Memorial Day Monday Reads
Posted: May 27, 2024 Filed under: American Fascists, fetus fetishists, LGBTQIA+, MAGA Assholes, MAGA goes after the Rule of Law | Tags: #MAGAtrocity at the State Level, Libertarians boo trump, MAGA Agenda, White Christian Nationalism/Fascism 3 Comments
“I thought the Libertarian logo looked familiar too, Mr. Trump.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
This is the day we remember those who served and made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and its democracy.
Today is a good day to think about the possibility that everything we know may be forcibly taken away by a cult of white fascist Christians led by a dotard leading a family crime syndicate.
Republican Party of Texas delegates voted Saturday on a platform that called for new laws to require the Bible to be taught in public schools and a constitutional amendment that would require statewide elected leaders to win the popular vote in a majority of Texas counties.
Other proposed planks of the 50-page platform included proclamations that “abortion is not healthcare it is homicide”; that gender-transition treatment for children is “child abuse”; calls to reverse recent name changes to military bases and “publicly honor the southern heroes”; support for declaring gold and silver as legal tender; and demands that the U.S. government disclose “all pertinent information and knowledge” of UFOs.
These people, if they watch the news at all, tend to believe every conspiracy theory pouring out of Fox News. They have what Julie Jeske calls Fox News Brain. Aaron Ruper sums up her findings in the Public Notice.
Are you terrified of migrants squatting in your home or randomly punching you in the face while you walk down the street? Maybe you find yourself thinking a lot about Hunter Biden or gas prices and how they were lower four years ago? Then, dear reader, you probably have Fox News brain.
Juliet Jeske, author of the highly recommended Decoding Fox News newsletter, is one of the world’s foremost experts on that condition.
“Propaganda is a very difficult thing to erase from somebody’s brain,” she told me. “Some people just want to be in that Fox News rage spiral. They’re riding a rollercoaster of fear, paranoia, and hate. And people enjoy that. They enjoy sitting in their homes and being angry at the world. I don’t understand that mentality at all. But that’s what Fox provides them.”
An interview with Jeske follows this introduction. I cannot listen to Donald Alcolytes or Donald himself these days without my stomach churning. How can people not take any of the blatant displays seriously? This is from Ruth Ben-Ghiat at MSNBC. “Denial about Donald Trump is deeper than ever.”
Yet it seems that so many in America are treating this election as politics as usual. Primaries, caucuses and other events proceed, even as the Republican nominee refuses to commit to accepting lawful election results if he is not the victor. And most of the GOP still embraces the false reality that Trump won the 2020 election as well.
This surreal situation reflects both an information deficit and a disinformation surfeit. A March poll of swing-state voters revealed that most respondents were unaware of Trump’s criminal charges, dictator threats, use of fascist language (such as calling people “vermin”), and vows to pardon the “patriots” who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. More worryingly still, the poll excluded voters who believed Biden stole the 2020 election. Those surveyed, though they are not lost in the Trumpist alternate universe, lack the information to take the threats to our democracy seriously.
And many better-informed Americans don’t take Trump’s proclamations and actions seriously either. Instead, they accuse those who are sounding the alarm at his strongman actions and rhetoric of hyperbole and hysteria.
Certainly, Americans are prone to thinking “it can’t happen here.” Our country has lived on its reputation as a bastion of freedom and democracy, and since we have never had a national dictatorship at home (though the Jim Crow South was a regional authoritarianism), many people don’t recognize autocratic creep as it unfolds. But as Robert Kagan’s stirring essay for The Washington Postput it: “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.”
Yet too many are still pretending. President Joe Biden’s age receives far more coverage than Trump’s declarations that if he returns to the White House he will detain and deport millions of people and allow Vladimir Putin’s Russia to “do whatever the hell they want.” Such is his affinity for Russia’s authoritarian that he’d let Moscow attack NATO member states if they pose obstacles to Putin’s imperialist ambitions — a situation that could trigger World War III.
Today, the New York Times published this. “Trump’s Post-Verdict Playbook: Anger and Retribution, Regardless of the Outcome. Former President Donald J. Trump has a history of attacking investigators, blaming President Biden, and seeking vengeance on those who cross him.” This is written by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman. Think about that.
The verdict in former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial remains a mystery, at least for a few more days. Less of a mystery is what Mr. Trump will say and do after it is announced — whatever the outcome might be.
If the past is any guide, even with a full acquittal, Mr. Trump will be angry and vengeful, and will direct attacks against everyone he perceives to be responsible for the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecution. He will continue to level the attacks publicly, at rallies and on Truth Social, and privately encourage his House Republican allies to subpoena his Democratic enemies.
The pattern is firmly established: After Mr. Trump escaped impeachment twice and survived a special counsel investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III into ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia, he immediately went into revenge mode — complaining about the injustices he was forced to endure and urging his allies to investigate the investigators.
“Regardless of the outcome, the playbook is the same,” said Alyssa Farah Griffin, Mr. Trump’s former White House communications director, who began working for him shortly after his first impeachment trial but has since become a sharp critic of her former boss.
Mr. Trump’s team is still determining his plans for the period after the trial’s conclusion, timing that remains at the mercy of the jury.
It is unclear how much the public cares about his trial over allegations that he falsified business records to conceal hush money payments to a porn star during the 2016 election. Mr. Trump’s advisers have been running a private poll tracking public opinion throughout the trial, according to a person briefed on the data, and have not seen a significant downturn in his support, even during some of the more bruising days of testimony. Public polling also suggests a relatively stable race.
But yet, all Republicans persist in the Trump Agenda no matter what level of government. Lindsey Graham said this on Fox News near the end of last year. He was upset that New York might force Chick-fil-A chains to open on Sundays. “”The bottom line is – Conservatives are tolerant, we are kind of get out of your business, you leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone.” Is this the most ridiculous thing he’s ever said? Steven Benen had this to say at the time.
Indeed, therein lies the point. Graham’s description of conservatism certainly sounded quite nice. The government is going to get out of my business and leave people alone? It’s the kind of pitch that’s likely to have broad appeal.
The trouble, of course, is that the description comes with fine print that the South Carolinian neglected to mention. For Republicans, the goal is to keep government out of your business and leave you alone, just so long as you don’t want to terminate a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy. Or provide medical care for a transgender minor. Or read the “wrong” library book. Or teach a class the right considers racially provocative. Or run a business with policies the GOP considers “woke.
For the Republican officials who still oppose marriage equality, conservatism is about ensuring the government leaves you alone, just so long as same-sex couples don’t expect equal treatment under the law.
Watching Graham, I also found myself thinking about Texas’ Kate Cox, who had to leave her home state for medical care because of a law approved by conservative legislators, enforced by a conservative state attorney general, and endorsed by conservative state Supreme Court justices.
