Clear and Present Danger, Even Without a Third Term

Chris Matthews says of President Trump "the man has to be stopped by somebody. And that means his Party."

His party obviously refuses to do so, which makes it all the more unfortunate that Matthews' read of the United States Constitution is accurate only in part. He maintains

We're founded on the principle of division of powers. Presidents cannot decide things. He cannot break through the Constitution. I mean, here's a President existence as President. That's a fact. And everybody knows it. But yet  he keeps saying "I may run again next time." I may run again for President and clearly that is a problem because he says he won the 2020 election. He decides what the Constitution will read. He acts like he can do everything.

Chris Matthews: We're founded on the principle of division of powers. Presidents cannot decide things. Here's a president who keeps talking about running for reelection in 2028. Everybody knows he's limited to a two-term existence as president. But yet he keeps saying, I may run… pic.twitter.com/44oxq1KWbS

— Blue Georgia (@BlueATLGeorgia) February 28, 2026

Division of powers is an important principle embedded in the Constitution or, as the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision put it, something which exists within the penumbra of the Constitution. (And we know how that turned out in Dobbs 45 years later.)  Nonetheless, the document does not prohibit an individual from serving more than two terms as President. Instead,the Twenty-Second Amendment reads

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or  acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

And so it was on February 25 that Trump administration officials announced

that the federal government would withhold $259 million in Medicaid funds to Minnesota, the latest effort by the federal government to pull funding from Democratic-led states as President Trump rails against a major welfare fraud scandal there.

Federal judges have blocked most of the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back funds from states like Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. The states have decried the cuts as politically motivated, adding that they would harm hundreds of thousands of people. The Trump administration has pointed to allegations of fraud to justify the cuts.

The latest action targeting Medicaid funds will almost certainly be challenged in court.

Although obviously unconstitutional, it may take awhile for that to go through the courts. And if lower court(s) decide against the regime, Mr. Trump will continue to act illegally until the matter has run its course, because of course he will. It's not Donald's first rodeo as

In January, the Trump administration moved to withhold funding for food stamps and other hunger relief programs in Minnesota. A federal judge blocked that order. The Department of Health and Human Services also tried to freeze $10 billion in funding for child care subsidies, social services and cash support for low-income families in Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. A federal judge blocked that order, too.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration again moved to withhold a smaller pot of Health Department funds that included grants aimed at curbing H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted infections. A federal judge blocked that move, and his order broadly enjoined the government from terminating public health grants “based on undisclosed agency priorities.”

The cuts to social and health care services came as Mr. Trump has fixated on allegations of fraud in Minnesota, claiming, without evidence, that similar large fraud schemes are playing out elsewhere in Democratic led-states.

.

You and whose army? If the Administration decided to defy the courts in this or virtually any other matter, it is questionable he'd be blocked by the same U.S. Supreme Court which ruled in 2024 that the President can do whatever he wishes in his official acts and is completely immune in the "core" acts.

At some point, the regime will again the court(s) the figurative middle finger, as it came within hours of doing on April 7, 2025, until Chief Justice John Roberts let the Adminstration off the hook. Donald Trump has almost told us so, such as when in February of last year, he

posted on social media a single sentence that appears to encapsulate his attitude as he tests the nation’s legal and constitutional boundaries in the process of upending the federal government and punishing his perceived enemies.

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Mr. Trump wrote, first on his social media platform Truth Social, and then on the website X.

By late afternoon, Mr. Trump had pinned the statement to the top of his Truth Social feed, making it clear it was not a passing thought but one he wanted people to absorb. The official White House account on X posted his message in the evening.

The quote is a variation of one sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, although its origin is unclear.

Nonetheless, the sentiment was familiar: Mr. Trump, through his words and actions, has repeatedly suggested that surviving two assassination attempts is evidence that he has divine backing to enforce his will.

He has brought a far more aggressive attitude toward his use of power to the White House in his second term than he did at the start of his first. The powers of the presidency that he returned to were bolstered by last year’s Supreme Court ruling that he is presumptively immune from prosecution for any crimes he may commit using his official powers.

The sentiment has become even more familiar. Whining yet again about losing the 2020 election, in December of 2022 Donald posted on Untruth Social

A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

And now, this:

Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly previewed a plan to mandate voter ID and ban mail ballots in November’s midterm elections, and the activists expect their draft will figure into Trump’s promised executive order on the issue.

Peter Ticklin, the Florida lawyer advocating for declaration of national emergency, told the Post "we have a situation whee the President is aware that there are foreign interests that are interfering in our election processes. That causes a national emergency where the President has to be able to deal with it."

Asked about the idea, Donald replied "I've never heard about it." You're forgiven for having flashbacks to the 2024 presidential campaign, when in the debate with Kamala Harris, Donald maintained "I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it." 

