Shared posts

06 Jul 18:16

Sen. Lindsey Graham is lawyered up and challenging Fulton County grand jury subpoena

by Jen Hayden
James.galbraith

Good luck dipshit

Yesterday we learned a Fulton County grand jury subpoenaed numerous folks involved in the attempt to overturn 2020 presidential election results in Georgia and hand the election to Donald Trump. Those receiving a subpoena included Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis, and Sen. Lindsey Graham. 

You may recall before the Georgia 2020 election was certified, Graham, a senator not from Georgia, called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to inquire whether Raffensperger could, you know, challenge more signatures and toss out mail-in ballots.

According to the subpoena (you can read it here), Graham asked Raffensperger to “reexamine certain absentee ballots” in order to “find a more favorable outcome for former President Trump.”

RELATED STORY: Georgia grand jury has subpoenas for Giuliani, Graham, others involved in Trump's Jan. 6 conspiracy

Through his attorneys, Graham is challenging the subpoena, saying he was well within his rights as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary to make the call to a secretary of state. According to the committee’s jurisdiction, that claim seems dubious. 

In addition to its critical role in providing oversight of the Department of Justice and the agencies under the Department's jurisdiction, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security, the Judiciary Committee plays an important role in the consideration of nominations and pending legislation.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary calling a secretary of state to pressure them into changing election results is highly unusual and highly unethical. But is it also criminal? Stay tuned. 

NEW: Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will go to court to challenge the subpoena from grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia Statement from attorney accuses grand jury of working "in concert" with House January 6 Select Committee pic.twitter.com/AwfJLn2RBm

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) July 6, 2022

Sign the petition: Don't let the Jan. 6 Committee's work go to waste. DOJ must investigate and prosecute Donald Trump.

06 Jul 18:11

Questions arise over Warnock's use of campaign funds to fight lawsuit

by Natalie Allison
James.galbraith

For fuck's sake man, don't screw this up


Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) used campaign money to cover legal expenses for a lawsuit relating to his time as a church minister — transactions that raise questions about whether the spending runs afoul of federal rules governing personal use of campaign funds.

The case, first filed in 2019 by Atlanta resident Melvin Robertson, involved baffling and seemingly baseless allegations against Warnock that date back to 2005 when he was a pastor. It was dismissed by a federal district court judge in Georgia without any of the defendants being served.

But Robertson refiled a similar lawsuit in April 2021, outlining the same allegations against Warnock while also suing Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he has long served as senior pastor, and other public figures.

This time, Warnock was serving in the Senate. And he enlisted his campaign attorneys from Elias Law Group to represent him in the case, along with an Atlanta firm, Krevolin & Horst, which assisted ELG.

The issue for Warnock is whether this was a proper use of campaign funds.

Federal Election Commission guidance states that campaign money can be used on “litigation expenses where the candidate/officeholder was the defendant and the litigation arose directly from campaign activity or the candidate’s status as a candidate.”

The questions surrounding Warnock’s actions in the case come as he’s facing off against Republican Herschel Walker in one of the most competitive and consequential Senate races this fall. Walker is facing multiple FEC complaints from Democrats that allege he illegally spent campaign money to prepare for his Senate announcement, and that he and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) campaigns coordinated without proper disclosures. He’s called both complaints frivolous.

Now, Warnock has his own campaign finance controversy to navigate. Experts in federal campaign finance law point to the FEC’s so-called “irrespective test” — or, in the words of Caleb Burns, a Wiley Rein attorney specializing in election law, “expenses that would exist irrespective of a candidate’s status as a candidate or officeholder.”



“The rationale for this prohibition is to honor the campaign contributors’ intent that their contributions be used for political purposes and not, for example, to relieve the candidate of a personal obligation,” Burns said.

Warnock’s campaign maintains that the use of campaign funds was permissible because the second lawsuit, despite making the same allegations as in 2019, was filed while Warnock was in office. They noted that the process service took place at Warnock’s Senate office in Atlanta.

Warnock’s unique situation presents a gray area, because the allegations dating back 17 years do not involve him being a member of Congress or a candidate for office. His campaign argues, however, that Robertson’s invocation of the First, Fourth and 14th amendments made Warnock’s 2021 status as a federal office holder relevant.

“This frivolous lawsuit against Senator Reverend Warnock and other public officials was served at his official office and is based on laws that only apply to him because of his status as a sitting office holder,” said Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic election law attorney who represents Warnock’s campaign, in a statement to POLITICO. “It’s completely legal and appropriate to have used campaign funds on this legal matter, as many federal office holders have done before. Any suggestion otherwise is completely false.”

However, the examples cited by Warnock’s campaign of instances where the FEC ruled that it was permissible for officeholders to use campaign funds on legal expenses all pertained to events that took place while the person was a member of Congress. For example, the campaign pointed to former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) paying for litigation related to the secret taping of a House Republican Conference call in 1996.

And when Warnock’s attorneys last year were seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed, they specifically noted that Robertson’s claims against Warnock “relate to actions purportedly taken in 2005 and 2008, when he was not a federal employee.”

Yet they now argue that, because the suit was filed while Warnock was in the Senate, it was appropriate to use his campaign money to cover his defense.

The Robertson lawsuit likely amounts to a small fraction of the work Elias Law Group has done for Warnock’s campaign. The campaign has paid Elias Law Group $66,000 since October, according to FEC disclosures. Before that, Warnock for Georgia paid Perkins Coie, the firm from which Mark Elias and other attorneys split, $210,000 between July 2020 and December 2021.

Warnock’s campaign paid Krevolin & Horst, another firm listed in Warnock’s filings in the case, $1,183 — meaning the firm likely has not done extensive work for Warnock’s campaign other than handling the Robertson case.


No one regards the lawsuit as substantive. Among other things, Robertson accuses Warnock of somehow conspiring with the city of Atlanta to entrap him and participating in schemes involving a business where Robertson once worked. He also complains about his personal belongings being lost in a storage locker and about his discomfort while attending one of Warnock’s church services long ago.

But the merit of the lawsuit is separate from how Warnock paid to defend himself against it.

Charlie Spies, a Republican attorney specializing in political law, said the bottom line is whether Warnock would have incurred the expense as a private citizen. And in this case, Spies said, the answer is yes.

“If Warnock is using campaign money to pay for a lawsuit that predates his running for office, then by definition it existed irrespective of his candidacy and would be impermissible to use campaign funds on,” said Spies, who previously served as counsel to Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign and to the Republican National Committee.

