in the Senate have been bizarrely reluctant to use hearings to advance their agenda. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has refused to hold hearings to investigate egregious evidence of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas receiving gifts from far right billionaires, or to demand answers from Alito about his apparent embrace of the insurrection. Instead, he’s posting weak statements on social media meekly calling for right-wing members of the Court to do a better job policing themselves. [...]

Senate Democrats need to get a clue

Democrats have of course decried the House hearings on Garland as nakedly partisan nonsense. Garland himself pushed back forcefully against (baseless) Republican claims that the Justice Department had somehow been behind the successful New York state prosecution of Trump on charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments. Garland described the claim the Justice Department was involved as a “conspiracy theory” and an “attack on the judicial process itself.”  Forceful rejection of Republican lies is a good thing. But there are limits to playing defense. And Democrats have good reason to launch their own judicial investigations not of the Biden Justice Department, but of the Supreme Court. This year, after an extensive investigation, ProPublica determined that Clarence Thomas has for 20 years received lavish gifts, including vacations and loans, from billionaire Republican donors like Harlan Crow. More recently, the New York Times reported that in the days after the January 6 insurrection, an upside-down flag — a symbol of support for Trump’s coup attempt — was raised over the home of Justice Samuel Alito.

Thomas and Alito have shown clear evidence of corruption and/or bias. The Senate Judiciary Committee is supposed to provide oversight for the judiciary and monitor ethical standards and practices. This seems like a great opportunity to hold hearings on the far right Court and demand accountability. Or so you’d think. Durbin has been weirdly but consistently timid. He has not called Thomas to appear before the Judiciary Committee, claiming that Thomas would just refuse to show up. In the case of Alito, Durbin has called on him to recuse himself from cases involving Trump and the 2020 election — including the Court’s current case on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution from his role in January 6. But Alito has refused to recuse, and Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to meet with Durbin and his committee to discuss the matter. The Court has also failed to adopt even the minimal toothless, unenforceable ethics standards that Durbin has been haplessly pushing for years. So, if Alito and Roberts say they won’t cooperate, is that that?

Of course not. Congress has a lot of power. Durbin could subpoena Alito and Thomas and threaten to hold them in contempt if they don’t appear at hearings, just as the House has threatened to hold Garland in contempt. The spectacle of Supreme Court justices lawlessly rejecting subpoenas to even talk to Congress would in itself be a huge story. It would generate media headlines and bringing pressure to bear on Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from cases involving Trump. The Senate Judiciary Committee could also subpoena others involved in undermining the integrity of the court. The committee has actually approved subpoenas for Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo, key figures in the Thomas bribery scandal. But Durbin has refused to issue those subpoenas, for unclear reasons. Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee could hold hearings on the insurrectionist flags flying outside Alito’s home (yes, there was more than one). Alito claims his wife was responsible for the flags, and he himself had nothing to do with them. The committee could call Alito’s wife, Martha Ann, and ask her to explain why she flew the flag and explain the justice’s involvement. [...]

Why won’t Durbin act?

The advantages of using the power of the Senate, including hearings and subpoenas, is pretty clear. Alito and Thomas have shown themselves to be corrupt, biased, and arrogant. Despite massive conflicts of interest, they refuse to recuse themselves, much less resign. That undermines the integrity of the Court, undermines the rule of law, and threatens the Constitution and democracy itself. If there was ever a case for oversight, this is it. And oversight can be effective. Focusing the media on a huge scandal can lead to more reporting, more revelations, more public pressure, and political gain. The threat of subpoenas, and the exposure of hearings, can force justices to look for ways to defuse criticism — and recusing from cases where they are compromised is a pretty obvious step. Durbin’s sad tactic of just begging the justices to do better has not worked. Why won’t he use the tools he has? It’s unclear; his explanations (like arguing Thomas wouldn’t show up anyway) don’t make a lot of sense. Maybe he’s conflict averse. Maybe he’s leery of undermining the legitimacy of the court. Maybe he’s afraid of GOP backlash.

This Noah Berlatsky column in Public Notice is 100% spot-on: Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin needs to stop acting like a potted plant and start conducting hearings into SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito’s compromised ethics. It is time for the Democrats to play on offense instead of being perpetually on defense.

[mariacallous]

British exceptionalism means that we do not like to think of our politicians as extremists. Official paranoia, state-sponsored lying, half-mad ideas that play to bigoted prejudices: these evils do not afflict dear, sweet, safe old Blighty.

You need only glance at the press or watch the BBC to know that policies and politicians we would have no problem identifying as radical right if they appeared in Europe or the Trumpian corners of the United States, are treated as mainstream here in the UK.

To be fair, Rishi Sunak is not a typical strongman leader. He is small (5ft 5in) and without physical presence, oratorical skill, or a definable sense of purpose.

Sunak’s manner varies from  wide-eyed chirpiness when discussing his strangely marginal political passions – banning smoking, recruiting more maths teachers – to petulance when confronted with difficulties: “He comes across as snippy, and comes across as thin-skinned — which he is, when people challenge him,” said one former minister.

Labour politicians believe he will fall apart under the scrutiny of a general election campaign.

And yet this mediocre member of the superrich (our modern Malvolio married rather than earned his wealth) who received the best education the Western world can offer at Winchester college and Oxford and Stanford universities, is by any reasonable definition an extremist.

Sunak’s only saving grace is that he is as useless at extremism as he is at everything else and thus there is a limit to how much damage he can cause.

Within the past few hours Sunak passed into law the power to send asylum seekers to the quasi-dictatorship of Rwanda. The deportees will include genuine refugees, the victims of human trafficking, and Afghans who risked their lives serving the British armed forces in the war against the Taliban.

I have no doubt that radical right politicians across Europe would like to possess the same powers. But as things stand only Rishi Sunak has them and is able to set them to the Orwellian task of remoulding reality.

The UK Supreme Court ruled that the government could not deport people to Rwanda because it is not a safe country. It’s a quasi-dictatorship under Paul Kagame, a genuine and genuinely frightening strongman, who is engaged in covert warfare against neighbouring states. There’s no real judicial independence and the Rwandan government breached the terms of a previous asylum deal it had entered into with Israel.

The UK government has got round these objections by announcing that reality is now what Rishi Sunak says it is.

Sunak’s legislation declares that Rwanda is a safe country, even though it isn’t. From now on, an asylum seeker trying to stop the UK deporting him cannot use the actual existing repressions on the ground in Rwanda to challenge the government in UK courts.

Sunak says Rwanda is safe so it must be so. Maybe Sunak will move on to declare that black is white and 2+2=5, but for the time being he is limiting himself to creating an imaginary African republic where all is peace and light.

Lord Anderson, who as a former adviser to the UK state on terrorism is hardly a knee-jerk softie, put it well when he said of the government’s plans to end judicial oversight

“If Rwanda is safe as the government would have us declare, it has nothing to fear from such scrutiny. “Yet we are invited to adopt a fiction, to wrap it in the cloak of parliamentary sovereignty and to grant it permanent immunity from challenge. To tell an untruth and call it truth.”

To insist that lies are the truth is extreme. It is also the logical conclusion of the Brexit policy of concerted lying in the service of political ends, which has been running since 2016.

And speaking of Brexit and before I go any further, I should note that, with the exception of Geert Wilders, no European far-right leader advocates taking his or her country out of the EU. But Rishi Sunak was all for Brexit, and promised that “our nation would be freer, fairer and more prosperous outside the EU”.

We know how that went.

And we almost certainly know how the Rwanda deportations will go. They will fail, and Sunak will be a failed extremist because what he wants is impossible.

Look at it from the point of view of a right-winger who is furious that tens of thousands are crossing the English Channel and entering the country illegally. Throughout his life the Conservatives have betrayed him.  

David Cameron promised to reduce migration from the hundreds to tens of thousands, and failed to deliver. Brexit promised to return control of our borders. Instead, small boats cross the channel in a parody of the Dunkirk evacuation, while legal immigration has gone through the roof.

No pro-European politician would ever say this, but it does not mean that people have not noticed. By leaving the EU, the UK swapped European migrants who were largely white and, if they had a religion, it was Christianity, for migrants from the rest of the world who are largely not white and, if they have a religion, it is unlikely to be Christianity.

Despite all this Sunak is still bellowing that he will stop all the boats, which is as impossible as David Cameron’s fake promise to reduce migration to the tens of thousands.

He is bellowing because Conservatives are terrified that Reform (the latest Farage party) will send the Tories down to a landslide defeat.

They are trying to unite the right by assuming that right-wing and radical-wing voters are stupid, and won’t notice the attempt to con them with impossible promises.

It’s not working. At the moment we are in an unprecedented situation, where Labour enjoys a poll lead on immigration.

For those on left who say there is no difference between Starmer’s Labour and the Tories ought to notice that Labour holds that lead even though it is absolutely opposed to the Rwanda obscenity, when Tony Blair’s Labour party would probably have gone along with it.

In the Commons yesterday, Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow immigration minister, tore into the government.

He pointed out that the cost of the vain attempt to save Sunak’s skin – will be about “£2 million per deportee”. As only a few hundred are ever likely to go, tens of thousands more will be left “in expensive hotels, stuck in a perma-backlog at a staggering cost to the taxpayer.”

Assuming, that is, anyone goes at all.

 Yesterday Sunak made a rather pathetic admission that no plane will leave for 12 weeks. We shall see. Despite the government’s best efforts to rewrite the law and threaten the European Court of Human Rights, there can still be legal challenges which may last until the next election.

Cynics say the government would like nothing better than the flights to be stopped so it can blame left-wing lawyers in the campaign. I think they are attributing intelligence to the prime minister he does not possess.