Project 2025, which turned out to be a blueprint for the Trump Administration, includes plenty of ideas to detonate free elections.  It's one more reason, a big one, that this man does have to be stopped by somebody, whether Donald Trump seeks to stay in office beyond January, 2029 or even if he doesn't make it through this term of office.

Share |

Wise Tactic

As recognized by the former chess campion, Donald Trump is dangerous and emboldened by suceess in grabbing power, and will only get worse. While he repulsively lashes out at critics, his party will continue to object only at the margins.

Trump is deranged and dangerous and is only going to get worse. He is emboldened by success in his power grabs and lashes out like this when rebuked. The most pathetic thing is the GOP is never going to do anything about it. An orchestra of fiddle players as Nero throws matches. https://t.co/iFBvgBvN2a

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) February 21, 2026

In his speech following the Court's decision, the President complained  "The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country."  He claimed

Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long, that I can assure you.

The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America, strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices….

"Others" are

just being foools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radicalleft Democrats and not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they're vry unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.

It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.

In a post on his ironically, yet intentionally, named Truth Social platform that evening, Donald remark in part

What happened today with the two United States Supreme Court Justices that I appointed against great oppsition, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whether people like it or not, never seems to happen with Democrats. They vote against the Republicans, and never against themselves, almost every single time, no matter how good a case we have.

If X is any indication, his remarks inspired the desired response. One tweeter argued (with picture of the offender) "Meet Amy Coney Barrett. She just went against President Trump and struck down his tariffs. She is one of the biggest disappoints we've ever seen. Betraying the American people."

Another- also with photo attached- raged 

SHE IS A TRAITOR. Amy Coney Barrett is a traitor to the conservative movement! 

Since her appointment in 2020 she has AGREED WITH THE LIBERAL JUSTICEs in approximately 65% to 75% of cases on average. 

This average varies by term and specific justice but the pattern is crystal clear. Trump gave her the seat to deliver for us yet she sides with the left way too often! 

It feels exactly like a fox slipped into the conservative henhouse t wreck it from inside. 

Patriots who cheered her cconfirmation now feel stabed straight in the back!

Still another wrote 

President Trump just called out the corrupt SC Judges who are bought and paid for by FOREIGN COUNTRIES. TRAITORS TO AMERICA. 🇺🇸 ☠️

Chief Justice John Roberts (who wrote the majority opinion)

 •  Justice Neil Gorsuch

•  Justice Amy Coney Barrett

•  Justice Sonia Sotomayor

•  Justice Elena Kagan

•  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

“And they’re dancing in the streets but they won’t be dancing for long.” 

This tweeter summed up the sentiment: AMY CONEY BARRETT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAITOR."

AMY CONEY BARRETT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAITOR

Which is to say: Donald Trump is not "deranged."  CBS News noted that after Trump's prepared remarks

A reporter asked the President if he regrets nominating dissenting justices Barrett and Gorsuch. The President said he didn't want to say that, but lobbed personal insults at the justices.

"I don't want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible" he said, pausing before continuing. "I think it's an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them."

Barrett and her husband have seven children, while Gorsuch and his wife have two.

Donald Trump has appallingly attacked Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. Many of his supporters have taken the hint.

There are three possible outcomes to President Trump's excoriation of two Supreme Court justices. Of course, the two justices may put aside the personal insults. They may rise above the noise and rule in the future as they othewise would, usually as a conservative in the case of Barrett and almost always in the case of Gorsuch.

Or perhaps the two will be intimidated. Trump typically attempts to intimidate friend and foe alike and his record of success is impressive. That is especially plausible given Barrettt and her husband have seven children, while Gorsuch and his wife have two.

The third possibility, obviously, is that one or more of Trump's loyalists will conclude that traitors have to be eliminated, as stated in some circles, neutralized.  If that were to occur, in the case of either or both, we know who will be blamed. It will be, as has been the case with the murder of Charlie Kirk and the assassination attempts upon Donald Trump himself, the "left" or "Democrats" or "they," the latter unspecified enemies of the MAGA movement and/or its leader. The crime would be exploited ruthlessl by President Trump- think Reichstag fire.

The one consolation is that the perpetrators would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as were the January 6, 2021 insurrectionists. And like those individuals, they would be..... oh, yea, granted clemency or pardons.  

Donald Trump is not deranged, stupid,or unhinged. He understood quite well the possible ramifications of his incendiary remarks. And most of those, for him, would be positive.

Share |

Good for the Goose, But Not For the Gander

Pride flags are out? Guess again, MAGA Girl.

 

Thanks to President Trump, June is less gay and more patriotic.

Pride flags are out and military parades are in.