Conservatives are committed to getting government “out of your business”? Try again, senator
My home state of Louisiana is going to hell in a handbasket. We even have an Aunt Lydia doing the Do’hvenor’s dirty work. This is a naked attempt to get a database made of whoever has ordered these so-called abortion drugs. A Shreveport legislator led the call for this silly bill. It’s already illegal to give anyone a drug without their consent. This was clearly a way to get names and information of anyone having or ordering the drugs. I’m on a list for having to order phenobarbital for my cat. That’s what having a scheduled drug means to you in terms of government monitoring.
Pressly’s bill would create the crime of coerced criminal abortion by means of fraud, which would carry a prison sentence of five to 10 years hard labor if committed in the first trimester and 10 to 20 years if committed after that. It would also carry the same penalties for an accomplice.
“It’s clear to me that six months in jail isn’t punishment enough for committing this crime,” Pressly said. “Our family doesn’t believe justice was served in my sister’s case.”
Abortion, including the oral medication to induce abortion, is illegal in Louisiana, but the abortion pills are easily obtained through the mail or out of state, Pressly said.
“It’s illegal in Texas, too, but that didn’t stop the crime against my sister,” Pressly said. “This is an important time to put this law in place.”
You may remember when a former Trump Aide also tried to use the pills on a mistress. “Report: Former Trump Aide Accused Of Slipping Lover Abortion Pill.” What’s happened to the idea that guns don’t kill people, people do? Well, what about slipping pills to women?”
Lousiana must be pleased now that children can work and the employer doesn’t have to give them a lunch break. Several red states are doing this. Why? “What’s Driving the Changes to Child Labor Laws? Several red states are moving to weaken child labor laws. Sponsors say they just want kids to be able to work, but critics complain companies are already exploiting vulnerable populations.”
Last week, the Kentucky House passed a bill that would abolish the state’s child labor laws, in effect replacing them with looser federal standards. The bill would also increase the number of hours that 16- and 17-year-olds can work on school days from six to eight. They’d be able to work up to 30 hours per week during the school year, or even more if their parents approve and they maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average.
Several Republican lawmakers joined with Democrats in opposition, including GOP Whip Jason Nemes, but the bill passed easily. “Our current statutes and regulations unnecessarily restrict the number of hours needed to work, often preventing them from seeking an opportunity to help them pay for college, learn new skills and prepare for the future,” said bill sponsor Phillip Pratt, who owns a landscaping and lawn care company.
Kentucky is far from the only state to consider loosening restrictions for child labor in a variety of industries. Since 2021, legislators in 23 states have introduced at least 61 bills with the same goal: changing labor restrictions for minors, whether it’s working more hours or days, or allowing minors to serve alcohol.
Supporters of these measures describe them in terms of opportunity, offering children the chance not only to earn money but develop skills. “In Iowa, we understand there is dignity in work and we pride ourselves on our strong work ethic,” GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds said in signing a looser child labor law last year. “Instilling those values in the next generation and providing opportunities for young adults to earn and save to build a better life should be available.”
But it’s not just young people that proponents of looser child labor laws have in mind. The nation has faced a workforce shortage since the pandemic, with millions of workers leaving due to death, disability or retirement.
“Corporations have a long history of exploiting every tragedy in front of them for their gain, and to the detriment of many for the wealth of the few,” says Jessie Ulibarri, co-executive director of State Innovation Exchange (SiX), a progressive policy group. “It makes sense that corporations are using their significant financial and legislative power to put kids on the front lines of some of the most dangerous jobs. It will help their bottom line.”
Crazy South Dakota Governor Kristin Noems has issued this command from the Gravel Pit. “Pronouns and tribal affiliations are now forbidden in South Dakota public university employee emails.”
A new South Dakota policy to stop the use of gender pronouns by public university faculty and staff in official correspondence is also keeping Native American employees from listing their tribal affiliations in a state with a long and violent history of conflict with tribes.
Two University of South Dakota faculty members, Megan Red Shirt-Shaw and her husband, John Little, have long included their gender pronouns and tribal affiliations in their work email signature blocks. But both received written warnings from the university in March that doing so violated a policy adopted in December by the South Dakota Board of Regents.
“I was told that I had 5 days to remove my tribal affiliation and pronouns,” Little said in an email to The Associated Press. “I believe the exact wording was that I had ‘5 days to correct the behavior.’ If my tribal affiliation and pronouns were not removed after the 5 days, then administrators would meet and make a decision whether I would be suspended (with or without pay) and/or immediately terminated.”
The policy is billed by the board as a simple branding and communications policy. It came only months after Republican Gov. Kristi Noem sent a letter to the regents that railed against “liberal ideologies” on college campuses and called for the board to ban drag shows on campus and “remove all references to preferred pronouns in school materials,” among other things.
All this is going relatively unnoticed by the public. Here’s one from the Washington Post, a fascism red alert from the Orange Snot Blob once again. “Trump told donors he will crush pro-Palestinian protests, deport demonstrators. Trump has waffled on whether the Israel-Gaza war should end. But speaking to wealthy donors behind closed doors, he said that he supports Israel’s right to continue “its war on terror.”
Former president Donald Trump promised to crush pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses, telling a roomful of donors — a group that he joked included “98 percent of my Jewish friends” — that he would expel student demonstrators from the United States, according to participants in the roundtable event with him in New York.
“One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave,” Trump said on May 14, according to donors at the event.
When one of the donors complained that many of the students and professors protesting on campuses could one day hold positions of power in the United States, Trump called the demonstrators part of a “radical revolution” that he vowed to defeat. He praised the New York Police Department for clearing the campus at Columbia University and said other cities needed to follow suit, saying “it has to be stopped now.”
“Well, if you get me elected, and you should really be doing this, if you get me reelected, we’re going to set that movement back 25 or 30 years,” he said, according to the donors, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail a private event.
Keep an eye on what’s going on in your state and other states for these fascist red alarms. We must start our database and ensure our friends, family, and neighbors know what is what. Vote for democracy!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Thoughtful Thursday Reads on America’s Threatened democracy
Posted: September 7, 2023 Filed under: Afternoon Reads, American Fascists | Tags: American democracy in crisis, RICO charges Georgia, Tear the Fascists Down 7 Comments
William Dexter Bramhall, ‘Big Sky American Landscape
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
It’s really been a messy week for anyone trying to keep up with all the fallout from the Trump Crime Syndicate. The good news is that most of this is focused on the ability of the Justice System to do its job. It’s hard to look at the bigger picture when your down in the weeds watching Trump’s confederates face a judge. Today, I want to look at the bigger picture.
This headline from the AP grabbed my attention. “13 Presidential Libraries Issue Rare Joint Warning About U.S. Democracy. Their statement stopped short of slamming individuals as it called for a recommitment to the country’s bedrock principles.” This is reported by Gary Fields.
Ghost Ranch Landscape, Georgia O’Keeffe, 1936,
I’ve seen all the Presidential Birthplaces and libraries from Eisenhower on back. They’re really interesting if you ever get a chance to see them. For some reason, my family quit going out of the way to see them after Ike’s. They usually just keep on collecting things and doing research on that particular President. Generally, presidential records will be sent to the library from the Library of Congress as required by each library and what it displays. This joint statement is unique. The Libraries have generally been nonpolitical.
