Doonesbury + Socialists

I have not kept up with the now Sunday-only strips, but read it over the years. Good bio overall with many comics. Meanwhile, recent wins by "Democratic Socialists" led me to write this.

Tina Peters Commutation + $1.776B Trump Slush

I cover both here. 

SCOTUS v. Trump: Tariffs

Congress should have handled this. 

But, since they are led by chickenshits, a 6-3 Supreme Court opinion blocked Trump's patently illegal (and financially stupid) usage of tariffs.

People wondered why they were taking so long. The 170 pages of opinions help explain why. 

Roberts handled the majority and did so in twenty pages. Kavanaugh (for Thomas and Alito) wrote a dissent three times as long. 

Gorsuch wrote a "combative" (to cite one comment), quotable concurrence twice as long.

Gorsuch, essentially thinks virtually everyone else is wrong, hypocritical, or both. He, virtually alone, is pure.

Right you are, Law Dork. Gorsuch is a prick and remains one even if he sometimes is on the right side.  He took over for Scalia and has improved his writing. 

Still a prick. People are loving some of his concurrence. Kagan and Barrett show that some of it is hot air. Dude goes too far. Keep that in mind. 

Both Barrett and Kagan, in different ways, basically told him to stop mansplaining. Kagan, for the liberals, didn't use the "so-called major questions doctrine." 

Kavanaugh and Thomas (adding some other originalist invention that many originalists aren't aware of) found a way to avoid it. Some are surprised at Kavanaugh's vote, but other than Alito and Thomas, he has been the most Trump-friendly. He did go the extra mile here. Give that man a beer. 

Jackson, arguing that it is what many legislators use more than bare citation of text, appealed to legislative history. She will be fighting the young Trump appointees for years to come. You go, girl! 

When Congress tells us why it has included certain language in a statute, the limited role of the courts in our democratic system of government—as interpreters, not lawmakers—demands that we give effect to the will of the people.

Barrett's opinion (a few pages, since she's not a blowhard) specifically answered Gorsuch, tossing (as required) a couple of citations of her former boss (Scalia). She noted:

Textualists—like all those who use language to communicate—do not interpret words in a vacuum. Instead, we use context, including background legal conventions, common sense, and constitutional structure, to ascertain a text's most natural meaning. (cleaned up)

Which is fine. Just to be clear, those terms are rather flexible. Again, that is fine, since any interpretative method will be, especially in hard cases. 

It is just that when Scalia or Gorsuch claims their method is special while the other side is lawless or something, they are full of themselves. 

I wrote something about originalism and Richard Hasen's book (not new) about Scalia here. More here ("Joe from the Bronx"). 

He has a chapter about "word games," arguing that textualism sometimes is just that. Like Jackson, Hasen also cites others who have found that Congress expects its laws to be handled differently. 

The majority opinion argues that there is no "foreign policy exception" to the major questions doctrine, especially when it involves taxation, a basic congressional power. Reminds me of the Steel Seizure Cases and the Supreme Court's citation of domestic powers. 

Roberts left open the possibility that Trump has the power to apply tariffs using some other legislative authority. Such authority has various limitations. It won't let him do his unhinged, power-hungry routine against various nations. Well, as badly. 

The law is crystal clear; conservatives are wary about tariffs, and it is a way for the Supreme Court to show they are not a potted plant. 

TPM is correct that the Supreme Court took too long. This has been going on for around a year. The tariffs are lawless. They caused lots of problems. 

Let's not exaggerate. The Supreme Court should have restrained Trump much more. And, the result is messy, since it does not handle the relief for taking money illegally. More litigation will follow. 

But you take the wins when they come. Trump reportedly was cursing when he found out about the opinion. He later said at a press conference:

Trump praises Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas for dissenting on the tariffs ruling before, calling the other justices "a frankly disgrace to our nation" who are "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution" and are "just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats."

Justin Baragona on BlueSky also flagged that he still welcomes three of the justices to his speech to Congress, while others are "barely" invited. Barrett and Gorsuch are embarrassments to their families. 

Yeah. I'm still with the House Minority Leader.

"Fuck Donald Trump and his vile, racist, and malignant behavior

“This guy is an unhinged bottom feeder,” Jeffries added. “Every Republican sycophant who continues to stand by their cult leader should be run out of office.”

Let's end where we began. Congress could and should have handled this. They still can. 

A Democratic Congress would have had a better shot.

ETA: The law here should not cloud the policy. 

The very reason this lawsuit could be brought is that it brings financial harm to the challengers.

My reference to Congress touches upon this. Democrats are already highlighting the economic harm and demanding refunds for ill-gotten funds. 

Trump promoted tariffs as a fundamental aspect of his economic policy in the 2024 elections, to much scorn from reasonable people. Reason, however, did not win out. Many still realize the policy was stupid and (contra to his lies) mostly paid by Americans. 

Other Stuff

They also changed the rules to help flag financial conflicts. The public information office posted an explanation (sometimes just notify the press). 

It would be even better if Roberts and Alito (well, he might be gone soon) sold their stocks. Also, be nice if all of them, not just Kagan and Jackson, explained why they recuse from cases. 