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) June 1, 2025

A funny/not funny thing has happened in Massachusetts. The conservative United States Supreme Court has denied the petition for writ of certiorari in the matter of L.M. (a minor) and parents Christopher and Susan Morrison v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts. On Inauguration Day, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order declaring that the federal government recognizes only two sexes. However

The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand an appeals court decision that allowed a public school in Massachusetts to prohibit a seventh grader from wearing a T-shirt that said "There Are Only Two Genders," declining to hear the case over heated dissents from two conservative justices.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court should have agreed to take the case and ruled for the student on free speech grounds.

"If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity," Alito wrote, "then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues”….

The case from Massachusetts involved a student identified in court papers as L.M. who tried to wear the shirt at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough in 2023. When students and a teacher complained, the principal told the student that he could not return to class unless he changed clothes. He refused and was sent home.

Later, the student came to school wearing a T-shirt that this time said "There Are CENSORED Genders." He was told that was not permitted, either. Rather than missing more school, he changed clothes.

His parents sued, saying the school's policy violated the First Amendment. They relied on a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that public school students have First Amendment rights. In that case, students sought to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

               

The Supreme Court therein established a precedent

in which the justices ruled 7–2 it was unconstitutional when an Iowa school suspended students who wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. "It can hardly be argued," wrote Justice Abe Fortas, "that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Tinker, however, came with a caveat. Schools can seek to stymie expression that causes, or could potentially cause, a "substantial disruption."

The issue arose when "a teacher reported the shirt to the school principal's office, noting that LGBT students were present that day and expressing concerns that the shirt could disrupt classes." However, as Justice Alito wrote in his dissent

And just as in Tinker, some of L.M.'s classmates found his speech upsetting. Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our "often disputatious" society and Tinker made abundantly clear that he "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint" is no reason to thwart a student's speech. True, NMS also forecasted that L.M."s shirts could lead to a "standoff" between students who support L.M."s view and those who oppose it. But the schools in Tinker were similarly worried that students "would wear arm bands of other colors" and hat this could "evolve into something which would be difficult to control." If anything, the risk in Tinker was far less speculative than in this case. In Tinker, several students had already "made hostile remarks to the children wearing armbands," and a math teacher "had his lesson period practically 'wrecked' chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker" over her armband. Even so, Tinker deemed the schools' concern an "undifferentiated fear" that could not "overcome the right to freedom of expression."

The importance of being sensitive to the feelings of an individual or group was at the core of the political correctness movement, which morphed into the similar, albeit somewhat different, interest in being woke. There were two competing values at stake in this case, one the claimed right of not having one's feelings hurt.

The other is freedom of speech- and its antagonist, viewpoint discrimination. Alito noted also

Inside and outside the classroom, NMS promotes the view that gender is a fluid construct and tha a person's self-defined identity- not biological sex- determines whether that person is male, female, or something else.  NMS also encourages students to embrace and express this viewpoint, including during the school's "PRIDE Spirit Week."

Strangely enough- or perhaps not strangely- four of the six conservative Justices have struck a blow against freedom of speech.

This presents a great opportunity for those Democrats who have been posing as bold opponents of the party establishment by arguing that left-wing Democrat shave been pandering to the LGBTQ+ community. They can pull a Sister Souljah move by slamming the (successful) effort by this special interest, a relatively reliable Democratic voting bloc, to demand that there be only one opinion on the controversy over gender. 

Alternatively, they can declare their support for individuals who are not exclusively and decisively heterosexual. Then they could stress that they hold even more dearly the right of free speech, enshrined as Amendment 1A in the United States Constitution. 

And may Minneapolis, Chicago, and Buffalo enjoy consistent and endless days of 100% sunshine every winter. That is roughly as likely as these Democrats growing a spine. Similarly, Donald J. Trump can crusade against the "woke" and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs all he wants. He, too, will stay silent about the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison because stifling free speech is an even greater priority for him than pandering to the traditional values of his followers.

Share |

The "No One Above the Law" That Never Was

There are many things which will determine President Biden's legacy, including probably being the last President of our democratic republic (representative democracy, if you wish). This is the least of them:

Biden's pardon of his son erodes the rule of law, shrinks the distance between the Dems and the GOP, and objectively aids whatever nonsense Trump is about to do.

In this last year, he torched what might have been a decent legacy.

— Joe Stieb (@joestieb) December 2, 2024

The distance between Democrats and Republicans on the rule of law now has shrunk by almost one millimeter.The distance remains as vast as the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, together. Nonetheless, as this is typed, the tweeter's notion is a popular one on Twitter. A political strategist and editor of The Bulwark a conservative, anti-Trump organ, takes the same position.when she tweets (quote marks hers)

“Pardoning Hunter, who has pleaded guilty, would persuade those who still believe in impartial justice that it’s all a pretense—that Democrats mouth the words about nobody being above the law but when it comes down to it, they don’t believe it and they don’t act on it.”

Longwell has been listening too much to the lawyers, many of them former federal prosecutors, on cable news who have assurred us for several years that "no one is above the law." On this, at least, most Americans have been well ahead of the legal geniuses who either believe this or have been blowing smoke up our posterior.