Concern for U.S. democracy amid deep national polarization has prompted the entities supporting 13 presidential libraries dating back to Herbert Hoover to call for a recommitment to the country’s bedrock principles, including the rule of law and respecting a diversity of beliefs.
The statement released Thursday, the first time the libraries have joined to make such a public declaration, said Americans have a strong interest in supporting democratic movements and human rights around the world because “free societies elsewhere contribute to our own security and prosperity here at home.”“But that interest,” it said, “is undermined when others see our own house in disarray.”
The joint message from presidential centers, foundations and institutes emphasized the need for compassion, tolerance and pluralism while urging Americans to respect democratic institutions and uphold secure and accessible elections.
The statement noted that “debate and disagreement” are central to democracy but also alluded to the coarsening of dialogue in the public arena during an era when officials and their families are receiving death threats.
“Civility and respect in political discourse, whether in an election year or otherwise, are essential,” it said.
Most of the living former presidents have been sparing in giving their public opinions about the state of the nation as polls show that large swaths of Republicans still believe the lies perpetuated by former President Donald Trump and his allies that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
William Henry Bartlett (1809-1854) New York from Weehawken, New Jersey 1846
The Carnegie Endowment for Peace has this information analyzed in the research paper, “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says. It’s written by Rachel Kleinfeld.
The United States feels roiled by polarization, and the philanthropic world is seized with debates about what to do. Some scholars claim that Americans are so polarized they are on the brink of civil war. Other polls suggest that voters agree on plenty of policies and that polarization is an illusion. Some philanthropists call for pluralism and civility, while others lean into activism, believing polarization is a byproduct of change toward a more just world. So, is the United States polarized or not? If it is, what is causing the polarization and what are its consequences? Should polarization be solved or tolerated?
This paper is intended to answer these questions. It opens with five facts about polarization in the United States today and what those imply for possible interventions. A literature review follows, organized chronologically to explain the scholarly shift from thinking of polarization as an ideological, policy-based phenomenon to an issue of emotion, as well as the emerging understanding of polarization as both a social phenomenon and a political strategy.
This section caught my eye.
American politicians are highly ideologically polarized. In other words, they believe in and vote for different sets of policies, with little overlap. This trend has grown in a steady, unpunctuated manner for decades.5 One reason that the most highly politically engaged Americans may misunderstand the other side is that they correctly estimate the extreme ideological polarization among politicians.
It is easy to assume that polarized voters are selecting more polarized leaders—and that theory may hold true for recent primary elections. However, that is not the main story. The process begins long before voters get a choice: more ideologically extreme politicians have been running for office since the 1980s.6 Among the pool of people wishing to run, party chairs more often select and support extreme candidates, especially on the right. (In 2013, Republican party chairs at the county level selected ten extreme candidates for every one moderate; the ratio was two to one for Democrats.) The increase in “safe” seats, in which one party is overwhelmingly likely to win, explains candidate and party preferences for more polarizing platforms, but it does not explain the depth of the Republican preference.7
Parties and candidates clearly believe that more polarizing candidates are more likely to win elections. This may be a self-fulfilling prophecy: voters exposed to more polarizing rhetoric from leaders who share their partisan identity are likely to alter their preferences based on their understanding of what their group believes and has normalized—particularly among primary voters whose identity is more tied to their party. 8 However, only about 20 percent of each party votes in primaries, and 41 percent of Americans are independents who may not have strong party identity and are barred from voting in some states’ primaries.9 That leaves the majority of voters with a relatively low ability to pick a less polarizing candidate of their party. Philanthropists and prodemocracy organizations attempting to reduce polarization often assume that the problem they must grapple with is polarized voters, but their interventions should also take into account the fact that that some of the ideological extremism and polarization since the 1980s is candidate- and party-driven. While at this point, candidates and parties may be responding to polarized primary voters, candidates and parties have been driving the polarization, and not all voters are ideologically polarized.
The disparity between where leaders are ideologically and where their voters are precludes legislative policy agreement on many issues. Average voters are not able to assert their (often weak) policy preferences because they do not have an effective way to vote out representatives who do not accurately represent their constituents’ views, particularly on the right where party chairs are likely to substitute one extreme candidate for another.
Thomas Moran, American Landscape Pennsylvania c. 1868
Think about that last sentence. Connecticut Public Radio analyzes a Quinnipiac poll. “Is American democracy in crisis?” The discussion and analysis is by Frankie Graziano and Meg Dalton. It’s about a 50-minute listen.
Eighty-three percent of American voters are either very worried or at least somewhat worried about the functioning of our democracy.So what does this recent Quinnipiac poll tell us? Why are people losing faith in our democracy?
This hour, we’re asking some big questions about the future of democracy in the U.S., covering everything from political violence to voter suppression.
The Poll is quite interesting and was taken in August. “Majority Of Americans Say Trump Should Be Prosecuted On Federal Criminal Charges Linked To 2020 Election, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; DeSantis Slips, Trump Widens Lead In GOP Primary.” This is the base poll of opinions prior to the court cases now getting closer to being held. Today, Mark Meadows is in court for his Contempt of Congress Charge. It is likely that the first of the Fulton County, Georgia, defendants’ trials kick off in October
In the wake of a federal indictment accusing former President Donald Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, Americans 54 – 42 percent think Trump should be prosecuted on criminal charges, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll released today. Democrats (95 – 5 percent) and independents (57 – 37 percent) think the former president should be prosecuted on criminal charges for allegedly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, while Republicans (85 – 12 percent) think Trump should not be prosecuted. The poll was conducted from August 10th through August 14th.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the federal criminal charges accusing former President Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are either very serious (52 percent) or somewhat serious (12 percent), while roughly one-third (32 percent) think they are either not too serious (11 percent) or not serious at all (21 percent).
There are wide gaps by political party.
Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats (89 percent) and 51 percent of independents think the federal criminal charges are very serious. Among Republicans, 18 percent think the federal criminal charges are very serious, while 48 percent say they are not serious at all.
Jennifer L. Mohr, Landscape Painting 4
Motions in the Georgia RICO case have started. This resulted in one decision already where the Judge did not sever two of the codefendents. While this case is vital to ensuring justice to us for the election-stealing attempts by Trump and his supporters, what I’d like to look at today is a RICO case filed by a Georgia Republican Attorney General that threatens the very heart of our right to free speech and assembly. This appears to be a tit-for-tat on a certain level. It’s certainly catching up protestors asserting their rights with activists who are actually using illegal actions to stop this project.
This is from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which I appear to be reading more than my own home city paper these days. “More than 60 Atlanta training center activists named in RICO Indictment.” Constitutional Rights Activists and Lawyers are alarmed
More than five dozen activists were indicted on RICO charges last week over the ongoing efforts to halt construction of the city of Atlanta’s planned public safety training center in DeKalb County.
