The Conversation -- July 3, 2024
Katie Rogers of the New York Times: "President Biden has told a key ally that he knows he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince the public in the coming days that he is up for the job after a disastrous debate performance last week. The president, whom this ally emphasized is still deeply in the fight for re-election, understands that his next few appearances heading into the holiday weekend must go well, particularly an interview scheduled for Friday with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News and campaign stops in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 'He knows if he has two more events like that, we're in a different place' by the end of the weekend, said the ally, referring to Mr. Biden's halting and unfocused performance in the debate. The person, who talked to the president in the past 24 hours, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation. Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said the report was 'absolutely false' and that the White House had not been given enough time to respond."
Theodore Schleifer, et al., of the New York Times: "Wealthy Democratic donors who believe a different nominee would be the party's best chance to hold the White House are increasingly gritting their teeth in silence about President Biden, fearful that any move against him could backfire.... Earlier moves by donors to mount their own campaigns to pressure Mr. Biden to step down as the party's presidential candidate have either fizzled out or prompted pushback from fellow contributors and operatives. The deadlock reflects a broader paralysis within the party about how to handle a fraught situation that could inflame intraparty rifts, alienate key constituencies, damage personal relationships and benefit a Republican candidate most of the donors believe poses a threat to democracy."
Kenneth Vogel of the New York Times: "A group of business leaders is calling on President Biden to step aside and make way for a replacement atop the Democratic Party's presidential ticket. Leadership Now Project, a coalition of 400 politically active current and retired executives who mostly but not entirely lean left, issued a statement on Wednesday urging Mr. Biden to 'pass the torch of this year's presidential nomination to the next generation of highly capable Democrats.' The statement is unsigned, but Daniella Ballou-Aares, the group's founder and chief executive, said that it was supported by an overwhelming majority of the members of Leadership Now Project.... In its statement, Leadership Now Project called the prospect of a second Trump term 'an existential threat to American democracy' and said that at the debate Mr. Biden 'failed to effectively make the case against Trump, and we now fear the risk of a devastating loss in November.'"
Motoko Rich of the New York Times: "... with the United States Supreme Court granting ... presidents legal immunity, analysts in some [U.S.-allied] countries are even more concerned about the reliability of American power. Across Asia and Europe, where allied leaders have grown accustomed to dealing with threats from authoritarian leaders in Russia, North Korea and China, the idea that they might also have to deal with an unfettered American president is an unsettling prospect.... 'This may be rude to the U.S., but it is not that different from Xi Jinping in China,' ... said said Keigo Komamura, a professor of law at Keio University in Tokyo. 'The rule of law has become the rule of power.' Though some give limited immunity to leaders while in office, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Great Britain -- among the United States' closest allies in the world -- offer nothing like the sweeping protections the Supreme Court appears to have granted in its ruling this week. The court's decision to give the president immunity from criminal prosecution for official conduct -- which was itself vaguely defined by the court -- was 'out of line with global norms,' said Rosalind Dixon, a professor of law at the University of New South Wales in Sydney." MB: Not rude, professor; accurate.
Media Matters provides a transcript of remarks by Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation's president to David Brat, a college professor & former righty-right Virginia Congressman: "... the left has taken over our institutions. The reason that they are apoplectic right now, the reason that so many anchors on MSNBC, for example, are losing their minds daily is because our side is winning.... We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." ~~~
~~~ The White People's Revolution. Philip Bump of the Washington Post: "It is true that, particularly of late, [Kevin Roberts'] side has been winning.... The court that made ... changes is one that arose largely despite popular will, not because of it.... This fear of a declining America because of an ascendant left is pervasive on the right.... So much of this is about demography and power.... America has for decades been shifting toward a government in which power is distributed broadly and irrespective of identity. On the right, this is a problem; getting more people to vote, for example, is positioned as 'rigging' elections since those more people are presumed to be Democrats. So we have Roberts, Trump and their revolution. This time, though, the aim ... is ... to largely reverse the trajectory of the first American Revolution, centralizing power in one leader who happens to look a lot like them." ~~~
~~~ ** Amanda Marcotte of Salon: "Donald Trump has never been coy about his longing to kill people. [Marcotte gives many examples.] No doubt Trump uses intimidation to keep party members in line. But his real power comes less from scaring people and more from the widespread longing in the GOP ranks for a right-wing dictatorship.... People who are afraid of Trump would not be happy that he's been granted the license to kill by the Supreme Court.... [Speaker Mike] Johnson is hardly alone in expressing his elation over this. Politico described the Republican reaction as "giddy," with prominent politicians using language like 'win' and 'victory.' Right-wing media is also celebrating like it's their birthday, while, like Johnson, lying to their audiences about how much freedom Trump would have to commit crimes in office.... Trump wants to be a dictator. Republicans want that, too." ~~~
~~~ Maggie Astor of the New York Times reports on Kevin Roberts' declaration of revolution and on Donald Trump's history of promoting violence. As Patrick points out in today's thread, this is a straight news report, not an opinion piece.