Left, right, or center, people without a law degree- without a stake in vouching for the credibility of the legal system- have recognized that some people are above the law. At the least, this always has applied to the wealthy. And then five months ago- that would be five months before President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter- the Supreme Court told us so when in Trump v. United States it ruled

that former President Trump is at least presumptively immune from criminal liability for his official acts, and is absolutely immune for some “core” of them — including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the election. With respect to Trump’s other actions, the court left to the lower courts much of the work required to determine which are immune and which are not. At bottom, though, the court’s 6-3 majority freed presidents to use their official powers to engage in criminal acts substantially free of accountability.

Six days ago, exasperated by the request by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith for Judge Chutkan to dismiss (without prejudice) the January 6 case against Donald Trump, Charlie Pierce wrote in part

Of course, Smith’s case against the two Mar-a-Lago orcs who did (literally) the heavy lifting in the Pool Shed Papers Case will go forward because, as we know, No Scrub Is Above the Law. Comin’ soon to the ID Network: Walt Nauta: Threat of Menace? This is nothing short of pathetic. In fact, it’s well past pathetic.

Oh, just shut up and go away, will you? Tell me no more lies about the rule of law and about how no man is above it....  Let the chroniclers write that the only people who did not lie to us about all that star-spangled folderol were local prosecutors in Manhattan and Atlanta, and a New York jury. In the name of God, go, all of you. Leave us to learn how to live under the crumb-scattering oligarchy that you have done so much to spawn. That will be the order of the American idea probably for the rest of my lifetime, and the only thing we can hope for is that it won’t always be run by a vengeful, lunatic crook. That seems to be the consensus of my fellow citizens, as expressed by the recent election results. The one thing that Trump voters and nonvoters alike have in common is that participatory democracy is just too...damn...hard. Here we are now, entertain us.

That rant applies also to the hand-wringing over the HB pardon. The idea that "no one is above the law" had been in hospice care for a very long time. Donald Trump put it onto life support and the United States Supreme Court killed it on July 1, 2024. President Joe Biden's decision about a family member will not change that.

             .

Share |

Subservient

The husband-wife (or, rather, wife-husband) duo of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Martha-Ann Alito nee Bomgardner flew an upside down flag outside their house for a few days shortly after 1/6/2-21. They did so even while the US Supreme Court was considering an election case from Pennsylvania. Really. Cautiously

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has long called for a congressionally enforced code of conduct for the Court, released a statement Friday night calling on Alito to recuse himself from cases relating to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election, reiterating a previous admonishment that “the Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making.”

“Flying an upside-down American flag — a symbol of the so-called ‘Stop the Steal’ movement — clearly creates the appearance of bias,” Durbin wrote. “Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection, including the question of the former President’s immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court is currently considering.”

Of course, the chairperson called on Alito to recuse himself, a safe proposal because there is less than a 1% chance that he will. And Durbin won't make a fuss over it. We already knew the Associate Justice is corrupt because

Following reports that Justice Samuel Alito failed to disclose a luxury Alaska fishing trip gifted by right-wing billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, a new analysis from government watchdog Accountable.US shows Singer holds at least $90 million in financial companies overseen by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the agency faces an existential threat in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Accountable.US called the undisclosed gifts between Singer and Alito – including private jet travel valued at over $100,000 each way – grounds for Alito’s recusal in CFPB v. the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) especially as Singer’s investment management firm has called for the end of the CFPB’s independence, the central issue before the court. Should Alito choose to preside over this case despite his billionaire benefactor’s direct financial stake in the outcome, it would only fuel an already raging Supreme Court corruption crisis.

A corrupt Judge does not resign, recuse, or apologize. He whines and blames someone else. For Alito, it was "I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."

Chris Lehmann in The Nation makes a couple of excellent points pertaining to the motivation of the couple, although they cannot be simultaneously valid. Arguing that the decision to fly the flag upside down may have been made by the Justice himself, he explains

It is, first of all, beyond parody for the justice who authored the egregious majority opinion hijacking the bodily autonomy of American women in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to profess that his life partner has uncontested domestic sovereignty in the adoption of exterior political messaging.

Though that is a legitimate perspective, Lehmann more boldly writes

the argument that it was an entirely unilateral work of Martha-Ann’s falls apart on its face; any adult sharing close living quarters with a militant flag-brandishing partner would then put some variation of the question Just what the hell are you up to, sweetheart? to said partner, and the ensuing exchange would result in either spirited dissent and flag removal or (the clear outcome here) harmonious consent and mutual self-satisfaction.

Former law clerk Martha-Ann Bomgardner was described by The New York Times in 2006 as

an extremely intelligent and well-read woman who orders restaurant meals in fluent French and recently took a philosophy class for intellectual stimulation.