The sweeping indictment, filed in Fulton County, is being prosecuted by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office.
A total of 61 protesters have been charged with violating the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act. Some face additional charges of domestic terrorism, arson and money laundering. Most are not from Georgia.
“Our job is to enforce the laws of this state. As you can tell in this indictment, this is about violent acts plain and simple,” Attorney General Chris Carr said in a press conference announcing the indictment.
The indictment mainly focuses on the Defend the Atlanta Forest group, describing it as an Atlanta-based organization that prosecutors say is an “anti-government, anti-police, and anti-corporate extremist organization.”
More than five dozen activists were indicted on RICO charges last week over the ongoing efforts to halt construction of the city of Atlanta’s planned public safety training center in DeKalb County.
The sweeping indictment, filed in Fulton County, is being prosecuted by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office.
Wayne Thiebaud, Green River Lands, 1998,
CNN has more analysis. “61 ‘Cop City’ protesters indicted on RICO charges. Opponents question the timeline and motivation.”
Debate over the public safety training facility has been brewing for years. The Atlanta Police Foundation, which is helping to fund the project, has said it’s needed to help boost morale and recruitment among police and firefighter ranks now using substandard or borrowed facilities. Protesters have decried its potential environmental impact and possible role in the further militarization of police, with some camping out at the site for months and clashing with police.
The Vote to Stop Cop City Coalition, which opposes the project, denounced the RICO indictment and questioned the motivation behind it.
“These charges, like the previous repressive prosecutions by the State of Georgia, seek to intimidate protestors, legal observers, and bail funds alike, and send the chilling message that any dissent to Cop City will be punished with the full power and violence of the government,” the coalition said.
“Further, the documents use the day George Floyd was murdered as the date the alleged criminal acts began. This is months before anyone was even aware of Cop City, and is a clear assault on the broader movement for racial justice and equity,” the group said.
The 109-page indictment indeed alleges criminal activity related to the training center site happened “on or between May 25, 2020 and August 25, 2023.” Floyd was killed May 25, 2020, by a Minneapolis police officer – tipping off a nationwide reckoning over police use of force against people of color – but the “Cop City” training center site wasn’t announced until 2021.
“Carr’s actions are a part of a retaliatory pattern of prosecutions against organizers nationwide that attack the right to protest and freedom of speech,” the Vote to Stop Cop City Coalition said.
Sunlight and Shadow: The Newbury Marshes (c. 1875) by Martin Johnson Heade
DA Willis has been seeking anonymity for the jurors because of ongoing threats from MAGA extremists. Another disturbing Republican extremist is trying to interfere with the Rico Charges against Trump and his Co-conspirators. “Willis blasts congressman’s ‘interference’ in Fulton Trump probe.” This is from the ACJ.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis Thursday blasted a congressman who has pledged to investigate her handling of an indictment of former President Donald Trump and others.
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently demanded records of Willis’ communication with Justice Department officials who have also indicted Trump for his role in an alleged scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Jordan suggested Willis is attempting to interfere with the 2024 election – Trump is the front-runner for the Republican nomination. And he said her investigation could infringe on the free speech and other rights of Trump and other defendants.
On Thursday, Willis fired back, saying Jordan’s Aug. 24 letter included “inaccurate information and misleading statements.” She accused Jodan of improperly interfering with a state criminal case and attempting to punish her for personal political gain.
“Its obvious purpose is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous misrepresentations,” Willis wrote of Jordan letter. “As I make clear below, there is no justification in the Constitution for Congress to interfere with a state criminal matter, as you attempt to do.”
Which case is about Free Speech? Which case is about tampering with witnesses and dirtying jury pools?
Then there is this.
- Pennsylvania school district requires social studies classes to incorporate right-wing propaganda
- Miami school board again shuts down LGBTQ month recognition
- The Rise of Legislative Anti-Democracy
- State Legislatures Are Torching Democracy
- The Anti-Voting Bills Republicans Enacted This Legislative Season
It’s an easy GOOGLE search to find out why our democratic republic is threatened. Vote! Volunteer! Use your networks to GOTV!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Tuesday Reads: Summer’s End
Posted: September 5, 2023 Filed under: Afternoon Reads, American Fascists, just because | Tags: anti-semitism, Covid, Democrats, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Erikson's stages of psychosocial developent, George Conway, Jill Biden, MAGA shutdown, Mitch McDonnell, old age, prison, weather 11 Comments
Isaac Levitan, Golden Autumn, Slobodka, 1889
Good Afternoon!!
Meteorological Autumn has begun, even though most of the country is still experiencing hot weather. Here in New England, it looks like we will have summer weather for at least the first half of September. It has been in the high 80’s lately, and later this week it will hit 92 for a couple of days. Of course it’s still comfortable here in my cozy apartment with my heat pump keeping things cool.
I was thinking this morning that I’m an orphan now. My Mom and Dad are both gone, along with all of their siblings. I’m in the older generation now. How does time go by so quickly? I can really tell that I’m old now. People my age (75) are dying every day. I come from long-lived stock on both sides, so I probably have a few years left, but you never know. I just hope I don’t live to see fascism take over the U.S.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. Maybe you learned about his theory in school. I’ve always liked it.
— Infancy – Basic trust versus mistrust
— Toddler – Autonomy versus shame and doubt
— Preschool-age – Initiative versus guilt
— School-age – Industry versus inferiority
— Adolescence – Identity versus identity confusion
— Young adulthood – Intimacy versus isolation
— Middle age – Generativity versus stagnation
— Older adulthood – Integrity versus despair
I guess I’m finally moving into the 8th stage; but I still care a lot about what happens to the next generation, so I’m still partly in stage 7, generativity–when you care more about giving to the next generation than satisfying yourself.
When I was in grad school, my mentor, Richard, (who is gone now, too, sadly) used to teach that Erikson’s states are flexible. You can go back and repair the damage that happened in an earlier stage and you can be in more than one stage at a time. Because people live longer than in Erikson’s day, it can take longer to get into that last stage, where you are supposed to look back on your life and come to terms with all you have experienced, good and bad.
I do find myself looking back at times, reevaluating things that happened to me and reaching acceptance. I believe that I did repair damage from the past over the 40+ years since I’ve been sober, and I’ve learned to accept my life as it is most of the time.
Now back to the present moment, where we are up in the air as to whether our country will be a democracy or a dictatorship ruled over by an insane idiot. Today is a slow news day, but here is some news:
CNN: Capitol Hill doctor: McConnell did not have a stroke or seizure when freezing before cameras.
The Capitol’s attending physician, Brian Monahan, said in a new letter that Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell did not suffer a stroke or seizure – and is not suffering from Parkinson’s disease – after the 81-year-old Kentuckian was evaluated by a group of neurologists following two recent health scares in front of TV cameras.