Matthew Chapman of the Raw Story: "Chief Justice John Roberts and his right-wing colleagues on the Supreme Court are projecting their own insecurities and 'hurt feelings' onto women who are calling out their flawed and dangerous rulings, wrote Dahlia Lithwick in a scorching analysis for Slate.... It's hard to swallow this criticism [from Chief Justice Roberts (in his opinion) and right-wing pundits], wrote Lithwick, given that warnings that Roe v. Wade would be overturned were similarly dismissed as'hysterical' including by senators who voted to confirm Trump's Supreme Court Justices, like Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE).... 'This isn't hypothetical. This isn't fearmongering. This is how Trump lives and will continue to live. It is how he governs and how he will continue to govern,' Lithwick concluded -- and people in power should stop laughing off women whenever they voice real fears about their rights and prospects. 'It's almost as if the conservative justices' commitment to originalism requires them to believe that women who raise any objection to their tidy paradigms should be viewed as either empty vessels or scheming witches.'"
Texas. Anumita Kaur & Maria Paul of the Washington Post: "A state district court judge blocked Texas's attempt to shutter a decades-old migrant shelter network near the U.S.-Mexico border Tuesday, calling Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton's actions 'outrageous and intolerable.' Paxton earlier this year demanded that Annunciation House, which operates several shelters serving migrants and refugees, turn over records showing the names of those it housed. The nonprofit filed a lawsuit asking a judge to rule on the request; the attorney general responded with a countersuit seeking the closure of the shelters and accusing the nonprofit of violating smuggling laws. Judge Francisco X. Dominguez of the 205th District Court shot down the effort in a pair of rulings, writing that Paxton's allegations were unfounded and his request for documents violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. Thus, his ruling said, it was void and unenforceable."
~~~~~~~~~~
Presidential Race
Michael Shear of the New York Times: "President Biden acknowledged on Tuesday that he 'fell asleep on the stage' during his disastrous debate last week, blaming his performance on the fact that he had traveled 'around the world a couple times' in the two weeks before the face-off with ... Donald J. Trump. 'I wasn't very smart,' Mr. Biden, 81, told donors at a fund-raiser in Virginia.... 'It's not an excuse but an explanation,' he said. White House officials have blamed Mr. Biden's having a cold at the time for his disjointed debate performance. Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, repeated that explanation at a briefing for reporters on Tuesday afternoon."
Peter Baker, et al., of the New York Times: "In the weeks and months before President Biden's politically devastating performance on the debate stage in Atlanta, several current and former officials and others who encountered him behind closed doors noticed that he increasingly appeared confused or listless, or would lose the thread of conversations.... In interviews, people in the room with him more recently said that the lapses seemed to be growing more frequent, more pronounced and more worrisome.... The recent moments of disorientation generated concern among advisers and allies alike. He seemed confused at points during a D-Day anniversary ceremony in France on June 6. The next day, he misstated the purpose of a new tranche of military aid to Ukraine when meeting with its president. On June 10, he appeared to freeze up at an early celebration of the Juneteenth holiday. On June 18, his soft-spoken tone and brief struggle to summon the name of his homeland security secretary at an immigration event unnerved some of his allies at the event...." (Also linked yesterday.)