"She's like a renaissance person," Susan Engelman Volkert, an employment lawyer who, along with her husband, Judge Donald J. Volkert Jr. of Superior Court in Essex County, N.J., has been friends with the Alitos for two decades. "She knows a little about music, a little about art. She's very active in sports and has been active in the community.

Sixteen years later, the U.S. Sun wrote "she revealed in an interview with The Washington Post that her husband likes Beethoven and Springsteen, but she forces him to listen to Scarlatti and Bach."

Without question, she forces him to listen to Scarlatti and Bach- and has the final word on whether the couple displays an American flag to demonstrate support for a political movement. The action violates Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for Justices but "happy wife, happy life" trumps "happy conduct, happy life." 

This is even more clear-cut than Lehmann suggests because it is not a case of a husband a wife working in the same field, company, job. Mrs. Alito evidently is, in the parlance of the last century, a homemaker. It would be the same if she were a  store clerk, store manager, warehouse worker, librarian, teacher, self-employed consultant, engineer, doctor, even a lawyer: everything, in fact, other than a President of the country. Her preferences must give way to the requirements of his job. There are only eight (8) others in his position.

Samuel Alito is a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. There are only nine (9) in the country. He is nearly at the top of both the legal and governmental professions, with only the President and Chief Justice more consequential.  When it comes to the appearance and reality of impropriety in his work, something must give. With the Dobbs abortion decision, Justice Alito told women where to go. As a real Republican, back home in Alexandria, he does what he's told. 

 

Share |

We've Seen This Play Before

A Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor is the first Latina to serve on the United States Supreme Court. But as Mehdi Hasan understands, that's simply not good enough.

In the article in The Guardian, Hasan writes

...it is time to remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To recall how RBG, who had survived two bouts of cancer, refused to quit the court despite calls to do so from leading liberals during Barack Obama’s second term office. To hark back to her insistence, in multiple interviews, that it was “misguided” to insist she retire and that she would only stand down “when it’s time”. To recollect how, on her deathbed in 2020, she told her granddaughter that her “most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed” – and how it made no difference whatsoever! Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett as RBG’s replacement just eight days after her death, and Senate Republicans confirmed Barrett to RBG’s vacant seat just eight days before election day.

With Joe Biden trailing Trump in several swing states and Democrats also in danger of losing their razor-thin majority in the Senate, are we really prepared for history to repeat itself? Sotomayor will turn 70 in June. Of course, only Sotomayor knows the full status of her health, still it is public knowledge that she has had type 1 diabetes since she was seven; had paramedics called to her home; and is the only sitting justice to have, reportedly, traveled with a medic. To be clear: she could easily – and God willing – survive a potential Trump second term and still be dishing out dissents from the bench come 2029.

But why take that risk? Why not retire now? Why not quit the bench at the same age that justices in Belgium, Australia and Japan are forced to do so?

"I have PTSD from 2020 [& RBG]...The Republicans are very good at stacking courts... Democrats aren't very good at seeing the power of the Supreme Court."

I debated & defended my Guardian piece calling for Justice Sotomayor to retire so a Dem president + Senate can replace her. pic.twitter.com/JEPMWaA2g2

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) April 3, 2024

Unfortunately, Sotomayor could not announce a retirement effective January 1, 2025 or January 7, 2025, the day after Congress presumably will certify the presidential election results, reserving the option to withdraw her resignation if Trump prevails. There is nearly a 50% chance that Biden will be re-elected while the math for Democrats holding on to the Senate is clearly absent.

Also unfortunate: Sotomayor is unlikely to retire, in part because there will be little pressure on her to do so. Hasan notes

In 2021, the progressive group Demand Justice sent a billboard truck to circle the supreme court building with the message: “Breyer, retire.” I joined in, too. “Retire, retire, retire,” I said in a monologue for my Peacock show in 2021. “Or history may end up judging you, Justice Breyer.”

So why is it okay to pressure Breyer to retire but not Sotomayor? 

There is no good reason, but thee is a reason and

This time round, Demand Justice isn’t taking a position on whether an older liberal justice should quit while a Democratic president and Senate can still replace them and, as HuffPost reports, “on the left, there is little open debate about whether she should retire.”

Well, of course, there isn't. And the reason there isn't echoes the reason why there is no push at all for Kamala Harris to step down. Karen Finney, the Democratic strategist who is quite pleased this state of affairs, believes that the risk of losing the presidency is an acceptable price to pay to maintain demographic purity. Citing an initial interest in a presidential bid

When you had people who were trying to test the waters, the party rose up and made it clear to those individuals — who were mostly white men — that to disrespect the vice president would not be well received by women and people of color within the party. They got a little bit of a smack in the face.

There are powerful figures in or about the Democratic Party who are less concerned with turning over the presidency to Donald Trump- or losing another Supreme Court seat to a selection made by a President Trump- than they are to the idea of losing a first. That would be the first black Vice President or the chance of the first black female President, and the first American of Latin descent to serve on the USA Supreme Court.