There was also a housekeeping order. More orders on Monday. Two opinion days next week. They are back hearing oral arguments. So busy, busy. 

They will also have (in March) an event in honor of Sandra Day O’Connor. 

SCOTUS Watch: Past and Future

Scalia/Court Expansion 

The tenth anniversary of Justice Scalia's death recently passed. Volokh Conspiracy had multiple positive accounts. A Fix the Court email update I received was more negative. 

My position is also largely negative. See here. I linked a VC post, and "Joe" says more over there. 

Scalia's death led to a de facto "packing" of the Court when Republicans refused to even have a hearing for Merrick Garland. They then rushed (one month) the confirmation of Barrett. 

Raw political hardball mixed with hypocrisy.

A minority argues that the overall history here warrants court expansion. Only a small number of Democrats in Congress openly support this. Some observers are loudly supportive. 

The FDR court "packing" scheme is cited by both sides. Did it help change the law, or is it generally a sign the whole thing is a bad idea? 

FDR'S Gambit by Laura Kalman provides a detailed account while near the end drops an opinion that it was helpful for FDR's ends.

I found the book a tedious slog, without ignoring it is also an impressive work of scholarship. There is a lot of unnecessary detail without overall seeming to add much. I finally gave up reading the book straight through around 100 pages in. 

There are, as is usually the case, some interesting and informative details. Overall, however, I don't think I learned much new about the bottom line. 

The book ends up somewhat agnostic if dubious about a court expansion proposal today. The book was published in the middle of the Biden Administration. 

Ultimately, an expansion proposal should at least be pushed as a negotiation tactic. I have discussed this in the past and won't repeat myself here.

We now have evidence that Alito will retire soon, maybe in a few months. A 6-3 Court with four (and I think Thomas will resign before the end of Trump's term) younger conservatives nominated by Trump is just appalling.

Something major has to be done if the Democrats get a trifecta. A strong expansion faction might make it more likely that we will have serious reforms passed. 

SCOTUS News

SCOTUS dropped a schedule for the final oral arguments.

It also "may" (nearly always means they will) announce opinions on the 20th (when they officially come back from their break), 24th (they start hearing orals again the day before), and 25th (my sister's birthday). SCOTUSblog will have live blogging. 

For whatever reason, Oyez.com still doesn't have the opinion announcements from last term. There is a new AI-aided approach to provide video. Fix the Court has more, and its comments are basically on point. 

John Oliver's dog justice videos were good, too. 

Holiday

Okay. So, next Friday is when the justices officially come back with a conference (surely) and opinion announcements (probably). 

Tomorrow is a holiday. A historian is wary about the "monarchial" practice of celebrating presidential birthdays. Her piece is generally on point. 

The name of the holiday varies, including the use of punctuation. On the federal level, it is George Washington's Birthday, which was originally February 22 (using today's dating), so it is somewhat early to celebrate it on the 16th. 

Six Dems Speak About Unlawful Orders / Trump Wants Them Dead

The video she references features Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Representatives Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Jason Crow (D-CO). More than one of these people is the sort some people deem too darn moderate. 

Slotkin is a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer. Kelly was a captain in the U.S. Navy. Deluzio served in the U.S. Navy. Goodlander is a former intelligence officer. Houlahan served in the Air Force. Crow is a former paratrooper and Army Ranger.

So I will say in my specific instance that I have had a few conversations with people who have indicated discomfort with sort of the current state of affairs. I know my colleagues have had similar kinds of conversations. But what I would say is this is, as I mentioned, kind of not a specific event but rather a culmination of all of these kinds of things that have resulted in us feeling like we really needed to make sure that we told people that people like us sit in places like this with backgrounds like theirs, and we want to make sure that they remember and understand that we’re here for them. And that they need to remember and understand that they need to uphold the Constitution in their jobs.

Rep. Houlahan, who filed a complaint with the Capitol police regarding Trump's threats, discussed the matter with Greg Sargent. Let's read what they said:

We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back. Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. 

Some people are gaslighting (yet again) and acting like they said this out of the blue without cause. Patently absurd. For those who want some details, see here. The blatant case, leading to at least one major resignation, is the murderous Caribbean strikes. 

The matter was also discussed in this comment thread. Suffice to say, they are not guilty of "sedition" or worthy of the death penalty. There is also a high test before you can refuse to follow orders. One rule cited was "or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known it to be unlawful." 

(Marty Lederman elsewhere argued an official supporting opinion from the Trump OLC would likely be a CYA if anyone following orders was legally prosecuted. Generally speaking, don't hold your breath regarding consequences.) 

Trump's rhetoric is dangerous. We have been down this road before, including his repeated acts of contempt of court during his civil and criminal trials for which he got NO consequences (pittance fines don't count). This guy is a menace. 

There has been an uptick in threats to judges in recent years. His remarks also threatened witnesses and others, opening them up to harassment and worse. We ("we" particularly being the media and Republicans) take things much too much in stride. 

A few Republicans pushed back at Trump's welcoming of the prosecution and execution of fellow members of Congress. Graham, with a military background, denounced both sides. 

Rand Paul, the now and then libertarian who usually supports the Republicans, was concerned. Thune didn't support the response but argued the video was uncalled for. Not too impressive from the tyrant loyalist caucus. I'd like a poll of Republican congressional members who are former military. 