“Personal use” of campaign funds, Spies said, is “something the FEC is particularly focused on.”

“The seriousness of the violation will depend on whether the FEC considers it to be knowing and willful,” he said.

If the FEC determines it was a violation, but not willful, such a case would likely be resolved by the candidate paying a fraction of the amount that was illegally spent, according to Spies.

“I don’t think his donors are giving,” Spies said, “for him to fund personal lawsuits.”

06 Jul 05:06

Florida county slaps warning label on LGBTQ kids who join phys ed classes or overnight trips

by Aldous J Pennyfarthing
James.galbraith

Fucking bigots

It’s no wonder Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell won’t release a Republican policy platform for the midterms. Everything they do is awful. Their platform might as well say, “Eat shit, America. You’re stuck with us now.” 

After Cronenberg-ing our country to the point where 10-year-old rape victims are now forced to travel out of state to end their pregnancies, conservatives are putting the screws to LGBTQ kids in new and creative ways.

The public school board in Leon County, Florida, has decided to slap scarlet letters on trans kids so ignorant parents can feel a little less skeeved out by who their children are playing with. Last week, the board approved an “LGBTQ Inclusive School Guide” that includes a lot of horrible, cruel, grotesquely un-American things.

What drew the most debate was a provision that a school will notify parents — by form — if a student who is "open about their gender identity" is in a physical education class or on an overnight trip.

Some teachers and students during the Tuesday night meeting said the policy will “out” LGBTQ+ students — revealing their sexual orientation or gender identity without their permission.

Everyone got that? LGBTQ kids are a danger to your kids because they’re different. And we can’t have that!

Of course, Florida decided to officially get into the bully kids business when Ron DeSantis, the dude who put the goober in gubernatorial, decided to sign the state’s vicious Don’t Say Gay bill, which can only be described as a hammer blow to LGBTQ kids’ self-esteem.

Needless to say, not everyone was pleased with Leon County’s cruel tack.

“The notification to all the parents can create a very stressful and unwanted situation to trans and LGBTQ students,” Leon High School student Kailey Sandell said at the school board meeting, where the guide was approved 4-0. “A lot of times kids assume that kids are gay or trans; they will easily be able to hurt them.”

Lauren Kelly-Manders, a 34-year-old Tallahassee resident who sits on the city’s LGBTQ+ Advisory Council and came out while attending Leon High School, told the Tallahassee Democrat, “Sending out a parent notification could be seen as placing a target on a student’s back.”

Gee, ya think? What better way to reduce someone to second-class-citizen status than forcing them to come with a warning label?

Anyone who felt alienated or picked on in school knows how devastating this will be for these kids. While the guide does say that students’ sexual orientation and gender identity “should not be shared with others without their input and permission,” exactly how long will that hold up in this McCarthyist environment?

I can laugh off a lot, but conservatives are cutting to the bone now. This is flat-out nauseating. Let’s target some of our most vulnerable children in the most craven and lurid way imaginable, because ‘Merica!

We are now the United States of Fuck You If You’re Not a White Cisgender Male. This cruelty has to stop. You know what to do.

Check out Aldous J. Pennyfarthing’s four-volume Trump-trashing compendium, including the finale, Goodbye, Asshat: 101 Farewell Letters to Donald Trump, at this link. Or, if you prefer a test drive, you can download the epilogue to Goodbye, Asshat for the low, low price of FREE.

06 Jul 04:45

FedEx To Close Data Centers, Retire All Mainframes By 2024, Saving $400 Million

by msmash
FedEx is to close its data centers and retire all of its remaining mainframes within the next two years. Speaking during the FedEx investor day, FedEx CIO Rob Carter said the company is aiming for a "zero data center, zero mainframe" environment based in the cloud, which will result in $400 million in savings annually. From a report: "We've been working across this decade to streamline and simplify our technology and systems," he said. "We've shifted to cloud...we've been eliminating monolithic applications one after the other after the other...we're moving to a zero data center, zero mainframe environment that's more flexible, secure, and cost-effective. Within the next two years we'll close the last few remaining data centers that we have, we'll eliminate the final 20 percent of the mainframe footprint, and we'll move the remaining applications to cloud-native structures that allow them to be flexibly deployed and used in the marketplace and business. While we're doing this, we'll achieve $400 million of annual savings."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

05 Jul 22:35

Cartoon: New training

by keefknight
05 Jul 21:56

Lawsuit: At Tesla, racial discrimination is “standard operating procedure”

by Jon Brodkin
James.galbraith

Surprise...

A Tesla factory building and parking lot in Fremont, California.

Enlarge / Tesla factory in Fremont, California as seen on April 20, 2022. (credit: Getty Images | Justin Sullivan )

Tesla is facing a new racial discrimination lawsuit filed by 15 factory employees who allege that Tesla's "standard operating procedures include blatant, open, and unmitigated race discrimination." Racial harassment and discrimination is "rampant" at Tesla and the company has "done little to nothing to reasonably prevent or stop this toxic behavior and work environment," the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs include nine men and six women who work or worked at Tesla factories in California. About half of the plaintiffs were either fired or quit, while the rest still work at Tesla.

"Plaintiffs, who [are] African-American employees, have been subjected to offensive racist comments and offensive racist behavior and discipline by colleagues, leads, supervisors, managers, and/or Human Resources personnel on a daily basis," the complaint says. The complaint alleges that an April 2021 incident at Tesla CEO Elon Musk's home led to one of the plaintiffs being fired on the same day.

Read 19 remaining paragraphs | Comments

05 Jul 20:22

Newsom’s attack ad on DeSantis could be 2024 presidential preview

by Towleroad
593041 origin 1
593041 origin 1
Published by
Orlando Sentinel

ORLANDO, Fla. — Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s $100,000 Fox News ad on Monday urging Floridians to “join the fight” against Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis “or join us in California” has drawn a muted response from state Democrats and dismissals from Republicans. But it’s just the latest signal that as DeSantis’ national profile as a potential GOP presidential candidate increases, he can expect more attention from national Democrats and possible presidential opponents, whether in 2024 or 2028. “It’s an acknowledgement that DeSantis is a is a serious political threat to the Democrats,” …

Read More

05 Jul 19:45

Diablo Immortal is bringing in over $1 million a day in microtransactions

by Kyle Orland
James.galbraith

Well that's fucking appalling

Use cash to buy orbs.