As Hasan advocates, Ginsburg might make the courageous and patriotic decision to step down. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't, Kamala Harris won't, and it's not likely that Sonia Sotomayor will, either.

Share |

Eroding the Constitution

This former federal prosecutor and Republican, now a Democrat, so strongly disagrees with Lauren Boebert that he believes an explanation is unnecessary:He's a smart guy because if I held this view, I, too, would avoid all attempts at rationalization.

🧵 Here is countdown of my TOP 100 CLIPS OF 2022.

#100. Lauren Boebert says there is no such thing as separation of church and state, and if Democrats really believed that then why do they let Ilhan Omar wear a hajib in Congress. pic.twitter.com/ZY9HSCJabx

— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) December 26, 2022

  

On January 4, 2019, The Washington Post reported

A newly diverse House of Representatives has passed a rule that, for the first time in 181 years, allows head coverings to be worn on the House floor for religious reasons.

The rules package passed Thursday, 234 to 197, includes a number of provisions, among them several seeking to “restore inclusion and diversity.” It passed the same day the country’s first female Muslim members of Congress took office — Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who wears a head covering. Both women are Democrats.

The ban on head coverings has been in place since 1837, the Washington Post history blog Retropolis reported Friday.

Lifting of the ban

was proposed last month by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then the House minority leader; Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.), the House Rules Committee’s ranking Democrat; and Omar, of Minnesota. It was proposed to accommodate Omar. The rule change reads:

“During the session of the House, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not wear nonreligious headdress or a hat or remain by the Clerk’s desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots. A person on the floor of the House may not smoke or use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum.”

Nathan Diament, executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, which represents the interests of Orthodox Jews, said when the rule change was recently proposed that no Jewish House member had made the ban an issue in the past. However, he said there have been special House sessions when Jewish men wore head coverings — including when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress, and Israeli officials wore yarmulkes — called “kippot” in Hebrew.

“The Orthodox Union has long supported laws and policies that foster the accommodation of religious practices in the workplace. Religious practices — such as wearing religious garb, whether a kippot or a hijab, should be accommodated in all workplaces — including in the halls of Congress,” he said.

They should- but only if the rules apply to everyone. In the US House, they do not because head covering still is prohibited if it is "nonreligious." If it is religious, it is acceptable, prompted by the election of a religious Muslim (Omar), whom Nancy Pelosi, the Toughest Congressional Leader Ever&nbsp™; chose to accommodate.

Of course, we have no way of knowing with any confidence whether if a Christian or Jewish member, accompanied by profession of religious faith, had wanted to wear religious "headdress or a hat," he or she would be afforded the privilege. My guess is: previously, no; currently, yes, but that is mere speculation.

Admittedly, that is off-topic because Christians are not being discriminated against nor, at least in the short clip Filipkowski offered, was Representative Boebert claiming they are.  Instead, she maintained that Democrats were being hypocritical in changing House rules to favor an individual wanting to don a religious garment while boasting that they support "separation of church and state." 

Well, of course, they are. McGovern did not boldly propose a rule change which would have eroded the stuffiness (nay I say "elitism?") of House rules by permitting someone on the House floor to wear a "headdress or a hat." It was only to favor religion, which not only seems to be violative of Amendment 1A, but is.  The Constitution does not demand that Congress make no law respecting establishment of a (specific) religion; it reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Whether the House of Representatives would permit a non-Muslim to wear head covering for religious (or alleged) religious reasons is not determinative. Allowing anyone to do, Absent allowing an individual to do so for non-religious reasons, allowing the garb is respecting establishment of religion.

Alas, when it is convenient, there is no such thing as a "strict constructionist."  Conservatives for many years now have pushed policies which allow carve-outs for an individual who says proclaims a religious faith exemption in the name of the God of the Old and New Testaments.

These have come in the manner of performing abortions or providing reproductive health services. They have been applied to impose discrimination upon gay persons, such as in foster care, or to "fire employees who have used abortion care, contraceptives or assisted reproductive technology, or who have had sex or become pregnant outside of marriage; or even to ignore federal law preventing discrimination on the basis of disability."  

The most famous example may be the case with plaintiffs The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul House, in which the US Supreme Court decided that religious objectors are to be exempted from the regulatory requirement to provide health pans that include contraceptive coverage. If even the High Court doesn't believe in wall of separation inherent in the First Amendment, it's tough to get politicians of either party to risk offending people on behalf of the Constitution.

Boebert's 2019 complaint is way less significant than efforts by Republican officials and their fellow travelers to satisfy demands of conservatives, in the street or donors, for a society in which individuals may claim a prerogative to discriminate because of  "faith." Yet, where theocracy is absent, claiming a privilege in the name of either Jesus or Allah represents a dangerous trend. If a stopped clock can be right twice a day, surely even Lauren Boebert can be right every four years.