Anyway. These six members are not Bernie Sanders types. (Well, TBH, I am not familiar with most of them; Slotkin and Kelly surely are not.) They have their moments. Slotkin had a very good response to Trump's speech to Congress earlier this year.

Trump is a tyrant. People in power should treat him and his minions accordingly. Thank you. 

Democrats Have A Good Election Day

Tonight, the results came in. American voters have spoken.

They firmly supported Democrats. The most notable for me personally is the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York. As of this writing, he has received a bit over 50% of the vote

Cuomo received over 40% while Sliwa received around 7%, including via his Protect Animals line. Mamdani said that Cuomo didn't send the usual complimentary victory message, though Sliwa did. 

Fox News (local NYC channel) referenced that Cuomo couldn't even pronounce Mamdani's name correctly in his concession speech. Sliwa also ran on a "Protect Animals" line. Someone else ran on the Conservative Party line. Perhaps, Mamdani can find an animal-related position, including involving feral cats, one of Sliwa's causes. 

Women played a major role here. The new governors of New Jersey and Virginia (both with convincing wins) will be women. Also, along with the new Muslim mayor of NY:

Ghazala Hashmi wins Virginia lieutenant governor’s race, becoming first Muslim woman elected statewide

Zohran Mamdani voted "Yes" on ballot measures 1-5 that were on the ballot in NYC, and those won. The sixth ballot measure to change off-year elections lost. It would not have been final, anyway, since the state legislature has to do it. I was a bit wary about the housing measures, but that's fine.

Anti-trans messaging failed this time around. It might best be noted that it didn't change other trends. The message appears to be anti-Trump, supporting Democrats, and progressive policies. 

The messaging there was mixed. Mamdani stood out. But it does provide a lesson about enthusiasm. House Minority Leader Jeffries, at the end, endorsed Mamdani (yippe) while Schumer couldn't even do that. He didn't say who he voted for. Sheesh.

Mamdani is not a "literal communist," which is now the framing. He is a self-labeled socialist, which is not horrible. I look forward to seeing how he does and hope net his administration is positive. Eric Adams is not a high bar, even if he has some positive policies.

I worked at the polls, checking in voters. We have ten days of early voting. We still had a respectable turnout in our neighborhood polling place. The whole process continues to impress me and provide some civic pride. Many fulfilled their civic obligations. 

A Texan parental rights amendment passed. The text seems rather benign, though various liberal leaning groups opposed it. For instance, literally, the amendment seems to help parents of trans people. OTOH, trans groups also opposed the amendment.

After 13 years, Mississippi Democrats have broken the Republican Party’s supermajority in the Mississippi Senate. Voters elected Democrats to two seats previously held by Republicans, reducing the number of Republican senators in the upper chamber from 36 to 34—one fewer than necessary to constitute a supermajority.

I will end with this symbolic bit of good news. After all, it is not like the legislature would logically often need to overrule a veto or something. 

Still, supermajorities do have more power, and that might help limit the damage in some cases. For instance, supermajorities make it easier to propose constitutional amendments. Most significantly, it is a message against extremism and the ability of others to have a voice. 

Liberals have victories in places you least expect. For instance, criminal justice reform has occurred throughout the nation. The wins were often in places, though the breadth was particularly significant; you expect Democrats to win (but see Pennsylvania and Trump's wins there), so that's nice too. 

Back to New York City, for the second time in so many election cycles, my city council district switched political parties. I was concerned, I even sent them an email, about the lack of campaign signs in my neighborhood. They were available on Election Day to hand out literature near the polls. The Democrat won, however, perhaps some Mamdani coattails. 

One major issue for the Republican incumbent was opposition to a health program for former prisoners. I was particularly angry about that. Overall, she seemed to do okay, but I'm fine with her losing. Anyway, the already small Republican NYC City Council delegation will now be smaller.  

A couple of final comments. The personal factor played a significant role, in various degrees, in the Democrats' wins. They had impressive life stories. They ran good campaigns. They connected to the voters in ways Republicans often did not.

Finally, can the new Arizona congresswoman be sworn in already, please? 

Swear in Congresswoman-Elect Adelita Grijalva!

Democrats have had multiple members of the House of Representatives die this term. There is some concern about people hanging on too long. Senator Dianne Feinstein was flagged a few years ago. 

A sad case is the D.C. delegate, who was the subject of multiple articles recently spelling out that she is no longer fit to serve. She doesn't want to go and has not conclusively said she won't run for re-election. 

D.C. needs strong representation, and she is unable to supply it. She is approaching 90 and is physically unfit. Just to remind, D.C. should be treated equally. Current mistreatment underlines the importance of statehood. It would have three representatives in Congress now as a state and other protections.  

Adelita Grijalva (D-Arizona) won a special election last month after her father died. Now, the Speaker of the House is refusing to allow her to be sworn in. 

Democrats tried to have it done during a pro forma session, as it was done earlier this year with two new Republican members. Speaker Mike Johnson alleged that they would swear her in as soon as she wanted, but that was a lie. 