Use cash to buy orbs.

Despite backlash from some players, Diablo Immortal's free-to-play, microtransaction-laden game design seems to be working out just fine for Blizzard's bottom line. Using data from mobile analysis firm AppmagicMobileGamer.biz estimates that the iOS and Android versions of the game brought in $49 million in earnings from just over 10 million mobile downloads in the versions' first 30 days of availability.

Those estimates, based on public charts provided by the mobile platforms, don't include the PC version of the game and, thus, may be underselling the scale of its financial success. With PC players included, Blizzard announced that Diablo Immortal hit 10 million installs after just over a week, well ahead of the mobile download pace estimated by Appmagic.

By comparison, Diablo III took nearly six months to sell 10 million copies after its troubled launch in 2012. But that game sold for $60, making it hard to compare directly to a free-to-play game that has brought in an estimated average of less than $5 in earnings per download, according to Appmagic.

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

05 Jul 19:44

Georgia grand jury has subpoenas for Giuliani, Graham, others involved in Trump's Jan. 6 conspiracy

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

Oh this should be fun

It’s not the House select committee on Jan. 6 that wants a better look at many of those involved in Donald Trump’s scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Thanks to their wide-ranging activities in many states, investigations are going on at the local, state, and federal level into actions that Trump’s team took in attempting to reverse the will of the American people.

No state may have borne more of Trump’s focused fury than Georgia. President Joe Biden carried the state by over 12,500 votes, making it second to Arizona when it comes to the the narrowest margin of victory. This was far outside the realm of possible change that might be addressed by a recount, but Georgia conducted a recount anyway. When that didn’t make things any better for Trump, he requested that Georgia count a third time, which it did. Trump still lost, and by a bigger number than ever.

But Trump wasn’t done with Georgia. Right up until Jan. 6, Trump’s team tried every possible way to steal Georgia’s electoral votes. And now some of the most familiar names in MAGA land are getting hauled before a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia. That includes Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and attorney John Eastman. 

An incomplete list of how Trump attempted to overturn the results in Georgia includes:

  • An “absurd” lawsuit that was blasted by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp as being nothing more than a collection of lies that had been flatly rejected in other states. (That lawsuit was actually withdrawn the morning of Jan. 6.)
  • Trump’s call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump was caught on tape asking for Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to defeat Biden, and threatening the official if he didn’t come through for Trump.
  • Giuliani appeared three times before Georgia state legislators, spreading claims of voter fraud he knew were unfounded and encouraging them to take control of the election process and simply ignore the votes.
  • Eastman also appeared before a legislative hearing and argued that there was “more than enough” evidence of voter fraud and that it was the “duty” of the legislators to appoint alternative electors.
  • Drafting a slate of 16 fake electors who then pretended to be the “lawfully elected electors” of the state and submitted false documents to Congress.
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham called Raffensperger and urged him to simply toss out mail-in ballots in counties that favored Biden.
  • Trump, Giuliani, Powell, and a cast of dozens if not hundreds went on to insist that Kemp and Raffensperger were part of an international plot to deny Trump a repeat visit to the White House.

Now, as The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, Trump’s team is going to get another day in court, but not the day they wanted.

The grand jury has subpoenaed Giuliani, Graham, and Eastman, along Trump advisers Cleta Mitchell, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jenna Ellis. They’ve also subpoenaed conspiracy-mongering podcast host Jacki Pick Deason.

Giuliani, Eastman, Mitchell, Chesebro, and Ellis are all expected to argue attorney-client privilege when it comes to their conversations with Trump. However, this can’t protect Giuliani or Eastman when it comes to their own claims before the legislature, especially since it is now clear they were aware their claims of election fraud were unfounded. When it comes to Graham … well, nothing can justify Lindsey Graham.

State officials who went along with the false elector scheme are also likely to see subpoenas.

Sign the petition: Stop Republican sabotage of the election process

05 Jul 19:32

NIST Announces First Four Quantum-Resistant Cryptographic Algorithms

by msmash
James.galbraith

oh? Interesting

jd writes: NIST has announced winners of its post-quantum cryptography battle of the giants. CRYSTALS-Kyber has been chosen for standard encryption, CRYSTALS-Dilithium, Falcon, and SPHINCS+ were chosen for digital signatures. Falcon is recommended by NIST as a backup for Dilithium where shorter keys are needed, and SPHINCS+ uses a different mathematical technique than all of the other submissions, so if it is found that there's a flaw in the maths for the others, then there's something to fall back on. There is still a final round for public key encryption algorithms. The remaining candidates are BIKE, Classic McEliece, HQC, and SIKE. The mailing list members probably wish that they could use Slashdot's moderation system about now, as some of the discussions have been extremely heated. This was especially true for the signature system Rainbow, which is used by the ABC Mint crypto-currency, which was rejected after what was claimed to be a catastrophic flaw was reported, with allegations that it could be broken over a weekend on a laptop, followed by counter-allegations that many of the other algorithms had significant flaws in them also. (This is likely why SPHINCS+ is a backup.) Another area that was hotly debated was CPU design flaws, particularly HertzBleed, which got the well-known crypto maestro Bernstein rather annoyed. As SIKE is a final round candidate, NIST seem to be satisfied with his explanation for why CPU design flaws should not be considered. It is to be seen how this debate progresses.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

05 Jul 17:22

In Louisiana, a dark turn in the post-Roe wars signals danger ahead

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

no shit

Medical professionals sound the alarm about a new front in the abortion wars.
05 Jul 16:27

Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was a preview of what's coming next from Jan. 6 committee

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

Should be interesting

Last Tuesday, the House select committee on Jan. 6 conducted an additional hearing on short notice. During that hearing, the committee heard testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, former assistant to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson delivered a series of bombshells directly connected to the events on Jan. 6.  

Hutchinson’s statements included Donald Trump acknowledging that he knew his followers were armed and attempting to get metal detectors removed, Trump agreeing with the chants wanting to “hang Mike Pence,” and Trump angrily attempting to force his security detail to take him to the Capitol so he could personally lead the Proud Boys and other insurgents. There was also an angry Trump flinging food at the White House walls.