Share |

Owners Win, Again

Let's give credit where credit is due. While most of us were watching reproductive rights demolished and gun rights sanctified.....

I don’t want to harsh anyone’s mellow but next up on the chopping block is the ability of the executive departments to regulate, well, anything, and that’s the one the Court’s owners really want.

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) June 25, 2022

Six days later, as reported by the Texas Tribune the US Supreme Court ruled

that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have broad authority to require states to decarbonize their electricity sectors, a decision that is expected to dramatically slow the United States’ ability to reduce greenhouse gases and mitigate the effects of climate change.

The court’s 6-3 ruling on a case sparked by Texas and 16 other states — which addressed an Obama-era regulation aimed at coal-fired power plants, one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation — was a blow to President Joe Biden’s plan to reduce U.S. emissions and meet the country’s goals under international agreements.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was among 17 Republican state attorneys general who sued the EPA over an Obama-era regulation known as the Clean Power Plan, which never went into effect. It was repealed and replaced by what was called the Affordable Clean Energy rule under the Trump administration....

The decision, which limits EPA’s authority to implement regulations that cause shifts in fuel sources for electricity generation, will make it difficult for the U.S. to do its part to meet a 1.5-degree Celsius target that scientists have said is key to preventing extreme effects of climate change, experts said.

“We have to act rapidly to cut emissions in order to avoid the worst impacts of global warming,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “And it’s unlikely that the natural or economic environment of these coal plants will happen fast enough to meet those emission goals.”

As a prediction, Pierce's tweet was accurate but arguably underwhelming because announcement of the ruling in West Virginia v. EPA was obviously upcoming, and expected to be decided in favor of the plaintiff. However, Pierce understood the wide-ranging implications at stake, including the "ability of the executive departments to regulate, well, anything, and that’s the one the Court’s owners really want." The Texas Tribune explains

The ruling could also open the door for more aggressive challenges to federal regulations at any agency, administrative and environmental lawyers said.

“I do think you’re going to see other federal agencies sit back [as a result of the case],” said Anne Austin, an environmental lawyer who was an assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation during the Trump administration. The ruling may cause federal agencies beyond the EPA to narrow regulations to avoid what could now be “shaky legal ground.”

“Federal agencies are more likely to be challenged [in court],” added Austin, a former EPA Region 6 administrator. States that want to prevent certain federal regulations are likely to take a broad view of the majority’s opinion, she said.

Once upon a time- three, four years ago- there was a major push for a Green New Deal. Those days are way gone, and much more may be headed for the chopping block.

                                            HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY

 

Share |

Acquiescence

Two weeks ago, the Huffington Post noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence

Thomas is currently under fire for failing to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection after text messages from his wife, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows revealed her active participation in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Initially, Meadows voluntarily disclosed the messages to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Later, on Dec. 7, 2021, he stopped cooperating with the committee and claimed executive privilege to prevent further disclosures.....

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against assertions of executive privilege by ex-President Donald Trump and his ex-aides, including Meadows. Thomas cast the lone vote of dissent in the case. Now, it’s clear that the disclosures in question could have provided more evidence of his wife’s involvement in the plot to overthrow the results of the 2020 election.

This obvious conflict of interest apparently violates Section 455 (b)(5) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which is probably moot, because the Supreme Court is a law unto itself. Yet however corrupt Thomas may be, refusal to recuse himself was not inevitable given that

Since 1993, Thomas has recused himself at least 19 times from 18 different cases for either being named in the petition, having previously heard the case as an appeals court judge, or because his former employer was named as a party.

In 1995, Thomas recused himself at multiple stages during the Virginia v. U.S. case challenging Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admission policy. Thomas’ son attended the institute at the time.

Thomas also recused himself from six cases involving the bank Wachovia from 2004-2007 because his son worked at Wachovia Securities.

“The Wachovia cases, those are the real interesting ones,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix The Court, “because he is recusing due to an interest of a family member. That’s textbook Supreme Court recusal.”

Of course, as Anita Hill and Angela Wright learned, Clarence Thomas is a skilled liar who will do whatever he chooses to do. That's why it was surprising when on the third day of questioning of Kentanji Brown Jackson

In response to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Jackson said she would recuse herself from an upcoming challenge to Harvard University’s race-conscious admissions policy. Jackson, who attended Harvard as both an undergraduate and a law student, is a member of Harvard’s board of overseers. Her term on the board expires this spring.

“That is my plan, senator,” Jackson said when asked by Cruz if she would recuse from the case.

Every nominee for the Supreme Court has learned the lesson of Judge Robert Bork, who didn't know enough to hide his extreme right-wing views from his inquisitors on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Consequently, Judge Jackson wisely dodged many questions, deftly avoiding alienating any Senator who was not already determined to vote against her. 

Admittedly, she did say recusal is "my plan" rather than "I will recuse myself." Nevertheless, that was a relatively definitive reply, one more so than anyone- including Cruz- could have expected, and more than could have been demanded. 

This may have been a wise response to ensure her confirmation. But it was at best only of marginal assistance. The proper reply would have been "I plan to follow the lead of my esteemed colleagues." That would have thrown Republicans on the defense. Six Justices including Thomas are Republican and conservative and Jackson's critics on the committee would have been extremely hard-pressed to attack her while she was defending her future colleagues. Additionally, they are "esteemed."

This answer would have allowed the Judge maximum flexibility on the Court.. It also would have added a little fuel to the arguments of Democrats who have suggested that Justice Thomas recuse himself from matters involving his wife.  However, that would have at least slightly helped the members of Ketanji Brown Jackson's party and possibly exposed Republicans to charges of hypocrisy. Democrats simply don't do that sort of thing.

Full disclosure: I don't agree with Harvard University's admissions policy.  Still, I know a cave when I see one, and this brings to mind a comment made by Wright about the Hill-Thomas hearings of 1989. In a sentiment since commonly expressed by the left in only slightly different terms, she noted "to me, having worked on both sides of the aisle — Republican and Democratic — what I know for sure, Republicans are like bare-fisted street brawlers, Democrats do pillow fights.”

 

Share |

Taboo

On February 25, 2022 U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)

praised President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be the first Black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, calling it “a Jackie Robinson moment.”

“He clearly found the best person for the job,” said the New Jersey Democrat, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on the nomination.

“This is a Jackie Robinson moment for our nation,” Booker said, referring to the Brooklyn Dodger who integrated Major League Baseball in 1947. “For generations, America has been blessed with extraordinary legal talent in people of all backgrounds, but for the first time in our history an extraordinarily talented Black woman will serve on the Supreme Court. I’m profoundly moved by this; my heart aches with joy.”

Well, O.K. Maintaining that theme, during the Judiciary Committee hearing on March 23,

Enthusiastically describing his “joy” at Jackson’s nomination, Booker said that, while jogging earlier that day, he was “practically tackled” by an African American woman who enthusiastically told Booker that Jackson’s nomination meant a lot to her.

Booker wasn't flying solo. In introducing Jackson, Judiciary Committee chairperson Dick Durbin proclaimed "In its more than 230 years, the Supreme Court has had 115 justices — 108 have been white men, just two justices have been men of color, only five women have served on the court and just one a woman of color.”

Judge Jackson should have been nominated because of her experience, judicial temperament, and her apparent ideological inclinations (and because Joe Biden promised a black woman). However, your mileage may vary, and Booker, Durbin, and their colleagues are entitled to their own priorities.

For them and others, factors other than experience temperament, ideology, and judicial rulings are important. Race and gender, both inherited characteristics for which no one can claim credit or assume blame, are critical.

It's in that context that we need to consider the exchange between the nominee and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who on the day before Booker's eloquent remarks

drew widespread criticism for opening his questions to US Supreme Court justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson by asking about her faith, including whether she can “fairly judge a Catholic” and requesting her to rate the importance of her faith “on a scale of one to 10”.

His remarks, which often cut off Judge Jackson from responding, appeared to suggest that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated to the high court by Donald Trump, was unfairly treated by his political opponents during her confirmation hearings.

“What faith are you, by the way?” he asked on 22 March. “Could you fairly judge a Catholic? … I’m just asking this question because – how important is your faith to you?”

“Senator, personally, my faith is very important, but as you know, there’s no religious test in the Constitution,” Judge Jackson responded.

He continued to interrupt her responses while the senator asked more probing questions, including whether she attends church regularly and “on a scale of one to 10, how faithful would you say you are, in terms of religion...."

A statement from Interfaith Alliance president Rabbi Jack Moline slammed the senator’s line of questioning, stressing “there is no religious test for office in the Constitution – a fact that Judge Jackson rightly pointed out in response to Senator Graham’s questions about her faith.”

Jackson had responded well, accurately and fairly decisively.  Nonetheless, in context, it should have been discouraging to read of Rabbi Moline

“While senators can ask how a nominee’s religious beliefs would influence their rulings, using faithfulness as a metric to evaluate a future Supreme Court justice is completely inappropriate,” he said.

Hold on, there. Cory Booker and numerous Democrats set the precedent for consideration of demographic features. For them, it was race and gender. For Lindsey Graham, it is religion, although his primary intent probably was to make a point over the questioning of Amy Coney Barrett.

Race and gender are immutable characteristics, fixed from birth. Religious faith, and even religious affiliation, are not.  It behooves Democrats and the left, if they insist on continuing to argue that the measure of a person can be race (gender, less often), to concede the importance of religious belief. If they choose to be offended at the invocation of religious belief, they need to drop their obsession over chromosomes and skin color.

 

Share |