Vincen Van Gogh, The Garden of St. Paul’s Hospital Leaf Fall
The new letter, released by McConnell’s office Tuesday, comes after he froze in front of cameras for the second time in as many months, raising questions about whether the GOP leader could continue to hold his powerful position atop the Senate GOP Conference. After he froze last week in Covington, Kentucky, McConnell was evaluated by four neurologists, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Monahan said in the Tuesday letter that he consulted with McConnell’s neurologists and conducted several evaluations, including brain MRI imaging and a test that measures electrical imaging in the brain.
“There is no evidence that you have a seizure disorder or that you experienced a stroke, TIA or movement disorder such as Parkinson’s disease,” the letter said.
So what did happen, then? No one knows.
It’s still unclear exactly why McConnell froze up for roughly 30 seconds each time.
The Republican leader’s office had attributed the two frozen moments to “lightheadedness,” and Monahan had indicated in a previous letter that it’s “not uncommon” for victims of concussion to feel lightheaded. McConnell suffered a concussion and broken ribs after falling at a Washington hotel and hitting his head in March, sidelining him from the Senate for nearly six weeks.
I still say he should retire. He’s 81, for heaven’s sake!
The media keeps telling us that Republicans are going to force a government shutdown. Politico claims to know what Democrats are going to do about it: How Democrats are bracing for a ‘MAGA shutdown.’
There’s still a month to go, but Capitol Hill is girding for an appropriations breakdown — and Democrats are already strategizing over how to make Republicans pay for what some have already started calling a “MAGA shutdown.”
Their challenge: Maximizing the GOP political pain while avoiding blame themselves. After all, it has been a full 10 years since the government has shut down with a Democrat in the White House. And this time, the president needs to win reelection in 14 months.
The Birch Wood, Gustav Klimt
“This is really going to be driven by the House,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) told reporters in the Capitol on Friday. “They’re the ones that are going to bring [a shutdown] upon the country.”
To be sure, top House Democrats are still hoping to avoid a shutdown, and the party’s rank-and-file stands ready to approve a bipartisan deal — preferably a clean stopgap with some amount of Ukraine and disaster aid attached, likely sent over from the Senate.
But the key funding decisions lie with Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his capricious Republican conference, and putting a deal along those lines up for a vote could prove disastrous to McCarthy’s standing as leader.
With members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus escalating their threats, Democratic leaders want their members to stay unified around a message decrying GOP hostage-taking and accusing Republicans of reneging on a bipartisan deal on spending caps reached in May.
A solid Democratic front, the thinking goes, will squeeze Republicans from districts won by President Joe Biden and force McCarthy to the negotiating table. Absent that pressure, “I don’t think there’s a lot of hope that Kevin McCarthy for once will actually stand up to the far right,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.).
The House comes back next week, so I guess we’ll learn more about their idiotic plans then.
CNN: First lady Jill Biden tests positive for Covid-19.
First lady Jill Biden tested positive for Covid-19 on Monday and is experiencing “mild symptoms,” the White House said. President Joe Biden has tested negative.
The diagnosis has upended the first lady’s plans to begin teaching the fall semester at Northern Virginia Community College on Tuesday. She is working with the school to “ensure her classes are covered by a substitute,” Vanessa Valdivia, the first lady’s spokesperson, said.
Dr. Biden, 72, who remains at the family’s home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, typically teaches on Tuesday and Thursdays.
Biden will be “monitored by the White House medical team” after her diagnosis and follow the team’s advice about when to return the White House, Valdivia said. In addition to starting school on Tuesday, Biden was supposed to speak in the evening in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, at a send-off dinner for the US team competing in the Invictus Games in Düsseldorf, Germany next week, but now she will not participate, Valdivia said.
An administration official told CNN Monday that there are no changes to White House Covid protocols or to the president’s schedule at this time.
I just hope the president doesn’t come down with it.
Claude Monet, Autumn on the Seine at Argenteuil, 1873
George Conway diagnosed the underlying problem that’s causing Republicans to undermine military readiness and attack law enforcement.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) continues to block military promotions to force the reversal of a Pentagon policy granting leave and travel expenses for military personnel stationed in states where they cannot obtain an abortion, but the conservative Conway told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” the political stunt was emblematic of the GOP’s attitude toward the U.S. government at large.
“They hate the United States military because it’s a part of the United States government,” Conway said. “This is basically, the Republicans have become anti-American, anti-government, anti-the United States. That’s their shtick now. That’s why they’re attacking the State Department, FBI, prosecutors, and they attack the institutions that normally Republicans were very, very supportive of — now, it’s just this nihilistic attack on American institutions.”
More Conway from HuffPost via Yahoo News: ‘Beyond Question’: George Conway Hits Trump With Dire Prison Prediction.
Conservative attorney George Conway said Donald Trump should be locked away for good if he’s found guilty in the two federal cases currently pending against him.
The former president has been charged in Washington for his attempts to cling to power after the 2020 election, and in Florida over his retention of classified documents.
Conway shared a tweet from former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, who wrote that Trump should be given a prison sentence “equal to or greater than” the sentences handed down in other key Jan. 6 cases if convicted in Washington.
That would make 18 years a starting point ― but Conway said the 77-year-old former president’s potential prison time could be much longer than that if he’s convicted in the classified documents case.
“It’s beyond question he should spend the rest of his natural life in prison,” Conway wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter….
Conway has called the Florida case against Trump “airtight,” and said “he should and he will” go to jail over it “because the obstruction case is just so strong.”
If only . . .
Cresheim Glen, Wissahickon, Autumn, 1964
The Guardian: Elon Musk threatens to sue Anti-Defamation League over lost X revenue.
Elon Musk has threatened to sue the Anti-Defamation League after accusing the civil rights group that campaigns against antisemitism and bigotry of trying to “kill” his X social media platform.
The owner of X, formerly known as Twitter, said the ADL was trying to shut down his company by “falsely accusing it and me of being antisemitic”.
In a series of posts on X, Musk said advertising sales for the business were down 60% and “based on what we’ve heard from advertisers, ADL seems to be responsible for most of our revenue loss”.
The world’s richest man also indicated that he would sue the group for defamation, posting on X that “it looks like we have no choice but to file a defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League … oh the irony!”
Musk recently sued another anti-hate speech group, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, in a lawsuit accusing it of damaging X’s relationship with advertisers. CCDH has said it will fight the lawsuit and keep holding “Twitter’s feet to the fire”.
In his posts on Tuesday, Musk added that to be “super clear” he was in favour of free speech “but against antisemitism of any kind”.
Yeah, right. If Musk sues, the ADL will be able to get discovery of all the anti-Semites and Nazis Musk let back on Twitter, so he’s unlikely to do it, but you never know. The guy is really stupid, as far as I can tell.
This is from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: Musk’s Epic, Antic Labor Day Weekend Against The Jews.
Because Twitter is no longer a publicly traded company with a public stock price there’s no straightforward way to assess its current value. But most market analysts estimate the company is now worth no more than a third of the $44 billion Musk paid for it a year ago. To be fair, Musk clearly overpaid for the company. He paid a premium over the company’s current stock price and even that price was probably inflated. But there’s no question Musk’s erratic and destructive reign has dramatically damaged the company, torching its public reputation and leading to a catastrophic decline in ad revenues which Musk and independent press reports have pegged at between 50% and 60%.