Johnson wants to wait until the House is back in regular session. Other new members were sworn in immediately. This has led to claims of monkey business, even from Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

(Greene has started to appear saner more often than usual. People are assuming she is thinking of running for president in 2028. I wouldn't be surprised.) 

Note that she used the typical trollish "Democrat member" phrasing. Is it simply by instinct now? The term is "Democratic." It's an adjective. 

She signed the discharge petition to force the release of the Epstein files. If the votes hold, Grijalva would be the necessary vote. Of course, Johnson denies that it is the reason. Surely not!

Johnson did give three White male lawmakers who won special elections this year their oaths of office on the House floor less than 24 hours after polls closed in their elections. One of those lawmakers was Walkinshaw, who joined the House in early September. The other two, Florida Republicans Reps. Randy Fine and Jimmy Patronis, got sworn in during a 12-minute session in which no other real business was conducted.

Grijalva, who cannot serve her constituents until she is a formal member of Congress, earlier noted that she didn't want to assume it was some sort of conspiracy. But then weeks passed. If not the Epstein files, what is it? Because she is a Latina? 

This is the sort of gratuitous bullshit that leads people to assume things. I think even if she were sworn in during a pro forma session, the discharge petition would only be put in place when normal business returns. I'm not completely sure, but it seems logical.

Either way, that would be a limited delaying action and more trouble than it is worth at this point. The whole thing just seems to be a gratuitous partisan move. Any other inferences are well deserved. 

Trump appointees, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, are using their congressional appearances to rant and rave. Republicans are acting like shitheads.

Partisan politics -- let's be fair -- can result in some of that. But Republicans are going the extra mile. 

The people elected Adelita Grijalva. They deserve to have their choice sworn in. Stop being a dick. 

Mayor Eric Adams Suspends Campaign

He recieved kudos from Mr. "Mamdani Has to Prove Himself" Jeffries (fu). People now want Curtis Sliwa (R) to drop out so Republicans can vote for Andrew Cuomo. Ha ha ha. (Ha ha.) 

95 House Dems, Including Trans Rep McBride, Vote To "Honor The Legacy" Of Charlie Kirk

The criticism of Kirk, however, has been met by an equally aggressive counteroffensive on the right: journalists and other citizens have lost jobs for refusing to endorse the sanitized narrative of his life, and even Jimmy Kimmel was fired after daring to mention Kirk and Republicans in anything other than a positive light.

Erin Reed reports on a House resolution about "a courageous American patriot" who is a "fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility." He did so with "honor, courage, and respect" and was a "model" for Americans. This is bullshit. 

Erin Reed notes:

“Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility,” the resolution reads—conveniently eliding his relentless campaign against the liberties of LGBTQ+ people. It praises him for engaging in “respectful, civil discourse,” even though he once said Black pilots made him wonder if they were “qualified” and called transgender people an “abomination unto God.” And it claims he “worked tirelessly to promote unity,” despite his calls to execute President Biden for treason.

Ninety-five Democrats voted for this claptrap, while thirty-eight voted present, and twenty-two didn't vote. Only 58 simply voted "no."  

215 Republicans voted "yea" with four not voting. It was clearly an important vote for them. 

Many noted, in the aftermath of McBride’s vote, that Kirk had personally attacked her—calling her a “man” and claiming she wanted “to force all of society to change its laws to indulge [her] sexual fetish,” hardly the “respectful and civil discourse” the resolution insisted he embodied.

Rep. Sarah McBride, the only openly trans member of Congress, who Kirk once called a man, voted yes. I understand her carefully threading the needle, including as the sole representative of the state of Delaware. But really? 

The resolution has various mundane things against violence and so forth, but it also glorifies Charlie Kirk with comments such as:

Honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty.

I don't think it is appropriate for Democrats to sign on to this resolution. It perpetuates the glorification of Charlie Kirk, which is a lie. 

One really disappointing "yea" vote here is Rep. Raskin, usually a sane, sensible person who doesn't hold back, his opposition to injustice. What the hell are you doing? What is his excuse?

My representative, who is a strong Trump opponent but has his moments of being a tool, didn't vote. Brave man! The House Minority Leader, who doesn't want to endorse Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York City, voted yes. Fuck you. I'm so tired of that guy.

The Republicans are making this guy a martyr. This resolution was passed after Jimmy Kimmel was silenced for criticizing the response to his death, particularly Trump.  Yes, the FCC shit got even Ted Cruz using words like "mafioso." Not that he would actually do anything serious about it.   

Cruz et. al. cheered on silencing people for criticism. This is in the spirit of the "model" the people's House supported. A simple resolution is mourning of his death, and opposing politically related violence would be understandable. Selective, for sure, but understandable. This resolution glorified him.  

What message is the Democrats sending by not having the guts (except for a quarter of them) to simply vote against this thing? 45% voted for it. Do better. 

ETA: NYT has an interview with Charlie Kirk's widow entitled "For Erika Kirk, a Husband’s Life Cut Short by Violence He Seemed to Foresee." 

More promotion of the idea that Kirk is a martyr,  almost a Jesus-like figure. The subtitle notes "she sees divine work in his death." Beyond parody. 