The impact of this testimony was so powerful that there was an immediate move to discredit Hutchinson. From The Washington Post to Fox News, there have been claims from unnamed officials that members of Trump’s Secret Service team are ready to go on the record contradicting her claims, especially when it comes to Trump’s struggling with his driver and demanding to be taken to the Capitol. But a week after her testimony, the most important detail may be that for all the people claiming to have someone willing to contradict Hutchinson, no one has actually produced such a witness. No one has actually contradicted a word she said.

Campaign Action

The Washington Post is back today, wringing metaphorical hands over whether the committee acted too quickly in getting Hutchinson’s testimony before the public. According to the Post, putting Hutchinson in front of the cameras amounted to “rushing her into the witness stand” and “rolling the dice” while the committee “failed to thoroughly vet her claims.”

Except … they don’t know this. Neither The Washington Post nor anyone else outside the committee staff knows how much of Hutchinson’s testimony lined up with what the committee had already learned from other witnesses. What they do know is that members of Trump’s team were trying to leverage Hutchinson into silence, and that there was a chance she might not speak at all if leaned on long enough. 

What is clear, based on an appearance from Rep. Adam Schiff on CBS over the weekend, is that  Hutchinson’s testimony fits neatly into with what the public is going to hear the next time the cameras focus on the committee. The very next hearing, according to Schiff, “will be focused on the efforts to assemble that mob on the mall, who was participating, who was financing it, how it was organized, including the participation of these white-nationalist groups like the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and others.”

The testimony up to this point shows that the Proud Boys were directly connected with steering Trump’s supporters to the Capitol, initiating violence and the breaking of police lines, and led the way into the Capitol buildings. Before leaving the stage at his Jan. 6 rally, Trump told those present to go to the Capitol, and he would be with them. There has also been testimony that Alex Jones and member of the Proud Boys who were on site at the Capitol told their followers that Trump was going to join them on the east side of the building. Hutchinson provided testimony showing that Trump absolutely intended to go to the Capitol, and was angry with staff who kept him from being at the scene of the insurgency.

All of this seems to be building blocks for what Schiff is promising next: how the mob at Trump’s rally was funded, directed, and used as a weapon in an attempt to overturn the government of the United States. All of this looks to be building toward extremely widespread charges of seditious conspiracy, including against Donald Trump.

“For four years, the Justice Department took the position that you can't indict a sitting president,” said Schiff in his interview. “If the Department were now to take the position that you can't investigate or indict a former president, then a president becomes above the law. That's a very dangerous idea that the founders would have never subscribed to. Even more dangerous, I think in the case of Donald Trump. This—Donald Trump is someone who has shown when he's not held accountable, he goes on to commit worse and worse abuses of power. So I agree with Judge Carter in California, I think there was evidence that the former president engaged in multiple violations of the law, and that should be investigated.”

Hutchinson’s testimony wasn’t rushed forward because it was an extraordinary outlier. Her testimony was heard last week specifically because it fits exactly into the framework that the committee is seeing from other witnesses. Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was visceral and real, and and also a brick in the wall the committee is building. A wall that seems increasingly likely to describe criminal charges against Trump.

The most important thing that the Post article has to say about that testimony may be this:

Hutchinson’s account of cleaning Trump-strewn ketchup off White House walls and pleading with her onetime boss, former chief of staff Mark Meadows, to get off his phone and help quell the Capitol riot was watched by more viewers than all but one of the NBA Finals games this year.

Republicans can make any claim they want about the public’s interest in the hearings, but those numbers say it all. A huge number of Americans turned in to see Hutchinson calmly and clearly explain what it was like to live with Trump’s anger, immaturity, and disregard for anyone else. That’s a stain that’s going to be a lot harder to remove than getting ketchup out of wallpaper.

05 Jul 06:30

Researchers say flu shot connected to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease

by Walter Einenkel
James.galbraith

interesting

One of the many tragic turns the politicization of COVID-19 and our country’s response to it has been the deleterious effect it has had on public health consensus. With the rise in privatization, greed, and a withering government response over the decades, the public’s trust in medicine and science as entities above politics and money has dwindled. The novel coronavirus pandemic, as it did with everything else, expedited the trend of deteriorating public trust.

One of the places that has seeped into is the annual, and for some demographics semiannual, flu shot. Polling has shown that this past fall, 4 in 10 Americans said they weren’t planning on getting the flu shot, regardless of their feelings about—or whether or not they had received—the COVID-19 jab. Unfortunately, what many Americans continue to take with them is the age-old wisdom that getting the flu and building up a natural immunity to whatever specific strain you may catch, is preferable to either immunizing yourself from catching it at all, or simply blunting the severity of suffering infection.

The fact is that the flu shot helps save tens of thousands of people’s lives every year, while also preventing millions of hospital visits, and millions more from ever getting seriously ill. It is a win-win, considering that the cost is mostly an uncomfortably sore arm for a few hours. Now researchers out of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston have added another reason to look forward to getting your flu shot.

Combing through a large nationwide sample of U.S. seniors (65 and older), including 935,887 flu-vaccinated patients and 935,887 non-vaccinated patients, researchers found that a single flu shot provided a reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease “for several years.” That is not all. Avram S. Bukhbinder, MD, a recent alumnus of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston explained in a statement that the “strength of this protective effect increased with the number of years that a person received an annual flu vaccine—in other words, the rate of developing Alzheimer's was lowest among those who consistently received the flu vaccine every year.”

During four-year follow-up appointments, about 5.1% of flu-vaccinated patients were found to have developed Alzheimer's disease. Meanwhile, 8.5% of non-vaccinated patients had developed Alzheimer's disease during follow-up.

The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely the flu shot itself is the determining factor. What is known is that there is link between various vaccinations and the flu shot with reduced Alzheimer’s outcomes. Researcher Paul Schulz explained in a statement:

“Since there is evidence that several vaccines may protect from Alzheimer's disease, we are thinking that it isn't a specific effect of the flu vaccine. Instead, we believe that the immune system is complex, and some alterations, such as pneumonia, may activate it in a way that makes Alzheimer's disease worse. But other things that activate the immune system may do so in a different way -- one that protects from Alzheimer's disease. Clearly, we have more to learn about how the immune system worsens or improves outcomes in this disease.”

Researchers say that testing whether or not immunizations like the flu shot may also help slow or lessen the progression of Alzheimer’s disease is one of the next steps that need to be undertaken. For many Americans, getting immunizations from contagions is an important community responsibility in helping protect those around you. As someone who believes in stopping the communal spread, I can also tell you, having caught the flu about 8 years ago, it is preferable not to get the flu at all.