Gustave Courbet, Forest in Autumn, 1841
But Musk has found a new scapegoat: the Jews. Or rather, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish community’s largest and oldest organization dedicated to fighting not only anti-Semitism but all forms of racial and religious bigotry and other forms of discrimination. But I suspect the “rather” or the distinction in general might be lost on Musk’s 155 million Twitter followers. Over the past several days Musk has gone on a tear claiming that the catastrophic decline in his company’s value since he purchased it is mostly or entirely the fault of the ADL and churning up Twitter debates that at least big time anti-Semitic accounts think is clearly boosting their cause.
As is often the case, Musk’s attacks have evolved out of tag teaming with notorious anti-Semitic accounts on the platform. It kicked off on Friday when Musk responded to a tweet by Keith Woods, an Irish white nationalist and self-described “raging anti-Semite.”
“ADL has tried very hard to strangle X/Twitter,” Musk told Woods.
From here, Musk went on to gin up support for the #BanTheADL hashtag while alternately claiming that he should ban the group but might not, before rolling into claims that the ADL was responsible for tens of billions of dollars of Twitter losses. This all culminated with Musk announcing he was being forced to sue the ADL “to clear our platform’s name on the matter of anti-Semitism.”
Discussing the defamation suit, Musk claimed the ADL could “potentially be on the hook for destroying half the value of the company, so roughly $22 billion.” Later he said that “giving them the maximum benefit of the doubt,” the ADL might only be responsible for $4 billion in damages.
Read the rest at TPM.
So that’s today’s news as I see it. Please share your thoughts and any other stories that interest you.
Tuesday Reads: Odds and Ends
Posted: August 29, 2023 Filed under: Afternoon Reads, American Fascists, Congress, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, just because | Tags: Catholic reactionaries, Franklin Foer, government shutdown, Mark Meadows, Pope Francis, Rep. Andrew Clyde, UNC Chapel Hill shooting 5 CommentsGood Afternoon!!
As a lapsed Catholic, I was surprised and heartened yesterday to read that Pope Francis has criticized right wing American Catholics–several of whom sit on the Supreme Court.
From the AP via Yahoo News: Pope says some ‘backward’ conservatives in US Catholic Church have replaced faith with ideology.
Pope Francis has blasted the “backwardness” of some conservatives in the U.S. Catholic Church, saying they have replaced faith with ideology and that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.
Francis’ comments were an acknowledgment of the divisions in the U.S. Catholic Church, which has been split between progressives and conservatives who long found support in the doctrinaire papacies of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, particularly on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
Many conservatives have blasted Francis’ emphasis instead on social justice issues such as the environment and the poor, while also branding as heretical his opening to letting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receive the sacraments.
Francis made the comments in a private meeting with Portuguese members of his Jesuit religious order while visiting Lisbon on Aug. 5; the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, which is vetted by the Vatican secretariat of state, published a transcript of the encounter Monday.
More details:
During the meeting, a Portuguese Jesuit told Francis that he had suffered during a recent sabbatical year in the United States because he came across many Catholics, including some U.S. bishops, who criticized Francis’ 10-year papacy as well as today’s Jesuits.
The 86-year-old Argentine acknowledged his point, saying there was “a very strong, organized, reactionary attitude” in the U.S. church, which he called “backward.” He warned that such an attitude leads to a climate of closure, which was erroneous.
“Doing this, you lose the true tradition and you turn to ideologies to have support. In other words, ideologies replace faith,” he said.
“The vision of the doctrine of the church as a monolith is wrong,” he added. “When you go backward, you make something closed off, disconnected from the roots of the church,” which then has devastating effects on morality.
“I want to remind these people that backwardness is useless, and they must understand that there’s a correct evolution in the understanding of questions of faith and morals,” that allows for doctrine to progress and consolidate over time.
I’m surprised this pope has lasted this long. I hope he has supporters in the hierarchy.
The Daily News added more specifics:
He said it was an “error” to consider the Church’s stances on issues a “monolith,” citing how it had changed positions in the past on issues like slavery.
“In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands, and consolidates with time and becomes firmer but is always progressing,” he said.
In regards to LGBTQ issues, he said, “It is apparent that perception of this issue has changed in the course of history.”
Well, that’s a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, I doubt if the reactionaries in the Supreme Court and the Federalist Society will be swayed by Francis’ arguments.
NBC News has some specifics on the shooting at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill yesterday.
NBC News: UNC-Chapel Hill graduate student charged with murder in fatal shooting of faculty member.
A graduate student at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill was charged with first-degree murder after the fatal shooting of a professor in his research department.
Tailei Qi, an applied physical sciences major, was apprehended Monday afternoon following the shooting at Caudill Labs, a science building on the UNC campus, which prompted an hourslong lockdown that forced students and faculty to barricade themselves in classrooms and dorms as authorities searched for a suspect.
Qi, 34, was booked Tuesday in the Orange County Detention Center in Hillsborough and also charged with possession of a gun on an educational property, a felony.
The incident, which occurred in the second week of the fall semester at UNC, began when students were alerted to an armed and dangerous person after 1 p.m. The university issued another alert at 2:24 p.m. that the suspect remained at large. A photo of an unnamed person was released, and the suspect was later apprehended in a residential neighborhood near campus.
It sounds like the victim–a faculty member–might have been targeted, but that’s just my speculation.
The victim was initially described as a university faculty member, and was not immediately identified pending notification of family. The arrest warrant names the shooting victim as Zijie Yan, an associate professor in the applied physical sciences department.
A university department web page that has since been removed had listed Qi as being a member of Yan’s lab group.
On his LinkedIn profile, Qi says he enrolled at UNC’s flagship campus in January 2022 as a graduate student and research assistant, and shared links to papers on his research. One paper published last month
in the journal Advanced Optical Materials was co-authored by Yan.
So the two were well known to each other. We’ll probably learn more in the coming days.
At The Daily Beast, attorney Shan Wu has a piece on Mark Meadows’ choice to testify under oath yesterday: Mark Meadows Just Took an Enormous Risk. Will It Pay Off?
Meadows wants out of the Fulton County court so badly that on Monday, he took the enormous risk of testifying in his own criminal trial and subjecting himself to cross-examination by the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office.
Meadows’ longing for federal court may seem puzzling because switching is but a change of courthouses. In federal court, Meadows will face the same charges, under the same state laws (including the Georgia RICO Act), brought by the same prosecutor.
However, Meadows may be counting on the fact that a federal trial would give him a broader geographic jury pool which might be more favorable to him. He also may think that a federal court would be more sympathetic to his argument that his position as a federal official should automatically make him immune from a state criminal prosecution.