It is unsuprising that people are trying to provide some divine meaning to his death. People do that. The usage of such headlines, however, adds to the glorification. OTOH, guess NYT won't get cancelled. 

I don't recall the murder of the Minnesota legislator and her husband (and their dog, plus the shooting of two others) getting this much coverage. 

Why Don't Democrats Support Voter ID Laws?

The notion that there are significant numbers of eligible voters out there who are prevented from voting if ID laws are in place is as dumb as the idea that there are significant numbers of illegal voters out there who voter ID laws will stop.

Adjectives are hard to quantify, but lawsuits and research have provided evidence that voting ID laws have blocked some people from voting. 

A trivial amount? Let's see how Democrats with their base will do handwaving when a few elderly black ladies can't vote because they lack the proper identification.

It is also a type of tax, especially depending on the identification necessary. When this was brought up before, this was somewhat handwaved by stating something like "well, it might cost $25, but."

Well, that's a poll tax. Lots of people already don't vote. Some additional barriers will be one more reason not to do so. Okay. Just make everything free! 

That would be nice, though it is not the case in all jurisdictions. The time and effort, including for those who don't bring the right i.d. to the polls, will still be there.

It's acknowledged that the laws aren't necessary to stop illegal voting. Encouraging identification, including helping people obtain identification for other uses, has some value. NYC established a convenient local photo identification that also brings benefits such as discounts at museums and so forth.

Voting identification -- which often does not require photographic identification (still another layer of regulation & the lack of a photograph lessens the alleged value of the regulation) -- might also help you gain votes for voting rights laws. And some political credibility as a "moderate." 

So, there is some value for Democrats, though a libertarian might find it bad policy. 

[The quote is from a self-proclaimed libertarian's comment, finding it stupid that Democrats don't support voter ID. 

The "libertarian" supports Israel, is critical of trans supporters, has not shown support of abortion rights, but otherwise has shown some libertarian consistency, including supporting Harris over Trump.]

OTOH, its [p.r.] value is limited. Not that many people care about the issue. If they are educated about the problem, they know voter identification isn't necessary.

So, you are likely to have a large segment of people who are conspiracy theorists or inclined not to trust vote integrity overall. They will find something to complain about.

Also, Democrats and those who support them have a reason to mistrust the good faith of supporters of voting identification laws.

Ignoring that, ignoring that there is no significant need for them (and the chance that once you give in, it will just encourage the "need" for more unnecessary voting regulations), noting that there will be some people for whom the identification will involve at least a minor amount of bother (and a few that will have more) ... well, yes, I can see why Democrats are wary about supporting them.

It might be useful if something was obtained in return & if there is a grace period, but I understand the concern.

Partisan Gerrymandering in the Texas and California

Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is pushing Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to his party, part of a broader effort to help the GOP retain control of the chamber in next year’s midterm elections.

Trump wants to rig the system because he thinks the people will not otherwise support him. There is much opposition to the things he has done so far. He is trying this time to do a bunch of things without congressional approval (illegally, though the Supreme Court repeatedly has helped him out).

Partisan gerrymandering is a basic way for a political party to obtain and retain power without popular support. It is ultimately a violation of the republican form of government. "We the People" no longer govern by a fair expression of the vote. 

The Guarantee Clause has long been deemed (probably somewhat wrongly) non-justiciable. Nonetheless, other means can be used by the courts, including the Equal Protection Clause (see "one person, one vote").  States and Congress can also address the problem.

The Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) conclusively (after Kennedy never bit the bullet) said partisan gerrymandering is not for the federal courts to handle. I question blaming John Roberts, full stop, here. 

Kavanaugh is probably the person directly to blame. He was the fifth vote. Likewise, Barrett is to blame for Dobbs (abortion). But Roberts is the Chief Justice. It is part of his decades-long conservative anti-voting rights campaign.* 

Texas is the second most populous state. It is standardly cited as a red state. Nonetheless, over forty percent of the voting population voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. There is a significant Democratic presence. A fair map will provide many Democrats. Good luck with that. 

The campaign to make the map even more Republican-focused apparently cannot wait until the end of the decade. The Constitution sets forth once per decade apportionment tied to the census. Mid-decade apportionment, other than to fix disputed maps, should be traditionally disfavored. 

California, the most populous state (and state of mind), has stepped in to check Texas. They are using the amendment process and proposing a gerrymandered map. The people have to accept the amendment first. New York has a more extended process. We could not act as quickly.  

The amendment has language supporting federal reform, both legislatively and by constitutional amendment. Partisan gerrymandering ultimately requires a national solution. 

Strategically, unilateral disarmament is ill-advised. There will also be a "race to the bottom" problem. Now, Republicans control many more legislative halls and governors' mansions.

They see misrule as having short-term gains. 

==

* Roberts decided on Thursday, for once, to vote for the liberals during Trump 2.0 in a confusing 4-1-4 ruling. More shadow docket shenanigans. 

Jackson strongly speaks out, including accusing the Court of Calvinball. The case involving NIH funding, and in one bit, Jackson notes the result will include euthanizing animals used in research. 

Great. Now, SCOTUS is killing animals.

Short and Long Term Reactions

A conservative who is not just a Trump suck-up but has shown not much concern decided yet again to be an anti-anti-Trump critic, a quite annoying breed. 

It did not receive much attention, and I eventually decided to respond. This might have led to more attention. Well, twenty more comments as I begin these comments. 

One reply to a comment noted:

Congress has passed laws. Trump is flagrantly defying them. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that those laws are bad — it should be repealing them.

Similarly, Trump is doing things Congress never authorized him to do. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that he should have that authority — it should be giving him that authority.

I pushed back at someone else who said Congress did not have a "duty" necessarily to do these things. Checks and balancing is the role of each branch, with special focus on the courts sometimes overblown. 

The legislative role in upholding constitutional rights (or potentially so) is shown in an interesting article on women's suffrage. It is ever more important when the stakes are congressional power. 

These are things to think about when planning for the future. The time to start planning a long-term response to current problems is yesterday.  Here is a good top 10 list. I'm unsure how much debate many will have with it, except for the expansion of the Supreme Court. It's a question of how. 

Dan Froomkin (generally a good read) also cites another person, providing three categories:

The first is the post-Watergate model, which primarily involves codifying unwritten norms in legislation and executive branch rules. The second is the politically treacherous path of judicial reform. The third, amending the Constitution, is only a dim possibility but still useful to consider, because some of the problems highlighted by Trump lie in the Constitution itself.

The "norms" thing is important. Trump is significant in that he is willing to say "fuck you" to norms. Mitch McConnell did too with Merrick Garland. Democrats are more wary, being more about productive governing, but that can be taken too far. It also gets them a lot of scorn.

Froomkin notes that, in the short term, noncompliance is one method of resistance. Consider how slaves used that tool. If slaves can, people with more power can do it as well. More about the current situation in D.C. is found here. 

The immediate concern here is Trump (including Putin owning him in Alaska, when in a sane world, Putin would be arrested for human rights violations, including illegal aggressive war). There are wider lessons. For instance, what do you do in Florida or Texas if you support trans rights?

My three rules continue to hold: point out a problem, find a way to address it (short and long term), and explain how you would handle things if given the chance.  All matter, but doing only one isn't enough.

===

Note: The last two links are two LGM entries by the latest reasonable addition, who, by chance or not, is again a woman. They often talked about foreign policy issues. And, they are my favorite additions to the blog. One was replaced by the blog's weak leak, whose purpose often seems to be to troll. 

NYC Mayoral Race Update

Eric Adams's liking of Fox News is far from surprising. He is a prime kinda Democrat for that network. 

Zohran Mamdani met with congressional Democrats. Democratic leaders, Schumer and Jeffries, have not endorsed him yet. That is both aggravating and probably deep down not a problem. He is riding on a wave, and not being part of the old guard is part of his appeal.

I guess my representative deserves some credit, too. 

Eric Adams Receives (Limited) Support from Police

13 Law Enforcement Unions Endorse Eric Adams in N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race

Not surprising that law enforcement unions endorse a former police officer over a Republican who cosplays as one. Plus, Adams is the semi-MAGA candidate.

Numbers can be misleading:

The largest NYPD union, the Police Benevolent Association, was not at the event. Sources told CBS News New York the PBA wants to go through its own endorsement process and has not yet made a decision on who it will support in the mayor's race.  

He also has problems with stability:

He cycled through three police commissioners before Jessica Tisch’s appointment in November, the first mayor to have that many in a single term since the 1930s.

Zohran Mamdani has left open keeping Jessica Tisch. People have assumed he is just about defunding the police. The guy who is seriously about gaining power to destroy the institutions he oversees is Trump.

Adams' law enforcement endorsements come at a critical time in the campaign, after former interim NYPD Commissioner Tom Donlon filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the mayor and top brass of running the department as a criminal organization. 

In the lawsuit, Donlon claims that he was commissioner in name only and was removed from the role when he tried to report corruption and misconduct. He accused the mayor of giving real authority to NYPD members who were loyal to him, alleging the group operated without oversight, enabling sexual predators and burying misconduct investigations. 

Adams has a history of helping sexual predators. See his relationship with Donald Trump. More:

His lawsuit follows one filed last week by four former NYPD chiefs who claim they were retaliated against by the Adams administration after they blew the whistle on corruption within the department’s highest ranks. 

Okay. There is a reason that Democrats weren't going to vote for this guy in the primary. The polls suggest Adams still has significant support, though he would lose in a one-on-one campaign versus Mamdani (Cuomo would win there). 

Republicans are bad at being fiscal conservatives. They have a reputation for being better than Democrats. They are not. 

They also have a reputation for being tough on crime. That is also a mixed thing, especially regarding results. Trump has supported lots of criminals, including himself.

Eric Adams is a bad choice. He isn't even that strong, one issue you would think would help him. Being indicted didn't help there. But there is a lot more. 

Cuomo, who lost the primary and has his own problems with the law, is also a bad choice. Let's vote for the other Democrat, who is also conveniently running on that line. 

If you are a Republican, maybe you want to vote for Curtis Sliwa. I don't think he has the experience and serious policy chops to warrant that. Still, I understand the sentiment on a partisan level. Better than voting for Adams or Cuomo, probably.

Cuomo these days might be Trump's choice, now that Trump made Adams his you know what. Cuomo definitely has Trump-lite vibes in various respects. 

Vote Mamdani. It isn't too hard. If you aren't a progressive, just consider the alternatives.

If you are a conservative, fine, vote Sliwa if that is your jam. Mamdani will only lose, however, if there is a serious failure from the Democratic side. And, even then, splitting the vote will ease the blow. 

Eric Adams' having problems with the police underlines that the other options are not ideal. Cuomo has already lost. He had to resign being governor.

Again, it isn't THAT hard. 

Continue to Say No to Cuomo

I respond to a discussion about an appeal to consistently supporting the Democratic nominee. I agree, but am still bothered, particularly that Cuomo's sex crimes continue to be underreported. 

NYC Democratic Primary Final

The votes are counted, and the next step in ranked choice voting took place. We have a candidate for my city council district. Mamdani won 56% of the vote and is a promising sign of the future for Democrats. Yes, some old timers worry about this upstart. Don't focus on that. People love to be all "Democrats in Disarray."

A Few More NYC Primary Thoughts

Brad Lander, who cross-endorsed Mamdani, told Cuomo in the same debate: “Everybody here knows that you sexually harassed women, that you created a toxic work environment.”

There have been some "ding dong, the witch is dead" remarks regarding Cuomo's bad showing. 

I find this somewhat concerning, even if he conceded a week before New York will goto the next round of the ranked choice voting count process since no one received a majority in the first round. Some observers argue that it looks like Cuomo is done. I hope so. 

[ETA: For now, it looks like he is still in. 

The best hope is that the non-Mamdani candidates share an overall electorate. It still is important for Cuomo to have the smallest support base as possible.]

People (and some are starting to) need to get behind Mamdani (by the way, his mother is Mira Nair, the director of such films as Mississippi Masala) so that his success appears to be a fait accompli. Many people and groups (including unions and Jessica f-ing Ramos) supported Cuomo since they thought he was going to win and being on his bad side was dangerous since he is such an asshole.

Mayor Eric Adams, who it is somewhat hard to believe is still a thing, has started his de facto campaign to be the quasi-Republican candidate [there is an actual one, but it is hard to take him too seriously]. And, why not do it on Fox News? 

November's electorate is going to be somewhat different, especially since many Republicans did not vote this time around.  In my district, the only race for them to vote for was the comptroller contest. And, though there was a significant increase in early voting, the turnout was under 30% in major New York cities. That isn't good, but it's not new either.  

New York helped things by having early voting/no excuse voting by mail as well as stopping the practice of having two separate primaries for state and federal elections [presidential elections are separate]. Also, the articles discuss another tweak that doesn't seem to affect NYC too much.  

I don't think having a primary in September instead of June would change much overall. Congressional primaries regularly have small turnouts, including when AOC first ran. You might hope the mayor would be more likely to bring in voters. Also, maybe a non-partisan primary with the top two running in November would make sense.  

There very well might have been a broad assumption that Cuomo was going to win. The biggest energy then went into providing an enthusiastic progressive alternative. Unfortunately, many people didn't feel comfortable with either. So, you were resigned to Cuomo, but also lacked the passion to vote for someone else. 

The broad number of candidates might have hurt things there for those who didn't like Cuomo and thought Mamdani was not for them. Plus, these other people did not reach too many people, especially in the last month. I'm talking about campaigning and ads. Adrienne Adams came to the race late. 

Brad Lander, who might otherwise be the presumed frontrunner, was crowded out by Mamdani. He correctly realized Cuomo was the biggest problem, and they cross-endorsed each other. Lander is quite progressive. Mamdani just outdid him on energy and possibility. Sort of an Obama. 

If we had a non-partisan primary, Curtis Sliwa (who ran unopposed as a Republican) very well might not have come in second. Eric Adams might have run. If he did, Cuomo very well might not have. We would have Mamdani vs. someone else in November. 

For now, let's see how the ranking process completes. For instance, the Democratic primary for the city council in my district is still open. 

The other borough-wide and city-wide races went down as expected, including the favored city comptroller. Shekera Algarin (I wrote in a name) won the civil judicial race. 

Thanks to those who said no to Cuomo, who is patently unfit for public office. If we cannot manage to realize that in NYC, it is rather unfortunate.  

ETA: A few days later, there is this "Mamdani, who I'm not that big a fan of, is going to win" op-ed. 

It's fairly convincing. If he had one serious opponent without baggage (0/3, one way or the other), it would be much more possible. He does not. 

Still seems a bit crazy. Knock on wood. Can New York actually get a decent mayor? Or, will he flub things up? Well, let's not skip ahead. 

The ranked choice process did not even finish! 

NYC DID Say No to Cuomo!

I continued my up-close experience of New York City elections by being a poll worker. I helped to check in voters at a local polling place on primary day. 

Early voting began around when I started voting at the polling place. So, election day itself is no longer as important. It still has a certain energy and symbolic importance. 

I discuss things further, including comparing the upset of Cuomo with Democratic leadership here. 

Sunday Thoughts: Politics and Violence

The Democrats did not control the New York Senate for years, partially because of a coalition of independents that Governor Cuomo helped as a means to retain power. The legislature was divided, leading to a "three men in a room" (governor and one from each legislative body) dynamic.

My former state senator, the granddaughter of a disgraced member of Congress, helped to end their control and regain Democratic control of the Senate. Biaggi was young and enthusiastic. She is a strong feminist voice. 

An article on IDC challengers notably cites two (including Jessica Ramos, making her support of Cuomo that much more disgusting) who are running for mayor. And, won't win. I think it's fairly safe to say that. Still, Zellnor Myrie is fine.

President Trump should start with a nationwide address condemning violence and taking steps to bring people together as a national leader. As someone who has been the victim of political violence himself, he should understand the stakes and the need for empathy, reassurance, and guarantees of free expression and democratic engagement.

Richard Hasen, Election Law guy, says this in his statement responding to a political assassination in Minnesota. We are at that point in the chat. 

Anyway, Hasen's strong denunciation of political violence is valid. I do not support the "punching Nazis" even as a a rhetorical strategy. 

Use some other language. Violence these days is dangerous, even rhetorically. 

One person said we need to be open to serious harm to ourselves in the fight against fascism. Okay. I don't know when he is going to be seriously at risk of being beaten up by the police or something, but okay. 

Still, it is hard to take to have him saying that and not say "yeah right." He pardoned insurrectionists and multiple other people involved in political violence. Is he going to suddenly stop? Being a victim of political violence (barely -- I'm sorry -- he was grazed) didn't stop him there.

Trump is suddenly now going to show "empathy, reassurance, and guarantees of free expression and democratic engagement"? Who is going to take him seriously? There are some people and institutions (including leaders of the Republican Party) who might take a lesson here. Perhaps, Trump can show himself by his actions. I don't trust him to stay on script if there is some sort of national address.  

When people say this sort of thing, they need to at least note reality. 

Jessica Ramos Endorses Cuomo (WTAF)

ETA: Multiple media sources had analyses discussing why Cuomo is now getting support as a "strong" candidate. #MeToo is seen as old news. I discuss how this is a horrible approach here. 

Democrats can include up to five choices on their ballots this month. Republicans, too, but that's not my immediate concern here. There are more than five mayoral candidates. 

Andrew Cuomo, bad for various reasons, someone who had to resign as governor for that reason, is the frontrunner. If he does not receive 50% (lead rank), a form of instant run-off voting occurs. So, rank wisely: rank those likely to have a chance to win, and don't rank Cuomo.

I am okay with any of the candidates running in the Democratic Primary, especially those with any chance, except for Cuomo. I have no excitement level for Brad Lander, for instance, but figure he would make a decent mayor. 

Scott Stringer is a bland progressive choice who faltered last time, partially because of how he handled two old sexual harassment accusations. And because he is boring as dishwater. He is again not getting much traction.  

I would like a woman mayor. Adrienne Adams, speaker of the City Council, seems like the best bet. She knows the city government while not too liberal to avoid people supporting her at least as a back-up choice. 

I think Adams or Lander would be the best chances. Two guys with a first name starting with "Z" are also good -- one as the leftie choice, the other as the sane progressive choice. The leftie choice's main flaws are a lack of experience and less ability to form a coalition. The other has limited support. 

My real decision (other than order) was a fifth choice. Adrienne Adams, the two Zs, Lander, and who else? I figured Jessica Ramos. She's a state legislator, a progressive, and, sure, a woman. And, a strong Cuomo critic, in part calling him a "bully." 

Mike Blake sounds good when I looked him up. Neither honestly has any real chance. 

Ramos is now a "no." She did the right thing, which someone like Stringer should do -- she admits she has no chance. The candidates should realize the problem is defeating Cuomo. 

A few should drop out (yes, their names will be on the ballot) and narrow the field. A person who does not provide much of a difference from other candidates, that much more so.

The candidates need to be serious. The policy of supporting multiple endorsements makes sense given the ranking system. My city council district has led to a clear frontrunner and multiple endorsements of a second candidate (Diaz). This joint endorsement policy is much more important in the mayoral race. 

Ramos, however, decided to endorse Cuomo. She said he had to resign as governor. She flagged sexual abuse allegations against him. She knows he is unfit. 

But now decides to endorse him, allegedly in part since he would be the strongest against Trump. Which is rather doubtful, especially for someone who helped independents control the state senate to protect his own power. He is as likely to compromise. 

Progressives, rightly so, are fleeing her like the plague. Cuomo didn't even endorse her. He said she endorsed me, but I don't endorse her. Any ridicule and scorn she is receiving is well deserved. She is a traitor, hypocrite, and coward. 

We need minimum standards in these times. If Cuomo won the nomination, Ramos still should not support Cuomo if there is a strong alternative. There very well might be a Working Family candidate in that scenario. 

If you have to swallow the bile to avoid a Republican mayor, okay. I can understand that. But the primary is not over yet. There is no good reason for her to support Cuomo now.

People like her should be shunned. These types of decisions helped us get to the current situation, no matter what political stripe they reflect. Republicans cowardly support Trump. Now, Ramos cowardly supports a Trump-like figure.

The saving grace is that she is such a trivial voice now that her endorsement is fairly meaningless.