05 Jul 05:28

Fascism alert: Florida's new teacher training program promotes far-right Christian nationalism

by Hunter
James.galbraith

If you're surprised...

Donald Trump may have stumbled from narcissism to fascism as something of an accident, but it's Republican presidential aspirant and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis who shows the most promise in actually implementing it. DeSantis has based his whole political brand on opposing science and facts, on moves to strip the state's academics from the power to criticize his decisions, on firing whistleblowers, and on promoting thickheaded nationalism in whatever political situation he finds himself, relying on Trump's collection of merry rubes to take up whatever conspiracy he finds it convenient to promote. Critical race theory, "grooming," you name it.

This is a man who placed a prominent anti-mask, anti-vaccine crackpot in charge of the state's pandemic response as capper to a campaign of forcing state entities to abandon pandemic safety measures. The man's political ambitions have a body count—which he has also responded to in the fascist-favorite manner, by obfuscating death counts so as to hide the extent of the damage.

DeSantis didn't stumble into the tenets of fascism, as Trump did. DeSantis saw the base appeal of Trump's fascist slide and emulated it for his own benefit, from the promotion of conspiracy hoaxes down to Trump's own mannerisms. He's the man anti-democratic conservative fascists will embrace as Trump's successor. Nobody else in the race will top him in raw sleaze. Nobody else in the race will promise to attack conservatism's enemies, from nonwhites to "globalists" to educators to government's paid stable of People Who Actually Know Things, as viciously and as all-encompassingly as he will.

If you want a sneak peak at what American fascism will look like, Florida has you covered. A new (but paywalled) Miami Herald article reports on a new three-day "training" program indoctrinating the state's teachers on how the state's new Republican-backed history lessons should be taught, and the "training" program is in fact a three-day course on Christian nationalist thinking. Some of the highlights were marked in a thread by Jeffrey Sachs.

2. The argument for Originalism (note: no alternative interpretive theories were discussed); pic.twitter.com/EU9NTvqlhq

— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) June 30, 2022

The new standards emphasize Christianity as the lens through which all of American history must be taught, and does not hide its interpretation of when things began to go wrong.

4. The Founder's support for religious institutions. pic.twitter.com/oOqC3SARnz

— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) June 30, 2022

The Herald has many quotes from teachers who were alarmed about these Florida Department of Education-sponsored workshops, calling it a "very strong Christian fundamentalist" approach to "censor" and "propagandize." It is "straight-up indoctrination," said one teacher. That’s still probably underselling the raw bias of the endeavor.

In slides, slavery was called an "Ancient practice expanded by the Europeans" while claiming that "even those [founding fathers] that held slaves did not defend the institution." Assertions that the Founders "desired strict separation of church and state" was labeled a "Misconception." Students are to be taught that the founders "expected religion to be promoted because they believed it to be essential to civic virtue." A Supreme Court decision barring school-sponsored prayer was, an interviewed teacher reported, compared by trainers to the injustice of upholding segregation.

And "Originalism," represented alongside a picture of the notoriously fickle former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia because Jeebus, nobody involved even knows the meaning of the word subtle, is identified as the only means of "interpreting" the Constitution. (Originalism's habit of ignoring what the founders themselves wrote to instead focus on what an English dude from a century earlier might have thought about it is not mentioned.)

As for how this all came about, the Herald can answer that too. The workshops are part of a $6 million DeSantis effort to retrain the state's teachers according to Republicanism's standards, and run by the Florida Department of Education. Teachers get $700 for attending the "voluntary" three-day trainings, and teachers who can abide what must be an absolute hellscape of a 60-hour online course can receive a $3,000 bonus pulled out of the DeSantis administration's unspent pandemic safety funds.

The lesson plan itself was created by Republican-allied Hillsdale College, the Koch brothers' archconservative Bill of Rights Institute, and other groups. It is a Christian nationalist plan that scrapes out the unpleasant parts of history to insert a new fan-fiction version that cites Christianity as the reason for all the good things that are left and promotes, as you can see, the distinctly ideological notion that Christianity must be the lens through which future government is applied.

As an aside, 60 hours of indoctrination on the value of originalism and how Actually, slavery was nowhere near as bad as people are saying sounds less like a training session and more like an extended cult ritual. Teachers are also among the worst-paid professionals in America, so paying them an extra $3,000 only if they're willing to relearn history the "Republican" way almost qualifies as blackmail.

We can probably feel safe calling the ever-dodgy Hillsdale College a Christian nationalist hub at this point, but it's a go-to source of conservative crackpot-ism, so you'll be hearing more about it as the Samuel Alito and Ron DeSantis version of post-Trumpism scrubs out what's left of the rest of conservatism. On the other hand, anything associated with the Koch brothers is always and forever devoted to eroding government so that Charles Koch doesn't have to pay as much in taxes as he once did, and if teaching children that Antonin F--king Scalia is the source of our rights and general goodness is what it takes to do so then that is what's going to happen.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. These new programs for Florida teachers come as those teachers are ordered to strip classrooms of anything that so much as hints at the existence of non-heterosexuality, including removing photographs of partners and scraping Safe Space stickers from their doors.

And if you still think it's not fascism yet, you might reconsider after hearing how new school guidelines demand school officials report any student who, quote, "is open about their gender identity." When rules start being passed that will be ignored in every case except when a targeted minority has allegedly broken them, you are well and truly in the midst of the fascist witch hunts.

The Supreme Court has weakened gun laws in direct response to a rising far-right militia movement that predicates gun ownership on an alleged "right" to sedition and vigilantism. It has declared that the state's interest in a fetus outstrips the civil rights of those who carry them. It has issued a shockingly dishonest-on-the-facts ruling to erase student protections against religious intimidation by school authority figures. It has declared that the entirety of the administrative state now only exists if it comports with the will of six conservatives specifically chosen for their willingness to promote movement priorities. It most recently now has signaled a willingness to abide a theory that supposes the sanctity of voting itself is a modern fiction, with elections being something partisan-captured legislatures can simply overrule when it suits them.