Theoretically, Meadows’ removal argument under 28 U.S. code § 1442 doesn’t look that hard to make, since he only needs to show that he was a federal official at the time and that he can raise a “colorable legal defense.” Meadows was a federal official at the time as Trump’s White House chief of staff, so he can meet that part of the legal standard.
He also has a “federal defense” to raise based on so-called “Supremacy Clause Immunity,” meaning that as a federal officer he cannot be criminally prosecuted by a state for actions performed in his official federal capacity. The question though is whether that defense is a “colorable one” in these circumstances. In plain English, a “colorable defense” is just one that passes the smell test. That may prove challenging for Meadows.
The problem for Meadows is that he needs to convince federal judge Steve C. Jones–a former state judge appointed to the U.S. District Court by President Obama–that his actions in allegedly conspiring with Trump and 18 other co-defendants to overturn the election results in Georgia were part of his job description as White House chief of staff.
Holding aside the fact that the Hatch Act bars a federal official from using their office to engage in partisan political activity, Meadows must prove that his involvement in such acts as the phone call to Brad Raffensberger, in which Trump pressured the Georgia secretary of state to find votes for Trump, were just part of doing his job.
The federal government does not have the power to regulate presidential elections. A strict reading of Article II, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution would allow only regulation of the “time” of choosing presidential electors and certainly there is no known precedent for a White House chief of staff overseeing any aspect of a state election process.
Read more at the link.
Republicans are trying to find a way to shut down the prosecutions of Trump by any means necessary.
WASHINGTON — Four criminal indictments of Donald Trump have ignited his followers and spurred his House Republican allies to try to use the upcoming government funding deadline of Sept. 30 as leverage to undermine the prosecutions.
The bad news for them: A government shutdown wouldn’t halt the criminal proceedings against the former president.
Trump’s indictments in New York and Georgia would not be affected, while his federal indictments — for allegedly mishandling classified documents and for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection — are criminal matters that have been exempted from shutdowns in the past. The Justice Department said in a 2021 memo that in a shutdown, “Criminal litigation will continue without interruption as an activity essential to the safety of human life and the protection of property.” The Justice Department’s plans assume that the judicial branch remains fully operational, which it has said in the past can carry on for weeks in the event of a funding lapse.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office is funded by a “permanent, indefinite appropriation for independent counsels,” the department said in its statement of expenditures. Given its separate funding source, the special counsel would not be affected by a shutdown and could run off of allocations from previous years.
So how are these idiots planning to stop the prosecutions?
As a result, Republicans are looking at ways to insert provisions in government funding legislation that would hinder federal and state prosecutors who have secured indictments of Trump, based on unproven claims that he’s being politically targeted.
It won’t be easy to achieve. The demands, spearheaded by hard-right Republicans, have sparked internal party divisions over reining in law enforcement power and will struggle to pass the House. The Justice bill is one of two appropriations measures the House GOP hasn’t yet passed, out of 12 total, a Democratic aide noted, which could signify splits about how to proceed. And Democrats, who control the Senate and the White House, are pushing back on those calls to derail law enforcement as interference in Trump’s cases….
Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., a Trump ally who sits on the Appropriations Committee, said Monday he will introduce two amendments to eliminate federal funding for all three of Trump’s prosecutors — Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. His office said the measures would block their prosecutorial authority over “any major presidential candidate prior to” the 2024 election.
“Due to my serious concerns about these witch hunt indictments against President Trump, I intend to offer two amendments to prohibit any federal funds from being used in federal or state courts to prosecute major presidential candidates prior to the 2024 election,” Clyde said in a statement.
These so-called legislators have done nothing this session except “investigate” Hunter and Joe Biden and try to protect Trump.
A new book on the Biden administration by Franklin Foer is coming out on September 5. You can read an excerpt that focuses on the withdrawal from Afghanistan at The Atlantic.
This is from today’s Politico Playbook: A first look at the big new Biden book.
Atlantic staff writer FRANKLIN FOER originally set out to write an account of Biden’s first one hundred days in office, focusing on the Biden team’s response to the pandemic and the undoing of Trump’s major policies. But Foer kept reporting as the story of the American Rescue Plan, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Afghanistan withdrawal, Ukraine and ultimately the midterm elections unfolded.
Along the way he conducted nearly 300 interviews from November 2020 to February 2023. The result is his eagerly anticipated 407-page tome about Biden world: “The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future” ($30).
In recent days Biden aides have been scrambling to secure a password-protected PDF of the book that has been sent to select journalists and reviewers, some of whom were required to sign nondisclosure agreements and promise not to share the contents with newsroom colleagues.
A major media rollout of the book is set to kick off this week. (In fact, we’ll be recording a conversation with Foer this afternoon for next week’s episode of the Playbook Deep Dive podcast.)
In the publishing world, “The Last Politician” is seen as a test of the market for political books about figures other than DONALD TRUMP. In Washington, the book will be a test for how a generally leak-proof White House grapples with the first detailed excavation of its successes and failures from the Inaugural through the midterms.
Minutes ago, the first excerpt of the Foer book was posted at the Atlantic and will appear across 13 pages in the magazine’s October issue. The piece — “The Final Days” — is a gripping history of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan during August 2021, a month that marks one of the low points for a team that was elected for its competence. Foer’s account is notable both for his deep reporting as well as his shrewd insights into how Biden thinks, including the president’s unsentimental views on his decision to end America’s longest war.
Read more Politico-style analysis at the link.
That’s all I have for you today. Here’s hoping that Hurricane headed for Florida won’t cause too much damage. Take care everyone.
Mostly Monday Reads: The Case of Consumer Protection, Fiat money, and Other off-budget Agencies.
Posted: May 15, 2023 Filed under: Afternoon Reads, American Fascists, Right Wing Angst | Tags: Consumer Financial Protection Agency, debt ceiling crisis, Debt ceiling negotiations, Elon Musk, Fifth Circuit, Recep Tayyip Erdogan 9 Comments
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
Yes, it’s another rabbit hole. Yes, it’s rather scholarly and lawyerly. Yes, we all didn’t catch this back in February when the 5th Circuit made a decision that may impact more than just the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau has been on every outrage list of right-wingers and the financial industry due to its oversight of how it snags borrowers and then proceeds to drain every last drop of money it can. You may remember this being set up by the Obama Administration under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren before her Senate run.
The most revealing thing about the scope of the case that SCOTUS agreed to review is the weird logic of the 5th Circuit and the actual grounds of the case. This is from Scotus Blog on February 27. It’s written by Amy Howe. “Court will review constitutionality of consumer-watchdog agency’s funding.”
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a major case involving funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was formed in response to the 2008 financial crisis. A federal appeals court ruled in October that the funding mechanism for the CFPB violates the Constitution, but the Biden administration, which had asked the justices to weigh in, says that allowing the lower court’s decision to stand could raise “grave concerns” for “the entire financial industry.”
The announcement came as part of a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week.