Catie Edmondson, et al., of the New York Times: "Democratic anxiety over President Biden's fitness to run for re-election erupted into the open on Tuesday in a spike of panic, as the first sitting member of Congress called on Mr. Biden to withdraw and a slew of other prominent officials who have backed the president vented their concerns. One Democratic senator openly asked for assurances from the White House about Mr. Biden's 'condition' -- 'that this was a real anomaly and not just the way he is these days,' Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told a local television station, where he said he had been 'horrified' by the president's debate performance. Another, Senator Peter Welch of Vermont, scolded the Biden campaign for 'a dismissive attitude towards people who are raising questions for discussion,' in an interview with Semafor."
Lisa Lerer, et al., of the New York Times: "President Biden and his advisers rushed to stem the first serious defections inside the Democratic Party since his shaky debate last week, as leading Democrats lent legitimacy to questions about his mental acuity and raised the specter of replacing him atop the ticket.... [Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), t]he key Black lawmaker whose endorsement helped lift Mr. Biden to the nomination in 2020, said he would back the vice president if Mr. Biden 'were to step aside.'... Two Democratic lawmakers who represent some of the most contested swing districts in the country -- Representatives Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington -- both offered public predictions that Mr. Trump would win the election.... A majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said the party would have a better chance at winning if the nominee were someone other than Mr. Biden, according to the poll.... The spate of early defections and diminished support in surveys demonstrates the scale of the crisis still gripping the Democratic Party.... Mr. Biden ... has spent much of the past three days out of the public eye, emerging only to give brief remarks on Monday evening, and has not taken questions from reporters.... Most Democratic governors have not had direct contact with Mr. Biden since the debate, a fact that has caused exasperation and prompted continued questions about his health."
Tyler Pager & Michael Scherer of the Washington Post: "Former president Barack Obama has privately told allies who have reached out to him that President Biden's already-tough path to reelection grew more challenging after his shaky debate performance on Thursday -- a harsher assessment of the presidential race than his public comments, according to several people familiar with his remarks.... Obama has long harbored worries about his party defeating Donald Trump in November, repeatedly warning Biden in recent months about how challenging it will be to win reelection. Just before the debate, Obama conveyed to allies his concerns about the state of the race.... On Friday, Obama appeared at a fundraiser in New York for House Democrats, where he expressed continued support for Biden."
Rebecca Shabad of NBC News: "Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Tuesday that it's valid for people to ask whether President Joe Biden's poor performance at the debate Thursday night was just 'an episode' or part of a 'condition.'... 'Both candidates owe whatever test you want to put them to, in terms of their mental acuity and their health -- both of them,' she added. Asked for further clarification, Pelosi spokesperson Ian Krager said that she 'has full confidence in President Biden and looks forward to attending his inauguration on January 20, 2025.'"
Farnoush Amiri of the AP: "A House Democratic lawmaker has become the first in the party to publicly call for President Joe Biden to step down as the party's nominee for president, citing Biden's debate performance against Donald Trump failing to 'effectively defend his many accomplishments.' Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said in a statement Tuesday..., 'My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved,' Doggett said. 'Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden's first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so.'" (Also linked yesterday.) The Texas Tribune story is here; thanks to laura h. for the link.
Liz Goodwin, et al., of the Washington Post: ""As panic and confusion over President Biden's faltering debate performance swept the ranks of Democratic lawmakers late last week, Sen. Joe Manchin III informed a few key allies that he would soon break with Biden in an interview on a Sunday news show, a high-profile defection that would underscore the president's weakness.... But he didn't. Senior Democrats heard of Manchin's plans and started making calls to the independent-minded senator.... The 'full-court press' was quickly assembled to help dissuade Manchin from appearing on the show...." (Also linked yesterday.)
Jeremy Barr of the Washington Post: "Over the past 3½ years, liberal hosts on MSNBC reliably provided support for ">President Biden and trained fire on his adversaries, notably Donald Trump. But in the days since Biden's halting debate performance, there has been a different reality on the network that employs two of his former top aides. MSNBC's marquee names have issued harsh reviews; some have even raised questions about his campaign and fitness for office. 'It was not a good performance,' Symone Sanders-Townsend, a former Biden White House senior adviser turned MSNBC host and pundit, said Tuesday morning.... 'No one who watched with their eyes thought that was a good performance,' said Jen Psaki, Biden's former press secretary, who also hosts a show on the network. The new dynamic started immediately after Thursday’s debate, when a panel of MSNBC luminaries took an even harder edge.... Perhaps the most significant shift occurred on the network's morning show 'Morning Joe,' which has reliably trumpeted Biden.... [Host Joe] Scarborough predicted that Trump would win reelection in November 'unless things change.'"