But it is DeSantis who is angling to be the Dear Leader figure who will guide the "reeducation" of America, the scribbling out of history so as to better comport with nationalist ends, the formalization of power as a partisan exercise that shifts according to need, the new figure who will stamp out expertise in favor of advantageous fiction. Trump is Trump, a buffoon who never cared about the mechanisms of governing because they bored him. DeSantis has proven willing and able to turn Trump's campaign of personal vendettas into a truly state-enforced, state-financed affair. And his enemies are fascism's usual enemies: immigrants, LGBT citizens, intellectuals, public functionaries, and too-irritating truths.

It's Florida's youngest generations that are least willing to abide those sorts of bigotries and willful ignorance, so Republican movement leaders are focusing a great deal of attention on "re-educating" them until they do. It’s your children who are going to be caught in the middle of this.

05 Jul 05:28

CNN: Secret Service accounts of limo incident 'align with significant parts' of Hutchinson's version

by Aldous J Pennyfarthing
James.galbraith

Get enough of them under oath and let's see how it goes

Shortly after former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson let the world know what most of us had already come to accept—i.e., that Donald Trump is basically an irritable bowel stuffed stem to stern with 11 secret herbs and spices—conservatives scrambled to discredit her.

Most notably, they seized on the fact that Secret Service agent Robert Engel, who was in the limo with Trump when he allegedly lunged at the steering wheel and toward Engel’s “clavicles,” claimed that the incident didn’t occur the way she’d described it. Meanwhile, Secret Service agent Tony Ornato, who allegedly recounted the incident to Hutchinson, has also denied her account.

Of course, Engel and Ornato are both Trump loyalists—in fact, Ornato worked for a time as Trump’s deputy White House chief of staff for operations—and so this was likely little more than a smokescreen to try to blunt the impact of Hutchinson’s explosive testimony. Some media accounts have described Engel and Ornato as Trump’s “yes-men,” and two other former administration officials—Alyssa Farah and Olivia Troye—have called into question Ornato’s credibility

Moreover, the dispute could simply hinge on different people’s definition of “lunged.” Hutchinson never said she witnessed the incident herself—merely that she was repeating Ornato’s account—and so it would be impossible for her to relate in granular detail what actually happened. 

Well, according to further reporting from CNN, other Secret Service sources have now come forward to affirm that what Hutchinson testified to is essentially true, and nothing in this new reporting refutes anything in Hutchinson’s account:

While the details from those who heard the accounts differ, the Secret Service sources say they were told an angry confrontation did occur. And their accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson's testimony, which has been attacked as hearsay by Trump and his allies who also have tried to discredit her overall testimony.
Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as "demanding" and that the former President said something similar to: "I'm the f**king President of the United States, you can't tell me what to do." The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.

So the dispute is really about whether Trump is just an everyday feral ape behind closed doors or more of a radioactive mutant feral ape. 

"He had sort of lunged forward -- it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don't know," the source said. "Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat -- for what reason, nobody had any idea."

The source also told CNN that he’d heard about the incident from other agents “multiple times,” including from some who’d been on Trump’s protective detail.

In other words, the incident Hutchinson related—or something very much like it—happened.

Of course, it only makes sense to believe Hutchinson over Engel and Ornato. The latter two are Trump flunkies. They have every reason to lie, or at least to engage in a disingenuous stunt to plant a seed of doubt in the public’s mind. What reason would Hutchinson have to make up stories? She was full-bore MAGA until the very end.

Moreover, Hutchinson was subpoenaed—so her choices were to risk a contempt of Congress charge, perjure herself, or tell the truth. Ornato and Engel presumably have an incentive to protect Trump with their bullshit—perhaps by saying they’ll testify under oath to refute Hutchinson’s testimony while knowing full well they never will—while at this point Hutchinson’s biggest incentive for giving truthful testimony is staying out of prison. 

In short, we have several reasons now to doubt whether Ornato and Engel are acting in good faith and every reason to believe Hutchinson is. What reason would she have to lie about picayune details that don’t really matter that much when viewed in the context of a bigger picture—i.e., that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was irate when told he couldn’t—that’s not in dispute?

Sadly, this appears to be just another right-wing sideshow meant to distract us from Trump’s glaring unfitness for office. If only we could find the courage as a nation to say, with a united voice, that stealing free and fair elections through violence and intimidation is a bad thing. But hey, we’ll get there. After all, our democracy is only two-and-a-half centuries old, give or take.

Check out Aldous J. Pennyfarthing’s four-volume Trump-trashing compendium, including the finale, Goodbye, Asshat: 101 Farewell Letters to Donald Trump, at this link. Or, if you prefer a test drive, you can download the epilogue to Goodbye, Asshat for the low, low price of FREE.

05 Jul 05:27

How do we know marriage equality is at risk? Because right-wing propagandists are claiming it's safe

by Gabe Ortiz

Media Matter for America notes that leading up to the 2020 confirmation of then-Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Fox News propagandist Sean Hannity falsely assured viewers that federal abortion protections were safe and sound. “In spite of the lies the left will tell you, Judge Barrett has been described as personally pro-life but has expressed doubts that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned,” he said at the time.

That one aged like a carton of milk left out in the sun, after the Supreme Court struck down the landmark decision last week. Next on the right wing’s agenda is marriage equality. How do we know that? Because voices in that faction are currently insisting that worries over Obergefell v. Hodges are overblown, Media Matters said. Much like Hannity was insisting in saying that Roe v. Wade was safe.

RELATED STORY: Conservatives are now saying parents should be arrested and kids taken away for pro-LGBTQ stances

Campaign Action

“Yet in the aftermath of the ruling, right-wing media have attempted to dismiss the genuine possibility that Obergefell could face the same fate as Roe, reflecting their earlier push to downplay the risks to Roe,” Media Matters reports. “Meanwhile, many right-wing outlets, including some of the same ones denying gay marriage is under threat, have called for Obergefell to be repealed.”

Among them is Hannity, yet again. The propagandist insisted on June 24 that concerns over marriage equality were “left-wing lunacy,” Media Matters said. But just days later, on June 28, he said “’striking down Roe should open up the high court to review other precedents’ before suggesting that striking down ‘GriswoldLawrence, and some [other cases]’ would be ‘the most democratic for this democratic republic that we live in,’” the report continued.

You might ask how he manages to hold both views at once? Well, the same way the Supreme Court claimed abortion should be left to the states but then blocked New York's strict limits on the concealed carry of firearms in public: There simply is no logic. They say and do it because they can get away with it. Others insisting that marriage equality isn’t at risk are The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory proponent Tucker Carlson.