The case involving the CFPB began as a challenge by the payday-lending industry to a 2017 rule that (as relevant here) barred lenders from making additional efforts to withdraw payments from borrowers’ bank accounts after two consecutive failed attempts due to a lack of funds.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected most of the groups’ challenges to the rule, but it ultimately struck down the rule based on the CFPB’s unique funding scheme, which operates outside the normal congressional appropriations process. Instead of receiving money allocated to it each year by Congress, the CFPB receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve, which collects fees from member banks. And that scheme, the court of appeals concluded, violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause, which directs that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The appropriations clause, the court of appeals explained, “ensures Congress’s exclusive power over the federal purse,” which is in turn essential to ensure that other branches of government don’t overstep their authority. The court of appeals vacated the 2017 rule on the ground that the CFPB was receiving funding through that unconstitutional funding mechanism when it adopted the rule.
The CFPB came to the Supreme Court in November, asking the justices to take up the case and overrule what it characterized as the lower court’s “unprecedented and erroneous understanding of the Appropriations Clause.” The appropriations clause, the CFPB argued, means “simply that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an Act of Congress.” In the case of the CFPB, the government contends, “Congress enacted a statute explicitly authorizing the CFPB to use a specified amount of funds from a specified source for specified purposes. The Appropriations Clause requires nothing more.”
Let me explain why the court’s logic and the current makeup of SCOTUS worry me. Many quasi-agencies are funded the same way the CFPB is funded. If they let the logic of the 5th circuit stand, you would be surprised at what would likely be eliminated next. This is from Nina Totenburg’s All Things Considered on February 27.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case that could threaten the existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and potentially the status of numerous other federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve.
A panel of three Trump appointees on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last fall that the agency’s funding is unconstitutional because the CFPB gets its money from the Federal Reserve, which in turn is funded by bank fees.
Although the agency reports regularly to Congress and is routinely audited, the Fifth Circuit ruled that is not enough. The CFPB’s money has to be appropriated annually by Congress or the agency, or else everything it does is unconstitutional, the lower courts said.
The CFPB is not the only agency funded this way. The Federal Reserve itself is funded not by Congress but by banking fees. The U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. Mint, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which protects bank depositors, and more, are also not funded by annual congressional appropriations.
In its brief to the Supreme Court, the Biden administration noted that even programs like Social Security and Medicare are paid for by mandatory spending, not annual appropriations.
“This marks the first time in our nation’s history that any court has held that Congress violated the Appropriations Clause by enacting a law authorizing spending,” wrote the Biden administration’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
Lydon Larouche, The John Birch Society, and now cryptocurrency maniacs, including Elon Musk, have been after all of these agencies for decades. Have they found the court and the basis that could do that? Tottenberg also notes this.
A conservative bête noire
Conservatives who have long opposed the modern administrative state have previously challenged laws that declared heads of agencies can only be fired for cause. In recent years, the Supreme Court has agreed and struck down many of those provisions. The court has held that administrative agencies are essentially creatures of the Executive Branch, so the president has to be able to fire at-will and not just for cause.
This is from the Consumer Finance Monitor. “SCOTUS agrees to decide whether CFPB’s funding is unconstitutional but will not hear case until next Term.” We’re going to have to watch this one.
The sole question presented by the CFPB’s petition is:
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), 12 U.S.C. 5497, violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, Cl. 7, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the CFPB was receiving such funding.
Thus, by denying CFSA’s cross-petition and also rejecting CFSA’s request to consider the alternative grounds as antecedent questions to the CFPB’s petition, the Supreme Court is poised to decide the Appropriations Clause issue.
While the Court’s decision not to hear the case this Term means the Fifth Circuit decision will continue to be a cloud over all CFPB actions and could slow the pace of enforcement activity (particularly in pending cases where defendants can be expected to assert the Appropriations Clause issue as a defense), we do not expect it to impact the CFPB’s ongoing supervisory activity in any material way or deter Director Chopra from continuing to pursue his aggressive regulatory agenda.
Here’s an exciting read by Dave Troy, writing for The Washington Spectator, if you’d like to visit the crockpot of crazy folks wanting to tank our economy through debt default or any other possible way. “The Wide Angle: Crash the Global Economy? It’s Harder than It Sounds.”
Just yesterday, I visited the “Rage Against the War Machine” rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Organized by the Libertarian Party, the People’s Party, and the Schiller Institute (run by LaRouche’s widow, Helga Zepp), it was thick with leafleteers pushing LaRouche messaging and featured speeches by two dozen or so Putin-friendly speakers, including presidential candidates Jill Stein, Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard, and Ron Paul.
One speaker led the crowd in a chant, “all wars are bankers’ wars,” bringing things full circle: the assertion being that it is only because we have departed from pure, good, and undefiled Austrian economics and the gold standard can (usually Jewish) bankers print the money required to fuel endless war. It seems no one at this anti-war rally had arrived at the most obvious solution: tell Vladimir Putin to withdraw his troops and go home.
Paul, the final live speaker of the day, predictably took the podium to chants of “End the Fed” with a phalanx of Russian flags behind him in the afternoon light. (Ironically, the Eccles Federal Reserve building, barely a block away, is undergoing renovations.)
The North-Paul strategy seems to be alive and well. The most obvious strategy to achieve it would be to crash the global economy by failing to raise the debt ceiling. Kevin McCarthy has repeatedly and explicitly stated his intent to pursue this, and the Washington Post recently reported that the strategy has been developed by former Trump budget director Russell Vought. But two things stand in his way.
The Debt Ceiling Crisis looms eminently. This is from Sahil Kapur and NBC News. “The big problem with trying to cut spending in a debt ceiling bill. President Biden and congressional leaders have a major hurdle to overcome as negotiators meet privately to consider a way forward and prevent a self-inflicted economic calamity.”
Heading into an expected meeting between President Joe Biden and congressional leaders this week, Republican lawmakers say an agreement on “spending caps” is important in securing their support to avert a dangerous debt default.
The House-passed debt ceiling bill would slash federal spending to fiscal year 2022 levels, requiring appropriators charged with allocating government funding to cut $131 billion compared with what Congress is currently spending.
Meeting that target without cutting defense funding would require a steep 17% cut to nondefense discretionary spending.
“Democrats will not let nondefense take a disproportionate share of deep cuts. So Republicans will have to moderate their cut demands if they want to spare defense,” said Brian Riedl, a former Senate Republican policy aide who now works at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative public policy think tank.
Riedl said they may be able to avoid the dispute by freezing spending rather than making cuts, suggesting “a two-year freeze” on federal spending as one possible endgame.
The trick is that Republicans do not want to touch Defense Spending. We’re not at war anywhere anymore so that should be the item to look for any cuts. Spending on the Military generally is just about half of discretionary spending. No country spends the kinds of money we spend on its military budget.
We’re watching Turkey’s election go to run-offs while it appears Elon Musk is using Twitter in the interests of Erdogan and his business interests there.
Erdogan is currently trending on Twitter, along with a lot of information on how Twitter has successfully fought off Erdogan’s attempt to censor its content.
All of this should make for an interesting few weeks.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments