;)
The Conversation -- June 26, 2024
How Ignorant Are Voters? Well, There's This: ~~~
~~~ Colby Itkowitz, et al., of the Washington Post: "In six swing states that Biden narrowly won in 2020, a little more than half of voters classified as likely to decide the presidential election say threats to democracy are extremely important to their vote for president, according to a poll by The Washington Post and ... George Mason University. Yet, more of them trust Trump to handle those threats than Biden. And most believe that the guardrails in place to protect democracy would hold even if a dictator tried to take over the country." Emphasis added. ~~~
~~~ And This. Claire Miller, et al., of the New York Times (May 15): "Nearly one in five voters in battleground states says that President Biden is responsible for ending the constitutional right to abortion, a new poll found, despite the fact that he supports abortion rights and that his opponent Donald J. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices who made it possible to overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump supporters and voters with less education were most likely to attribute responsibility for abortion bans to Mr. Biden, but the misperception existed across demographic groups."
** Oops! John Fritze of CNN: "The Supreme Court appears poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday, citing a document that was inadvertently posted on the court's website in an astonishing breach of protocol. The opinion showed that a majority of the court agreed to dismiss the appeal, according to Bloomberg, which reported that it reviewed a copy of the opinion. The release was a stunning development at the Supreme Court, which usually safeguards the release of its opinions. The abortion case was considered among the most significant of the current term that is winding down ahead of the July 4 holiday.... A dismissal would let stand an opinion from the full 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that sided with the Biden administration in the case. Such a ruling is a win for the Biden administration and will be a relief to Idaho women who fear medical complications from their pregnancies could jeopardize their hea[l]th.... The release of the opinion marks the second time a major decision dealing with an abortion controversy." ~~~
~~~ Abbie VanSickle of the New York Times: "It was unclear whether the document was final and a spokeswoman for the court declined to confirm what had been posted to its website.... According to Bloomberg, which did not immediately post the document online, the ruling indicated that a majority of the court had agreed to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.'" ~~~
~~~ Alice Ollstein & Josh Gerstein of Politico: "According to the posted opinion, four justices dissented from the court's decision to dismiss the Idaho dispute: conservatives Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch and liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson.... Jackson ... said the high court was wrong to back away from resolving the case. 'We cannot simply wind back the clock to how things were before the Court injected itself into this matter,' she wrote. 'It is too little, too late for the Court to take a mulligan and just tell the lower courts to carry on as if none of this has happened. As the old adage goes: The Court has made this bed so now it must lie in it.... Today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay,' Jackson added." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Looks like John Roberts has lost the plot. The so-called Roberts Court is a flaming disaster. ~~~
~~~ And Now Hear This (as RAS puts it, "Making bribery great again again"): ~~~
~~~ Sometimes a Bribe Is Just a ... Birthday Present or Something. Lindsay Whitehurst of the AP: "The Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor on Wednesday, the latest in a series of decisions narrowing the scope of federal public corruption law. The high court's 6-3 opinion along ideological lines found the law criminalizes bribes given before an official act, not rewards handed out after. 'Some gratuities can be problematic. Others are commonplace and might be innocuous,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote.... The high court sided with James Snyder, a Republican who was convicted of taking $13,000 from a trucking company after prosecutors said he steered about $1 million worth of city contracts to the company. In a sharply worded dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the distinction between bribes and gratuities ignores the wording of the law aimed at rooting out public corruption." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Anyhow, good news for Bribable Bob, the New Jersey Senator with gold bars in the closet and stashes of cash in his jacket pockets -- all previously owned by a fellow for whom Bob performed extraordinary constituent services. Of course, Bob is a Democrat, so maybe Bart, et al., won't be so anxious to help him out.