Bloody Biden Buddy Bunker. Eli Stokols, et al., of Politico: "Over the course of his presidency, Joe Biden's small clutch of advisers have built an increasingly protective circle around him, limiting his exposure to the media and outside advice -- an effort to manage public perceptions of the oldest person to ever hold the office and tightly control his political operation. But inside the White House, Biden's growing limitations were becoming apparent long before his meltdown in last week's debate, with the senior team's management of the president growing more strictly controlled as his term has gone on.... Following the debate, the pervasive view throughout much of the party is of Biden's inner circle as an impenetrable group of enablers who deluded themselves about his ability to run again even as they've assiduously worked to accommodate his limitations and shield them from view." (Also linked yesterday.)
Polling Data Predict a Trump Landslide. Alex Griffing of Mediaite: "Puck's Peter Hamby got his hands on a 'confidential polling memo' put together by Democratic data firm OpenLabs that showed President Joe Biden's debate performance has put once solid blue states up for grabs in November. Hamby wrote the memo 'circulating among anxious Democrats is confirming some of their worst fears,' as the data showed that Biden's disastrous debate against Trump has led to him slipping in the polls even more. 'Biden's diminished standing is now putting previously noncompetitive states like New Hampshire, Virginia, and New Mexico in play for Donald Trump,' Hamby wrote.... The data also [show] that Biden is no longer the strongest candidate to run against Trump, as alternatives now poll better.... Vice President Kamala Harris, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg 'polled ahead of Biden in every battleground state.'"
National Crime Blotter
** Ben Protess, et al., of the New York Times: "The judge in Donald J. Trump's Manhattan criminal case delayed his sentencing until Sept. 18 to weigh whether a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling might imperil the former president's conviction, the judge said Tuesday in a letter to prosecutors and defense lawyers. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, may ultimately find no basis to overturn the jury's verdict, but the delay was a surprising turn of events in a case that had led to the first conviction of an American president. With the election on the horizon, the sentencing might be the only moment of criminal accountability for the twice-impeached and four-time-indicted former president whose other cases are mired in delay." This is an update of a story linked earlier. (Also linked yesterday.)
Devlin Barrett & Perry Stein of the Washington Post: "Justice Department officials plan to pursue the criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day even if he wins, under the belief that department rules against charging or prosecuting a sitting president would not kick in until Inauguration Day in January, according to people familiar with the discussions.... The plan to continue filing motions, seeking court hearings, and potentially conducting a trial between Election Day and Inauguration Day underscores the highly unusual nature of prosecuting not just a former president, but also possibly a future one.... Current officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity..., [said] that if Trump wins the election, the clock on the two federal cases against him would keep ticking until Jan. 20, when he would be sworn in as the 47th president."
** Ian Millhiser of Vox: "The Court's six Republicans handed down a decision on Monday that gives Donald Trump such sweeping immunity from prosecution that there are unlikely to be any legal checks on his behavior if he returns to the White House. The Court's three Democrats dissented. Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution -- essentially, a license to commit crimes -- so long as they use the official powers of their office to do so.... [It is] a blueprint for dictatorship." Millhiser goes on to explain the Court's decision, with nuggets like this: "... Roberts does concede that the president may be prosecuted for 'unofficial' acts. So, for example, if Trump had personally attempted to shoot and kill then-presidential candidate Joe Biden in the lead-up to the 2020 election, rather than ordering a subordinate to do so, then Trump could probably be prosecuted for murder. But even this caveat to Roberts's sweeping immunity decision is not very strong." (Also linked yesterday.)
Joyce Vance is a good explainer, too. Besides hitting all the low points, she adds, for instance, "The majority opinion closes with a section where the Chief Justice, in a most decidedly uncollegial fashion, criticizes the Justices who dissent. He starts by calling out the dissents for striking 'a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.' Sit down, little ladies, the Chief Justice says." And, "It's remarkable that the Court is able to go on for 43 pages without acknowledging that Donald Trump tried to undo our democracy." (Also linked yesterday.)
Judd Legum of Popular Information: "The Supreme Court invented this new kind of presidential immunity 235 years after the Constitution was ratified. And it lacks any grounding in the Constitution's text.... In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the President would be 'liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.' This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the 'King of England,' who was 'sacred and invulnerable,'" and the 'President of the United States.'" (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: I recall reading Federalist No. 69 when I was a college freshman. Hamilton's words were still true when I read No. 69 in 1963. This, a young girl supposed, is what made the United States great. As of yesterday, Hamilton's words are not true anymore. Update: Last night Rachel Maddow said the immunity decision seemed to her "like a complete inversion of the American ideal." I'll sign onto that.
Kate Shaw in a New York Times op-ed: "It is increasingly clear that this court sees itself as something other than a participant in our democratic system. It sees itself as the enforcer of the separation of powers, but not itself subject to that separation.... The court ... has removed a major check on the office of the presidency at the very moment when Mr. Trump is running for office on a promise to weaponize the apparatus of government against those he views as his enemies.... The court in this case announces that an important mechanism of accountability, criminal charges under statutes passed by Congress, is almost entirely unavailable in the context of former presidents.... Justice Samuel Alito [made a] statement last July to The Wall Street Journal about Congress and the court:... 'No provision in the Constitution gives them' -- meaning Congress -- 'the authority to regulate the Supreme Court -- period.' Sub in 'president' for Supreme Court, and that's Monday's opinion in a nutshell. The court's reasoning here is also in line with what Chief Justice John Roberts said to the Senate.... Roberts's brusque refusal [to meet with senators] invoked broad 'separation of powers concerns' that he claimed 'counsel against such appearances.' It is now clear that the Roberts court believes the separation of powers means that both presidents and courts stand beyond the reach of the law." (Also linked yesterday.)
Philip Marcelo of the AP: "Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, federal prosecutor and legal adviser to Donald Trump, was disbarred in New York on Tuesday after a court found he repeatedly made false statements about Trump's 2020 election loss. The Manhattan appeals court ruled Giuliani, who had his New York law license suspended in 2021 for making false statements around the election, is no longer allowed to practice law in the state, effective immediately." (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Mississippi. Shoot the Messenger. Ken Dilanian & Laura Strickler of NBC News: "When Anna Wolfe won the Pulitzer Prizefor her dogged reporting on Mississippi's welfare fraud scandal, she had no inkling she was soon going to have to contend with the possibility of going to jail. But just over a year after she secured journalism's top award for exposing how $77 million in federal welfare funds went to athletes, cronies and pet projects, she and her editor, Adam Ganucheau, are contemplating what to pack for an extended stay behind bars. Sued for defamation by the state's former governor [Phil Bryant (R)] -- a top subject of their reporting -- they have been hit with a court order requiring them to turn over internal files including the names of confidential sources. They say the order is a threat to journalism that they will resist.... Mississippi Today. Bryant -- who has not been charged with a crime ... -- claims the online news organization wrongly accused him of criminal conduct." ~~~
~~~ Mississippi. Robert Klemko of the Washington Post: Civil rights lawyer Jill Collen Jefferson took on the (allegedly!) corrupt Lexinton, Miss., police force, and they arrested & jailed her. "Lexington, seat of Holmes County, drew the Biden administration's attention mostly because of Jefferson. Twice she went to Washington to lobby officials and lay out her case. She had collected claims of rampant abuses allegedly committed by the small department's chiefs and officers: that they were targeting Black people for prosecution; falsifying or destroying evidence; committing assaults, including of a young disabled woman; and coercing Black women into sex." MB: Sounds like a made-for-Netflix movie. Yes, Mississippi is still Mississippi.
Virginia. "Very Fine People" Must Pay Up. Ellie Sullivan of the Washington Post: "A federal appeals court on Monday restored more than $2 million of damages that a jury said some of the nation's most prominent white supremacists and hate groups owed for their role in 2017's deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. A federal judge had previously slashed the $24 million a jury awarded eight plaintiffs in total to $350,000, citing a decades-old state law. But in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ordered that instead of splitting the $350,000, each plaintiff was entitled to that amount, totaling $2.8 million. This ruling allows plaintiffs to collect -- nearly three years after a jury said they were entitled to relief for the physical harm and emotional distress they incurred when white supremacists descended on Charlottesville in a weekend of hate. Among the defendants was a neo-Nazi who rammed his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and striking four of the plaintiffs. In total, including compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs, the defendants owe $9.7 million."
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel/Palestine, et al. The New York Times is live-updating developments Wednesday in the Israel/Hamas war here.
U.K. Ishaan Tharoor of the Washington Post: "After 14 years in power, Britain's Conservatives appear headed for a historic defeat. Various projections surrounding Thursday's general election show the opposition Labour Party -- led by Keir Starmer, a mild center-left politico -- on the precipice of a potential parliamentary supermajority.... Not for nothing, some pundits and analysts have cast the election as a possible 'extinction-level' event for the Tories, who have presided over an astonishing period of political and economic turbulence since winning power in 2010 under then-party leader David Cameron. In that time, Britain has had five prime ministers, multiple financial shocks, a pandemic, and the dramatic rupture and rolling, years-long crisis of Brexit."
News Lede
New York Times: "As Hurricane Beryl headed toward Jamaica and the Cayman Islands late Tuesday as a powerful Category 4 storm, a clearer picture emerged of the devastation it had caused on two small islands in Grenada, with that country's leader calling the destruction 'unimaginable' and 'total.' 'We have to rebuild from the ground up,' Grenada's prime minister, Dickon Mitchell, said at a briefing after visiting the islands of Carriacou and Petite Martinique, which were ravaged by Beryl on Monday. Officials said about 98 percent of the buildings on the islands, where about 6,000 people live, had been damaged or destroyed, including Carriacou's main health facility, the Princess Royal Hospital, and its airport and marinas. As of Tuesday night, there was no electricity on either island, and communications were down. Crops had been ravaged, and fallen trees and utility poles littered the streets."
Share Article
Reader Comments (16)
Democrats in Congress want to expand the Supreme Court to 13
justices, add term limits and do something about bribes.
That will go far, with Republicans in control and if Trump wins it
would be changed again probably.
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-move-expand-supreme-court-
trump-ruling-1919976
And @Jeanne: Don't sweat the eye surgery. It's a walk in the park, or
a lap in the pool. Even though you're awake through it to be able to
move your eyeballs, you won't feel a thing. And my doctor sang all
the way through, and a nurse held my hand, for some reason.
I wouldn't call myself a student of American history so much as a long time fan of it. I have read thousands of pages devoted to America's past, from biographies to scholarly works devoted to particular eras, and if I remembered better what I have read over the years, I might have something intelligent to say about our current pass.
As it is, I'm mostly baffled....baffled and disappointed. It's hard to point the finger at any one thing or one time where things went awry in in the American story, but that story of human hope and progress sure seems to have come to screeching halt and even gone into reverse.
We seem eager to institutionalize practices and beliefs antithetical to the vision of America I grew up with and still hold.
Corruption is now pretty much OK.
Facts don't matter.
There is no clear right to vote
Democracy is a swear word
The wall between church and state is crumbling
Money is speech
Corporations are people
Some men are above the law
I don't know what to call it, but this isn't the America I knew. I fear my American fanboy days are done.
Owner of a German metal factory claims arson by Russians
destroyed it to disrupt shipments of critical arms and ammo to
Ukraine.
And Donald wanted us out of NATO? Glad I don't live near a large
industrial area. Of course that won't matter with H-bombs.
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-berlin-fire-behind-arson-attack-
on-factory/
In 1992, I thought Bill Clinton was a conman. (He has done nothing to change my opinion in the decades since.) So I voted for somebody else in the 1992 Democratic primary. That somebody else had experienced a serious health problem, but he -- and his doctors -- said he had recovered. I took them at their word. Had he become president, he would not have lived out his first term.
Understandably, people are not all that good at assessing their own health. Maybe their doctors aren't, either. I don't think Paul Tsongas lied to me, and I don't I think Joe Biden is lying now. But neither of them was physically fit to run for one of the most demanding -- and certainly one of the most critical -- jobs in the world.
Here's hsitory, rhyming again:
“ ... Today’s decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority’s agenda over the litigants’ submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. …
… In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus … should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. … At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people … since the founding. … It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included (the subject addressed by this case).”
That is part of a SCOTUS dissent, which could be used again as part of a dissent to Monday's decision on presidential immunity.