“As with their tactic on Roe, right-wing media outlets are intent on gaslighting their audiences into believing that the right to gay marriage is safe,” Media Matters continued. “They'll push that claim just long enough for the same powerful conservative organizations responsible for overturning federal abortion protections to overturn marriage equality. Two of the organizations that filed briefs in support of Dobbs, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, are both vocal critics of Obergefell and have leadership that is frequently featured on right-wing outlets like Fox News.”

Remember, we only need look to what the most far-right members of the court themselves have foreshadowed. Clarence Thomas, who authored the New York decision and is married to a fellow extremist who sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election, issued a concurring decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that offered a list of rights he wanted struck down, including marriage equality.

”Thomas argues that the Supreme Court should go beyond ending abortion rights and end those other rights that so many people have been warning that Republicans and this court would next move to dismantle: birth control, marriage equality, the very right to same-sex intimate relationships,” Daily Kos’ Laura Clawson wrote at the time. “In future cases,” Thomas writes, “we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including GriswoldLawrence, and Obergefell.” 

Yes, this was Thomas’ separate opinion, but the vast swath of devastating cases released this term make it clear that without reform, this court is pointed in Thomas’ direction, not the other way around.

RELATED STORIES:  

Fox News marks start of LGBTQ Pride Month by attacking trans people across multiple shows

Conservatives are attempting to stoke fascist violence against trans Americans, and it's working

05 Jul 05:25

Biden has to renege on his deal with McConnell to save his presidency

by Joan McCarter
James.galbraith

Fucking incompetent

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is proving yet again that there’s no such thing as bipartisan wins, for anyone. A year ago, the Senate passed a $250 billion package to keep the U.S. competitive with China in technology, with funding for semiconductor research, design, and manufacturing, as well as an overhaul of the National Science Foundation. The vote was bipartisan, 68-32 vote. The House passed its version in February, and since then it’s been a back and forth on putting together the House/Senate conference committee to combine the bills.

Completely out of the blue (but not really out of the blue because McConnell plots everything), McConnell announced Thursday that he’s pulling Senate Republicans out of the talks as long as Democrats continue to pursue President Joe Biden’s climate and health bill in a budget reconciliation bill that can pass without Republicans. “Let me be perfectly clear,” he tweeted, “there will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing a partisan reconciliation bill.”

Quick reminder that McConnell passed the Trump tax scam and tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act with the budget reconciliation process. Also that McConnell nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court confirmation so he could pack the court with Trump nominees who just set the world on fire and are poised to kill democracy next session.

Donate now to give Democrats a true majority in the Senate.

What’s at stake in the reconciliation bill he’s trying to torpedo is a lot, particularly since the Supreme Court just hamstrung the Environment Protection Agency’s authority in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and by extension anything else to protect the environment so people can breathe. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia have been quietly meeting for weeks to create a package Manchin would agree to. Just last week, Schumer told reporters that progress has been made, with a finalized agreement on prescription drug prices for seniors and movement on tax reform and climate provisions.

There’s another big issue looming on the horizon that Democrats want to solve in this reconciliation bill: big premium cost hikes in Affordable Care Act plans for millions people if Democrats don’t act soon. McConnell clearly does not want Democrats to act on this. He’s manipulating Manchin to get him to stop working with Schumer on this bill by taking the other big bipartisan bill they’ve spent all these months working on hostage. Because that’s what he does.

Meanwhile, he set Biden up on abortion and the judiciary, something that frankly should not even be possible. At this point, Biden should absolutely know that you can’t make a deal with McConnell because there’s no way he is not going to screw you.

McConnell and Biden struck a deal: Biden nominates a hyperpartisan anti-abortion extremist nominee to a federal judgeship in Kentucky—a nominee so compromised Donald Trump decided to pull his nomination. In return for nominating this guy, Chad Meredith, at some point in the future when a vacancy opened up, McConnell wouldn’t block Biden’s other nominees.

Well, that point in the future is now. The Courier-Journal, which broke the story of the deal on Wednesday, is reporting Friday that that judgeship has miraculously opened. U.S. District Judge Karen K. Caldwell of Kentucky’s Eastern District, a George W. Bush appointee, is taking senior status. The Courier-Journal also reports that Caldwell was appointed U.S. attorney for the district in 1990, and was recommended for the job by McConnell. Who Caldwell had dated. In making the recommendation, McConnell said she “should not be barred from the position because of their personal relationship.”

Chances that McConnell engineered this whole setup with his old flame, and that he timed it for exactly now, when he know the Supreme Court’s decision overturning abortion protections? One. Hundred. Percent.

Elie Mystal points out yet another absolutely enraging thing about this whole situation: It is already within Democrats’ power to keep Republicans from blocking Biden’s nominees by just ignoring their objections. All they have to do is ditch the blue slip tradition, the courtesy the Senate has recently used when Democrats are in power and has abandoned when Republicans are, that allows senators to have approval of nominees from their own states.

Mitch McConnell is agreeing to not do a thing (and he can't actually stop any of the other Republicans because, again, ANONYMOUS) that Democrats could just IGNORE HIM DOING. And in exchange for "totally not doing it"... he gets another forced birth judge.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) July 1, 2022

(And yes, McConnell can’t make promises for each of the Republicans. Any one of them can anonymously object to a nominee. So it was a deal he doesn’t have to even pretend to adhere to.)

When anger and frustration among Democrats is at its highest over abortion, McConnell stokes the flames by engineering this whole fiasco, creating the spectacle of Biden putting an anti-abortion judge on the federal bench for life. And Biden walked right into it. Then McConnell turns around and takes a big bipartisan agreement that’s already been made and takes it hostage to give Biden yet another black eye. And Manchin will probably help him do it.

Yes, we need to vote and get out the vote and make sure that Democrats secure a majority in the Senate that’s big enough to thwart Manchin (and Sinema) and McConnell. It’s got to be a big enough majority to save Biden from himself when he starts thinking he can relive his 20th century days in the Senate.

Privacy as a foundational value in a post-Roe landscape on Daily Kos' The Brief podcast

RELATED STORIES:

05 Jul 05:15

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Potion

by tech@thehiveworks.com
James.galbraith

lol if only.



Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Later she realizes that if she'd taken it too everything would've been amazing.