** David Smith of the Guardian: "Joe Biden has moved to correct a 'great injustice' by pardoning thousands of US veterans convicted over six decades under a military law that banned gay sex. The presidential proclamation, which comes during Pride month and an election year, allows LGBTQ+ service members convicted of crimes based solely on their sexual orientation to apply for a certificate of pardon that will help them receive withheld benefits.... 'Despite their courage and great sacrifice, thousands of LGBTQ+ service members were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Some of these patriotic Americans were subject to court-martial, and have carried the burden of this great injustice for decades,' [Biden said in a statement].... [The President's proclamation] grants clemency to service members convicted under Uniform Code of Military Justice article 125 -- which criminalised sodomy, including between consenting adults -- between 1951 and 2013, when it was rewritten by Congress." Thanks to RAS for the link. The New York Times story is here. ~~~
~~~ Marie: So far today, Biden's proclamation hasn't received a ton of press. The story is way down the NYT's online front page. Biden's proclamation does not automatically grant clemency & veterans' benefits in individual cases; as the Times story notes, "People who want their convictions overturned can now apply online for a certificate of clemency, which would help them receive benefits that may have been denied." So if you know someone you think may be eligible for clemency & military benefits as a result of Biden's proclamation, please give them a heads-up. It isn't exactly clear yet how this whole process (and it will be a "whole process") will work, so it sounds as if perseverance and patience will be among the attributes required to receive proper recognition and benefits due.
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court handed the Biden administration a major practical victory on Wednesday, rejecting a challenge to its contacts with social media platforms to combat what administration officials said was misinformation. The court ruled that the states and users who had challenged the contacts had not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue. The decision, by a 6 to 3 vote, left fundamental legal questions for another day.... 'The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.... Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented."
Ha Ha. House Speaker Mike Johnson tipped his big toe into the reality stream and told CNN that "No one expects Joe Biden will be on cocaine" during the presidential debate. He opined that Donald Trump & other were joking when they said Biden would be using performance-enhancing drugs. MB: I find Johnson to be a fairly amazing guy. He would have you believe he is so in the tank for Jesus and the MAGA Messiah that he must be delusional, yet he manages to occasionally communicate on quite a rational level with some Democrats & MSM personalities.
~~~~~~~~~~
The New York Times is live-updating primary results in New York, South Carolina, Colorado & Utah. ~~~
Nicholas Fandos: "The outcome was never really in doubt, but The Associated Press has declared Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the winner in her Democratic primary against Martin Dolan in New York's 14th Congressional District. With about 40 percent of votes in, she is up by more than 60 points."
Chris Cameron: "Sheri Biggs has narrowly won the Republican primary runoff for South Carolina's Third Congressional District, according to The Associated Press, defeating Mark Burns, who had the endorsement of Donald J. Trump, by a margin of about 2 percentage points."
Carl Hulse: "Representative Lauren Boebert, the MAGA lightning rod who switched districts in Colorado to avoid being ousted from the House, won a crowded Republican primary on Tuesday in a conservative area of the state, all but ensuring that she will serve another two years in Congress."
Fandos: "Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York, one of Congress's most outspoken progressives, suffered a stinging primary defeat on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, brought down by a record-shattering onslaught from pro-Israel groups and a slate of self-inflicted blunders. Mr. Bowman was defeated by George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, in a race that became the year's ugliest intraparty brawl and the most expensive House primary in history."
Claire Fahy: "John Avlon, a former CNN political analyst who helped found the centrist political group No Labels, won the Democratic primary in a House district in eastern Long Island in New York on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press. Mr. Avlon only entered the race in February but quickly built up support in the district, which he moved to in 2017. His critics, including his opponent, Nancy Goroff, used his recent move to the area to suggest that he was out of touch with locals, but he won more endorsements from party leaders and local elected officials than did Ms. Goroff, a retired chemistry professor who ran in 2020."
Cameron: "Jeff Hurd, a Republican who had challenged Representative Lauren Boebert before she moved east to a more conservative district, has won the Republican primary for her old seat -- Colorado's Third Congressional District. Hurd will now face the Democratic candidate who nearly defeated Boebert in 2022, Adam Frisch, in the fall."
Cameron: "Jeff Crank, a political consultant and conservative commentator, defeated Dave Williams, the Trump-endorsed chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, in the G.O.P. primary for Colorado's Fifth Congressional District by what is currently a 30-point margin, according to The Associated Press. Crank was once an executive at Americans for Prosperity, the Koch-backed conservative organization, and the group backed him in the primary."
Cameron: "Representative John Curtis, a centrist Republican, won his party's primary for U.S. Senate in Utah on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, beating a more conservative candidate endorsed by ... Donald J. Trump."
Simon Levien: "Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah fended off a challenge from the right in his primary on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, defeating State Representative Phil Lyman, who had the endorsement of the state Republican Party.... Mr. Cox has been openly critical of ... Donald J. Trump, and has not endorsed him...."
Grace Ashford: "State Senator John W. Mannion won the Democratic primary in New York's 22nd Congressional District in Central New York on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press.... The district, currently held by Brandon Williams, a Republican, is widely considered one of the Democrats' best opportunities for a pickup in the nation. In 2022, Mr. Williams, who has been a vocal champion of ... Donald J. Trump, was narrowly elected by just under one percentage point. Since then, the boundaries of the district have changed to favor Democrats...."
Presidential Race
Marie: With all the speculation about what each candidate will bring to Thursday presidential debate, my prediction for Trump is ... bubonic plague. Chris Hayes opened last night with a segment (not yet available online) on the 2020 Biden-Trump debates, and reminded viewers of something I had forgot because we learned about it well after the fact: Martin Pengelly of the Guardian (Dec. 2021) "Donald Trump tested positive for Covid-19 three days before his first debate against Joe Biden, the former president's fourth and last chief of staff has revealed in a new book. Mark Meadows also writes that though he knew each candidate was required 'to test negative for the virus within seventy two hours of the start time ... Nothing was going to stop [Trump] from going out there.' Trump, Meadows says in the book, returned a negative result from a different test shortly after the positive.... The host [of the debate], Chris Wallace of Fox News, later said Trump was not tested before the debate because he arrived late. Organisers, Wallace said, relied on the honor system." Trump was hospitalized three days later with a severe case of Covid.
Hillary Clinton, in a New York Times op-ed, has some advice for President Biden: "I am the only person to have debated both [Joe Biden and Donald Trump].... It is a waste of time to try to refute Mr. Trump's arguments like in a normal debate. It's nearly impossible to identify what his arguments even are. He starts with nonsense and then digresses into blather. This has gotten only worse in the years since we debated [in 2016].... Mr. Trump may rant and rave in part because he wants to avoid giving straight answers about his unpopular positions, like restrictions on abortion, giving tax breaks to billionaires and selling out our planet to big oil companies in return for campaign donations. He interrupts and bullies -- he even stalked me around the stage at one point -- because he wants to appear dominant and throw his opponent off balance. These ploys will fall flat if Mr. Biden is as direct and forceful as he was when engaging Republican hecklers at the State of the Union address in March." Read on. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ BTW, see Akhilleus' commentary on both-siderism in yesterday's thread.
National Crime Blotter
Perry Stein & Devlin Barrett of the Washington Post: "U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon signaled Friday that Donald Trump's legal team had not convinced her FBI agents offered false information to justify searching Mar-a-Lago -- a potential blow to the former president's efforts to disqualify key evidence in the classified documents case against him.... The session capped three days of hearings in Cannon's courtroom. In the morning, she held a closed-door hearing on Trump's efforts to bar at trial the audio notes that investigators got from one of Trump's former attorneys, Evan Corcoran.... She did not issue rulings from the bench on any of the motions...." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Kimberly Leonard of Politico: "Judge Aileen Cannon appeared highly skeptical on Tuesday of Donald Trump's bid to throw out evidence seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump's lawyers argued at a court hearing that the 2022 search warrant in the classified documents investigation was overly broad and violated Trump's rights. They said FBI agents took medical records and improperly entered the bedroom of his son Barron and the quarters of his wife, Melania.... [Cannon's] skepticism toward Trump's defense arguments was unusual for the judge, a Trump appointee who has issued many favorable rulings toward Trump and has often clashed with special counsel Jack Smith's team.... The medical records had been in boxes that also contained the documents they were looking for, but the government returned them promptly, prosecutor David Harbach said.... They only seized documents that contained government, presidential or classified records, and didn't seize anything from the rooms of Melania or Barron, prosecutors said." ~~~
~~~ Matt Naham of Law & Crime: In his rebuttal to Trump's claim that the prosecution had tainted the evidence by not preserving it in the precise order they had found it, Jack Smith called "Trump's latest motion to dismiss rife with 'newly invented explanations.'... Smith reminded the judge that the defendant earlier claimed he had declassified the documents, claimed that the feds tried to frame him, and further claimed to have designated them as personal records. Smith rhetorically wondered why the defense hasn't complained about the order of the documents within the boxes until recently." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Say, I think Smith's rebuttal just might explain Judge Aileen's "unusual skepticism" about dismissing the case: ~~~
~~~ ** Melissa Quinn & Robert Legare of CBS News: "Newly revealed photographs taken by the FBI during its August 2022 search of ... Donald Trump's South Florida resort shed further light on how the former president kept keepsakes from his time in office alongside documents bearing classification markings." MB: Do yourself a favor and scroll down the page to see how carefully Trump preserved the country's secrets. I'll bet even seasoned FBI agents gasped. Laughably, "Trump's legal team has claimed that the failure to keep the documents intact and the order maintained violated his due process rights." The Washington Post's story is here. ~~~
~~~ Marcy Wheeler recalls some testimony she read a while back from Person 81, probably one of Trump's White House valets. "Person 81 described how there was a cluster of boxes right next to Trump's bed at the White House: 'So if you walk into the room, his bed -- there's a nightstand, his bed, and then there's, like, a -- where another nightstand was but nobody ever slept on that side of the bed usually so he would have it all full of boxes.'" ~~~
~~~ Marie: One thing that strikes me here: the evidence shows what a disordered mind Trump had. Here he was the POTUS, whose time is as precious as anyone's on the planet. But instead of spending that time reviewing documents related to the pressing issues of the day, he was collecting and rifling through boxes of press clippings and clothing and classified docs (which I speculate he had separated out from his daily dose of docs to monetize later). Oh, and of course it's nice to know that the serial adulterer and Rapist of Bergdorf's is not getting any at home.
Trump Knew That Keeping the Docs Was Criminal. Katherine Faulders & Peter Charalambous of ABC News: "Donald Trump privately expressed concerns that turning over potentially classified documents in his possession after a May 2022 subpoena could result in criminal charges while repeatedly engaging in what prosecutors have described as an effort to enlist his lawyers to lie and destroy documents for his benefit, according to transcripts of audio notes reviewed by ABC News.... 'He raised a question as to, if we gave them additional documents now, would they, would they, the Department of Justice, come back and say well, why did you withhold them and try to use that as a basis for criminal liability or to make him look bad in the press,' according to [then-Trump-attorney Evan] Corcoran's notes.... Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung, contacted by ABC News, accused prosecutors -- without providing evidence -- of lying and illegally leaking material."
Judge Partially Lifts Gag Order Against 34-Time Felon. Dareh Gregorian of NBC News: "The judge who presided over Donald Trump's hush money trial on Tuesday lifted some of the restrictions from his gag order. The ruling by Judge Juan Merchan comes two days before Trump is set to debate President Joe Biden.... Merchan's ruling lifted restrictions on Trump's ability to comment on the witnesses who testified against him during his trial, as well as a part of the order barring him from discussing the jury ... -- essentially finding the witnesses' and the jury's work had concluded so there was no fear of impacting the proceedings. The ruling left in place a part of the order barring Trump from going after court staff, individual prosecutors and 'family members of any counsel, staff member, the Court or the District Attorney.'... Trump ... is still prevented from talking about jurors by name or divulging their personal information under the terms of a separate protective order that is still in place." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: You don't need to wait for Trump to "address the jury"; at the end of yesterday's thread, Patrick predicts (likely with pinpoint accuracy) Felonious Trump's "address."
Kaitlan Collins & Lauren del Valle of CNN: "Steve Bannon's upcoming criminal fraud trial in New York will no longer be overseen by the same judge who presided over Donald Trump's hush money trial, and instead a new judge has been reassigned to take the case. As the one time Trump adviser prepares to report to prison next Monday for defying a congressional subpoena in a separate case, Judge Juan Merchan will no longer handle his trial in the same courthouse where the former president was convicted. Merchan was not removed from the case, but has another case that conflicts with Bannon's trial, according to the office of court administration. The administrative judge for the New York County Supreme Court Criminal Term notified the parties in an email Friday saying the reassignment will 'best serve the needs of the Court.'"
Orlando Mayorquín of the New York Times: "The actor Jay Johnston, who voiced Jimmy Pesto Sr. on the animated Fox sitcom 'Bob's Burgers,' has agreed to plead guilty in the federal case against him over his participation in the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The authorities arrested Mr. Johnston, 55, in California last summer and charged him with four counts, including civil disorder and entering restricted grounds. Mr. Johnston agreed to plead guilty to a single count of civil disorder in exchange for the other charges being dropped.... A plea agreement hearing is scheduled for July 8 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
Damien Cave of the New York Times: "Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to a felony charge of violating the U.S. Espionage Act, securing his freedom under a plea deal that saw its final act play out in a remote U.S. courtroom in Saipan in the Western Pacific. He appeared in court ... with his lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, and Kevin Rudd, the Australian ambassador to the United States. He stood briefly and offered his plea more than a decade after he obtained and published classified secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, moving a twisted case involving several countries and U.S. presidents closer to its conclusion. It was all part of an agreement allowing him to return to his native country, Australia, after spending more than five years in British custody -- most of it fighting extradition to the United States." The story has been updated: Assange left for Canberra, Australia.
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel/Palestine, et al. The New York Times' live updates of developments Wednesday in the Israel/Hamas war are here.
Kenya. Abdi Dahir & Declan Walsh of the New York Times: "Thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets of Kenya's capital, Nairobi, and some broke into Parliament and briefly set fire to the entrance on Tuesday, after lawmakers approved tax increases that critics said would drive up the cost of living for millions. During the protests, the police fired tear gas and guns, plunging the capital into turmoil. At least five people were fatally shot and 31 others injured, according to Amnesty International and several prominent Kenyan civic organizations. The toll could not be immediately confirmed. The independent Kenya Human Rights Commission posted a video that showed police officers firing as protesters marched toward them.... The half sister of ... Barack Obama, Auma Obama, was among the protesters engulfed in tear gas on Tuesday, according to CNN footage."
Russia. Neil MacFarquhar & Milana Mazaeva of the New York Times: After nearly 15 months in Moscow's Lefortovo prison, Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, a U.S. citizen, "went on trial Wednesday, facing up to 20 years in prison on an espionage charge that he, his employer and the U.S. State Department vehemently deny." Russia has not made public any evidence that Gershkovich is a spy, and the trial is secret.
News Lede
New York Times: "At least 11 Americans were among those who died while making the Islamic pilgrimage of hajj to Saudi Arabia this month in searing temperatures, the U.S. State Department said on Tuesday, adding that it was possible that more deaths could be confirmed in the coming days. In Maryland, the daughter of one couple was still searching for answers about the exact circumstances of her parents' deaths, and about the actions of the tour operator whom the couple had paid tens of thousands of dollars to help them make the trip."
Share Article
Reader Comments (22)
Silly headline of the day:
“Why are Boeing Starliner Astronauts Still in Space?”
Duh…
The answer is part of the question:
Boeing.
At least a door hasn’t blown off.
Yet.
But here’s my favorite part of this story:
“Starliner was launched on 5 June despite there being a small leak of helium gas. Helium is used to push propellent to the thruster systems used for maneuvering in space and slowing down to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere.
The leak was extremely small and engineers believed that it would not affect the mission and so went ahead with the launch.”
Just a TEENSY leak. Nothing to worry about. Riiiggghhht.
“O rings? What are those?”
Regarding the things that occupy a President's (or *president's) mind, my wife remembers an interview with Barack Obama where he said that he had someone lay out his clothes for the day because he didn't want to get bogged down in details that matter on one level but really don't matter on the functioning of the country.
What are the chances Trump will show up for the debate tomorrow?
I'd say 50-50, or 25-75 probably.
If he does show up, what are the chances he'll make a fool of
himself, get all riled up and walk out screaming "unfair, unfair!"
I can't watch live TV so I'll have to stay up all night wondering,
until Friday morning.
Wish those SCOTUS wingers had a sense of humor. If they did they'd issue the immunity ruling tomorrow, the day of the scheduled debate.
This court has proved many things beyond a doubt. That judges themselves can be corrupt. That some are infected with ideologies that have eaten their brains....and that you can be a joke without being funny.
Ken,
Guys like Alito and Thomas are jokes with no punchline, but plenty of punches.
Forrest,
While I wouldn’t be aghast if the Orange Monster turned yellow and ran away, well, in his case waddled away, I think he and his whiny media and congressional sycophants have been yapping about this debate for so long and at such high volume that it might look bad for him to skeedaddle at this late date, and we know he’s all about looks, all hat and no cattle, as they say (but plenty of bull).
They probably figure they’ve salted the earth so thoroughly at this point, with lies about how unfaaaaiiir it will be and how Biden will come out with a hypodermic of kickapoo joy juice still sticking out of his ass, that two outcomes are guaranteed: first, the corporate, both sides media will cut him a huge break even if he forgets his own name and falls asleep at the mic, second, the entire right wing media echo chamber will declare him not just the winner, but the best debater in the history of history.
On the other hand, should Biden hesitate for a millisecond with an answer, or provide the ghost of a stutter, both sides will declare him an elderly dementia patient unfit for office. Should he deliver a SOTU like ass whipping, the verdict will be 1. Yawn, so what? and 2. He’s jacked up!
So really, what does Fatty have to lose by showing up? He has everything going for him. As long as he doesn’t drop dead on stage (and even if he does) he’ll be declared the winner.
If I were 100 % cynical, I’d say corporate media is absolutely rooting for Trump to win. Biden is no fun. He just shows up and does his job, fulfills his oath of office, and then some. No adultery, no never ending faucet of lies, no threats of vengeance, babies in cages, crime family grifts, Sharpied weather reports, suggestions of drinking poison. Trump is way more fun to cover. Easier too. Just repeat whatever he says. Done!
@Forrest Morris: Oh, you can watch the debate live. Near 9 pm ET, do a search on YouTube for "presidential debate." USA Today are livestreaming it on YouTube. Here's the link to the USA Today feed. PBS will also have a livefeed here, and CSPAN will have a livefeed someplace.
If I can find one, tomorrow I'll put up a link to a site that gives you other watch options.
The Internets is magical.
BTW, if you don't have cable, there are a number of ways to cast all kinds of video from your computer or phone to your TV, provided your TV is a newish or "smart" TV. If you can't figure out the most economical way to do it for your viewer needs, ask a neighbor kid. Alternatively, check with the helpful Best Buy salesman -- who admittedly might suggest more expensive ways.
@Marie: Thanks for the info. Now I'll have to stay up past my
bedtime (9:00).
We do have cable but never watch live shows. They're on too late.
Usually stream them the next day if anything is worthwhile.
And I did have a youngster teach me how to project from computer
to my TV.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-free-speech.html
Wouldn't it be more efficient for the SCOTUS to determine in advance which appeals are presented to them by those with "no standing" and simply send them a brief note and not place them on the docket?
Seems a great waste of time, don't it? It’s like they’re just screwing around.
Pride Month
"Biden pardons thousands of US veterans convicted under law banning gay sex"
" ... Wouldn't it be more efficient for the SCOTUS to determine in advance which appeals are presented to them by those with "no standing" ..."
Yes, which is the way it is supposed to work.
But if four of them decide to hear the case, it goes on the docket.
You see the problem. 4>3
Sometimes I think the conservo-justices do it just to scare the bejeezus out of folks, and also to let their handlers know they care about the handlers' (amici?) interests, but not that much.
Even when the court was sort of "balanced", the non-conservatives did not do these 4-vote no-standing pickups. It is only a conservative thing. One can't help but think that the righty justices can't ignore all the money and organization seeking to nullify the New Deal Plus, and has to put on at least a good show for the money. (I did not do the math on this, just don't recall many earlier cases being rejected on "standing" after they reached the SCOTUS docket. )
NYT online headline:
Joe Biden: The Old-School Politician in a New-School Era
To me, this implies that he can't be effective in modern politics. His record shows this is not true. He and his team have gotten an awful lot done, even with scorched-earth opposition (that loves to take credit for the good stuff they opposed).
Re: the rejection of standing by the wingers on the Court…
A lot of is performative, a legal middle finger which allows them to humiliate those they hate and let everyone know who is in charge, who has the power and who does not. Rejecting cases out of hand because of a lack of standing before they clog up the docket would not give them the chance to do that. You can just see Alito, for instance, rubbing his hands together thinking I’ll show these little people who’s the boss here, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
@Ken Winkes & @Patrick: As Patrick implied, standing itself is debatable. And as Insufferable Sam has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it also can be highly partisan:
Ian Millhiser of Vox: "On the bench, Alito is the Supreme Court’s most unrelenting Republican partisan — a reliable vote for whatever outcome is preferred by the GOP’s right wing, regardless of whether there is any legal support for that position.... An empirical analysis of the Court’s 'standing' decisions ... found that Alito rules in favor of conservative litigants 100 percent of the time, and against liberal litigants in every single case." Emphasis added.
What would make sense to me, along the lines Ken suggests, is that where a certain number of justices see standing as an issue, the Court could tell the litigants to address only the standing issue in the matter and not waste everybody's time and effort pursuing the merits of the case-in-chief.
@NiskyGuy: You're right about the headline. It is, unfortunately, fairly true to the gist of the article by Peter Both-Sides Baker. The funny thing is, most U.S. voters would probably agree with a general feel-good statement like, "What Washington politicians need to do is get along with each other and pass legislation that helps the American people." And that, of course, is Biden's pitch.
Now, what if that statement were pitted against a statement like, "I want my party to obliterate the other party so my party is in a position to pass all the legislation I want"? If voters had to choose one or the other statement as most consistent with their own views, I'm not sure which would win.
The SCOTUS decision in "Rahimi" -- that a law prohibiting firearms to domestic abusers stands -- is being analyzed by all the experts. Many, both sides, think that their decision walks back the earlier "Bruen" decision without repudiating it. That decision is famous for taking Clarence Thomas' view, that history is dispositive, to the limit of ridiculousness.
But so far I have not seen any comment on either Rahimi or Bruen in that context that goes back to the historical basics of the 2nd Amendment -- you know, that it is about MILITIAS, not about the right of every homo insapiens to walk around town with a loaded weapon, or several, and with bump stocks to boot. Because if we really did actual history, that "militia" phrase would be controlling, dispositive, the raison d'etre, the what-have-you, and all of the ink and CO2 expressed about how many angels can carry what kinds of bullet launchers while dancing on their pinheads could have been saved for literary pursuits.
What we need here is a sustained push to get back to that constitutional reality. Militias needed weapons to control slaves and deal with natives. We were not afraid of Canadians coming down to get us, nor of any Caribbeans or S. or Central Americans marching through Bladensburg to burn DC (but, surprise, the Brits showed what professional soldiers could do militia rabble, short term).
At the time (1787) that the 2nd Amendment was aborning, a very large percentage of the American "natural aristocracy" were not keen on the idea of the hoi polloi having the right to carry weapons in organized groups on the streets of NYC, Philly, Boston, etc. But in the western states, many of those lesser folk knew that they needed Ol' Bessie to protect hearth, home and their scalps in many cases. So you got the 2nd which in a way says "OK, you can have guns at home so that you can meet your obligation to be in the militia, and the Federal government has to let you have them. But according to Article 1 Section 8, the US Congress has the authority to organize, arm and discipline those militias."
For 2nd Amendment purposes, history should have started right there, in Article 1 Section 8 whereby the Federal government took power over the arms of militias. There is nothing in the Constitution that says "hey, we don't need organized and disciplined militias but everyone has the right to a gun anyway."
Each state signed up for that when it joined the union. There is no 10th Amendment jazz in this subject. We need to get historical, Clarence.
Heather Cox Richardson in her newletter today, discusses post-WW2 propaganda using the image of American cowboy to "sell the idea that a government that regulated business, provided a basic safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights for Black and Brown Americans and for women was cruising perilously close to communism."
She continues:
"Modern-day Americans could embrace the cowboy myth so long as our laws addressed conditions in the real world. But as extremist lawmakers and judges have removed those guardrails by legislating around ideology rather than reality—incidentally, the very scenario true political conservatism was designed to avoid—they have ushered in conditions that are badly hurting Americans."
She provides examples (quoted below):
1) In Texas, the abortion ban has driven infant death rates 12.9% higher
2) congenital anomalies increased almost 23% in Texas while they decreased in the rest of the country
3) in the 16 months after the Texas ban, 26,313 rape-related pregnancies occurred in the state.
4) Matt Rosendale (R-MT) announced he would file an amendment to the 2025 defense appropriations bill stripping it of funding for IVF, saying “the practice of IVF is morally wrong.”
5) A trump ally in AZ declares abortion is murder and those who practice it deserve execution: “You forfeit your right to live.”
6) Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas determined to reestablish patriarchy have now taken on the cause of eliminating no-fault divorce ... [
She continues with some positive signs where "the national mood is changing"
Cowboy Patriarchy
Making bribery great again again.
"Supreme Court overturns ex-mayor’s bribery conviction, narrowing the scope of public corruption law
The high court sided with James Snyder, a Republican who was convicted of taking $13,000 from a trucking company after prosecutors said he steered about $1 million worth of city contracts to the company."
Slate
"This Clarence Thomas Dissent Reveals His Favorite Tactic for Constitutional Mayhem
BY MARK JOSEPH STERN
Justice Clarence Thomas is a master at the art of bogus history—rewriting the past to give the Constitution a new, dubious meaning that happens to align with the Republican Party platform.
And, as is so often the case, the justice marshals his argument by diminishing a progressive constitutional amendment as some illegitimate affront to the Framers’ original, divinely inspired design. At this point, it is unclear whether Thomas even acknowledges the full validity of the amendments that made this nation more equal and egalitarian[.]
He simply does not grant constitutional amendments the same respect that he gives to the original Constitution. His jurisprudence is inspired by “natural law,” a theory that interprets the Constitution as, essentially, a divine revelation to the founders that codifies rights bestowed by a higher authority. Under this view, the product of the Constitutional Convention was nearly perfect, minus its accommodation for slavery[.]"
@Marie: Apparently Bob's problem was timing. According to the Extreme Court all you have to do is get the bribery check post dated. And maybe write birthday in the memo. You just need to make sure you work with trustworthy criminals. But they didn't find a bag with a dollar sign on it at Menendez's place so even if he gets convicted by a jury of his peers on the crimes he is charged with there is a very good chance that this court will overturn the conviction. Bribery convictions seem to be something these justices believe should not stand on a bipartisan basis.
Seems to me James Snyder is bad at bribery. He only got $13,000 for steering $1Million in contracts to a company? Ten demerits!
Flag seen in my eastern MA city (edited):
T**** 2024, the revenge tour
They know. They just don’t understand they will become an enemy at some point. Isn’t the right, Mr. Cohen?