It is in Section V of Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent to the majority opinion in "Citizens United", where the majority went WAY past the limits of the applied question to make sweeping judgments that changed the nature of money in politics, and gave carte blanche to wealthy donors who knew how to use the laws to allow unlimited dark money contributions to political entities to further their agendas.
Now, this week, the wealthy remain free to bribe, and presidents are free to take bribes.
My wife says July 1 is now Anti-independence Day, the day we lost it.
An addendum to Patrick's comment, not yet posted (but it's in my email).
Commented thusly to the Toobin piece in the WAPO...
"This (immunity) decision is in line with the Roberts' Court's decisions loosening of the definition of corruption. Bribes are OK if the payoff is post-dated, and corrupt behavior in office is now OK if it's "official," which is by definition pretty much everything an official does.
The Roberts' Court is using its decisions to legalize its own corrupt behavior, saying in essence if officials can't do anything wrong, we're also in the clear.
Foxes running the hen house.
What an embarrassment."
Just think about it: if Sheldon Whitehouse gets nominated and
elected, it will be the Whitehouse White House says---
Or if it were Mayor Pete, President Mayor Pete (though very unlikely).
Thanks, Forrest! I have heard "piece o' cake" most often as expressed by people who have had their cataracts removed. I think it will be okay, especially for good results for night vision. Last night while walking the dog, daughter saw our local fox four different times as it rambled back toward an area nearby called The Reserve...and I never saw it at all. All the lights have big ol' rays and rainbows around them, so I look forward to having those go away.
Have nothing good to say about our current crisis, except that I too am mightily disappointed about the direction the country is going, and I wish I could just forget about it on a daily basis like most people seem to do. I have been immersed too long, I guess. And so many people do not deserve the time of day from me or my eyes, or thoughts. I agree about the sinister Citizens United-- we all. knew it was bad from the get-go but I thought it could be modified or reversed. Silly me.
Have turned off the chattering teevee-- it hurts me to hear what MSNBC considers "well-rounded" opinions being delivered by repugs, as nothing will convince me that they are right about anything. They aren't and I am cynical enough to think this will not change in my lifetime.
Jeanne "piece of cake" doesn't begin to describe it. I had both eyes done a few years ago and it was easy and fast. I was legally blind when I went in but passed a drivers eye exam a few weeks later.
James Fallows " least worst"
I have been somewhat bemused by the protestations from the Biden White House, the campaign, various other Very Important People, that it will be chaos--chaos, I tell you--if Biden withdraws and a new set of candidates has to be chosen. Uh-huh. So you're going to tell me that you haven't already thought this through, considering the potential health risks for an 81-year-old man? That you haven't thought about what to do if the president has a stroke two days before the convention? I realize that the easy answer is that VP Harris steps in, and that easy answer won't necessarily fly in an open convention. But I find the panicked cry of CHAOS overwrought.
The NYT does a piece on The Heritage Foundation president's claim that we are in the 2nd American revolution, which will be bloodless if the left allows it to be. And on Project 2025. And on DiJiT's history of promoting violence.
It appears to be a news piece not an opinion piece.
We need more of such, a drumbeat of the danger these people present.
Just a thought from a friend: Has it occurred to Trump that the SS guards he has around him are also government agents that the Newly appointed king could order to administer royal justice? Might keep him awake at night.
Bobby Lee, bite your 👅. You might just drive him nuts with such talk...
LIke Elizabeth, Anne Applebaum thinks the idea of chaos at the convention absurd.
While acknowledging risks, she claims "the delegates to the Democratic National Convention don’t need to sleepwalk into catastrophe.
...
[In contrast to the Republican convention], the Democratic convention would be dramatic—very, very dramatic. Everyone would want to watch it, talk about it, be there on the ground. Tickets would be impossible to get; the national and international media would flock there in huge numbers.
[The candidate] would emerge from the convention with energy, attention, hope, and money. The American republic, and the democratic world, might survive. Isn’t that worth the gamble?"
gift link to The Atlantic
A Strategic Plan
@Bobby Lee: The Imperial Court Justices also have government agents watching over them that could be ordered by a president to take them into custody for the myriad of crimes they have openly committed.
That could be very bad for any non rabid Justices if any Republican takes over the Oval Office again. Or any person with government protection going forward.