Put like this, the UK’s failed extremists do not seem so reprehensible.  But look at what they have done. Since David Cameron in 2010 they have never explained the necessity for immigration in an honest conversation with the public.

They have pandered to right-wing and radical right-wing sentiment and then infuriated voters by making promises they could never keep. In doing so they have prepared the ground for genuinely extremist politicians.

We have already paid a price for their trickery with Brexit and I doubt the full bill is in yet.

We are fortunate that Rishi Sunak is too hopeless to be dangerous. We may not be so lucky in the future.

[kp777]

By Olivia Rosane

Common Dreams

June 29, 2024

"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Sen. Ed Markey said.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine—which instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws passed by Congress as they regulate everything from food safety to labor rights to climate pollution—progressive lawmakers vowed to take action to protect the power of these agencies to shield the public from toxic chemicals and unscrupulous employers.

Legislators expressed concerns about the impacts of the court's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which ended a 40-year precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984.

"Now, with this ill-advised decision, judges must no longer defer to the decisions about Americans' health, safety, and welfare made by agencies with technical and scientific expertise in their fields," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "MAGA extremist Republicans and their big business cronies are rejoicing as they look forward to creating a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every American in this country."

"This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."

"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Markey said.

Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the ruling "dangerous" and urged Congress to "immediately pass" the Stop Corporate Capture Act, which she introduced in March 2023.

In a statement Friday, Jayapal said the act was "the only bill that codifies Chevron deference, strengthens the federal-agency rulemaking process, and ensures that rulemaking is guided by the public interest—not what's good for wealthy corporations."

The act would codify Chevron by providing "statutory authority for the judicial principle that requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable or permissible interpretation of a federal law when the law is silent or ambiguous."

In addition, it would:

Require anyone submitting a study as part of a comment period on a regulation to disclose who funded it;

Only allow federal agencies to take part in the negotiated rulemaking process;

Create an Office of the Public Advocate to increase public participation in the process of crafting regulations;

Make public companies that knowingly lie in the comment period on a proposed regulation liable for a fine of at least $250,000 for a first offense and at least $1 million for a second; and

Empower agencies to reissue rules that were rescinded under the Congressional Review Act.

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 organizations mobilizing for stronger public protections, also called on Congress to pass the Stop Corporate Capture Act.

"The bill is a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the regulatory system to better protect the public," the coalition wrote in response to Friday's ruling. "It would ensure greater public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity, and restore our government's ability to deliver results for workers, consumers, public health, and our environment."

Jayapal also called on Congress to "enact sweeping oversight measures to rein in corruption and billionaire influence at the Supreme Court, whose far-right extremist majority routinely flouts basic ethics, throws out precedent, and legislates from the bench to benefit the wealthiest and most powerful."

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) similarly recommended congressional action to address court corruption. In a statement, she called the decision "a power grab for the corrupt Supreme Court who continues to do the bidding of greedy corporations."

"The MAGA Court just overruled 40 years of precedent that empowered federal agencies to hold powerful corporations accountable, protect our workplaces and public health, and ensure that we have clean water and air," Tlaib continued. "This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."

In the meantime, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said that the ruling did not strip regulatory bodies of their authority to pass new rules to protect the public and the environment.

"This decision is a gift to big corporations, making it easier for them to challenge rules to ensure clean air and water, safe workplace and products, and fair commercial and financial practices," said Public Citizen president and coalition co-chair Robert Weissman. "But the decision is no excuse for regulators to stop doing their jobs. They must continue to follow the law and uphold their missions to protect consumers, workers, and our environment."

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review a decision that revived a long-running lawsuit by the Navajo Nation, which claims that the U.S. Interior Department has a duty to develop plans to provide the reservation with an adequate water supply. The high court granted two petitions for certiorari – one by the federal government, one by Arizona and other states -- challenging last year’s decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit said “an irreversible and dramatically important trust duty” was implied by 175 years’ worth of treaties and court decisions. The challengers, however, say implied rights are unenforceable. “The federal treaties with the Navajo Nation…do not address water at all,” and the doctrine of implied water rights “cannot justify imposing such a fiduciary duty,” lead counsel Rita Pearson Maguire argued in the states’ cert petition. The Interior Department, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, added that the 9th Circuit’s approach would replace national policy decisions with “a regime of general judicial oversight of the United States’ relationship with Indian tribes.” The Navajo Nation, represented by Shay Dvoretzky of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, defended the 9th Circuit’s decision and urged the high court to deny certiorari. The Interior Department declined to comment on Friday. Maguire and Dvoretzky did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Navajo Nation filed suit in 2003. It wants the Interior Department to determine whether the Little Colorado River, which runs through the reservation, is sufficient “to fulfill the Reservation’s purpose of establishing a permanent homeland for the Nation” – a standard known as Winters rights, from a 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision. If not, the Nation says the government must develop a plan to supply water from other sources. A federal judge in Prescott, Arizona,

ICWA is not the only case affecting Native American and Alaska Native rights. Keep an eye on this case.