Today's News:
05 Jul 05:13

The Supreme Court is keeping Trump’s promises

by Jesus A. Rodriguez
James.galbraith

It's fucking appalling

Former President Trump with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett at her swearing-in ceremony in October 2020. | Getty Images

The former president is out of office, but his policies have found a lifetime appointment.

The night of the 2016 election, millions stood in front of television screens fearful that Trump’s electoral victory would mean harsher treatment for groups like people of color, immigrants, women, and LGBTQ individuals. He had, after all, promised such policies and delivered on many of them. With President Joe Biden finally in office after a seditious mob overran the Capitol, some believed they could lay down their protest signs and breathe a sigh of relief.

Now, many of the same Americans are haunted not by the preferences of one elected official, but the edicts of six unelected ones. The Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which wiped the right to an abortion from constitutional law, demonstrates that even out of the White House, Trump is still clinging to power. The former president, even as he battles a wide-ranging investigation from the House Jan. 6 Committee, has preserved the ability to shape the law in almost every area, from guns and religion to climate change and tribal sovereignty.

In particular, some civil rights leaders and legal scholars see the momentous ruling as proof of a political process in disrepair and the capture of democratic institutions in service of a privileged few. In this Court, they see not just a continuity only of conservative policy, but of a minoritarian philosophy.

“Until the 1960s, we were fighting on Freedom Rides about the constitutionality of our travel — that is not enumerated in the Constitution,” said Maya Wiley, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which maintained a tracker of Trump’s civil rights rollbacks while he was in office. “The logic of Justice Alito’s opinion puts so much on the table.”

For a long time, the Supreme Court had been conceived in popular imagination and civic culture as a protector of minority rights. The legal circles of the twentieth century grappled with the theory of “counter-majoritarian difficulty,” which held that the judiciary was a necessarily antidemocratic institution because in declaring a statute or executive action unconstitutional, they overruled the will of the people as expressed through their representatives, while another camp asserted that the Court could continue to advance democracy if it devoted itself to reinforcing the representation of minorities in political process.

But in 2022, such theories are growing ever more distant from reality. As one scholar put it in the California Law Review, the U.S. electorate is becoming “more racially and ethnically diverse, more geographically concentrated and homogeneous, and more divided, not only in its partisan affiliations, but in its values and its prospects for the future.”

The Court, however, has used its power neither to serve as a countermajoritarian counterweight nor to reinforce representation of a growing multiracial electorate. The result: A court that enables the entrenchment of “a shrinking white, conservative, exurban numerical minority to exert substantial control over the national government and its policies.”

Sarah Turberville, the director of the Constitution Project at the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight, sees the demise of abortion rights as a symptom of a larger anti-democratic illness. “This is a place where too few people hold too much power for too long, and their decision to overturn a 50-year-old precedent in a way that strips 50 percent of the population of a right they previously held is just absolutely emblematic of that fundamental problem,” she said. “It’s almost a recognition that this is a political institution now.”

In other words, with this Court of Trump’s making, the United States is moving closer to a democracy for the very few and authoritarianism for the masses.

Democracy for the very few

Aziz Rana, a professor of law at Cornell Law School, points out that when presidents have enjoyed ideological harmony with the judiciary, they have traditionally also been backed by a robust popular vote that put them in office.

Former presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon won landslide reelections. Their nominations to the Supreme Court—which ushered in an era of judicial conservatism—were in tandem with the general conservative trends of the moment. Those political trends were reflected in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which committed to Roe’s general right to abortion but limited the applicability of the decision.

Dobbs is completely different, according to Rana. “You have a situation in which a minority party is imposing an ideological agenda that has been rejected by a clear majority of the country,” he said. Today, only one of the five justices who signed onto Dobbs was nominated by a president who won the popular vote, and one of them only made it to the court because of Republicans’ unwillingness to give former president Barack Obama’s nominee, now-Attorney General Merrick Garland, a hearing.

Dobbs noted that the ruling nevertheless did not “prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.” But court-watchers point out that the legislative path is replete with hurdles that the Court itself has installed, such as its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder invalidating a portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed the government to supervise changes in election laws in counties with a history of voter discrimination.

“It’s so disingenuous to say that we’re just going to allow political majorities in the state to determine the legality of abortion when not everybody in the state is going to be able to vote because of what Republicans are doing and because of what the Court is allowing them to do,” said Khiara M. Bridges, a professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law. “Our democracy is undeserving of that label.”

How Trump became “a kind of permanent lawmaker”

Trump’s policies are alive and well at the Supreme Court in other areas of law, too. Last term, the Court allowed Arizona to impose burdens on voting by mail and provisional ballot, even though these obstacles had a discriminatory impact on Black and brown Arizonans.

This year, the Court also invalidated a regulation that permitted large workplaces to establish vaccine-or-test requirements. It also struck down a Maine ban on using taxpayer money to fund private religious schools. One day before Dobbs, it threw out a 100-year-old New York law that required gun owners to show “proper cause” to obtain conceal-carry permits, making it easier to carry a concealed gun in public. On Monday, it also sided with a Christian high school football coach, allowing him to pray at the 50-yard line, even though the Court had held in 1962 that school-sponsored prayer violated the separation of church and state.

“The Court is now stacked in such a way that it will not protect marginalized people when it comes to abortion rights. It won’t protect LGBTQ communities. It won’t protect poor people,” Bridges said. “But it will protect Christians.”

The decisions that came after were no less significant. While the Court did clear the way for Biden to end the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy, it also expanded the power of states to prosecute crimes on Indigenous reservations based on a state’s interest in public safety within “its territory,” and it curtailed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce greenhouse emissions.

On the last day of its term, the Court also agreed to hear a case that could give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections in their states.

Taken together, these decisions exemplify the perils of presidentialism, Rana said. When a lack of coalition-building and compromise paralyzes a political system, a powerful executive can use the courts as an end-run around the legislative process to “become a kind of permanent lawmaker.” He noted that the Supreme Court is made more powerful, when compared to other democracies, by its lack of term limits, small size, and the absence of legislative or ethics oversight.

“It’s not a surprise that the incentives are set up for Trump, while in office, largely to avoid any kind of legislative agenda beyond tax cuts for party donors — to often operate using the security apparatus of the state, like in immigration policy — and then to impose long-term policy changes, not by building majorities in support of his views, but rather by focusing on lifetime judicial appointments,” Rana said.

Still, others say, there will be a role for Biden to play in the post-Roe era. One view is based on a pre-emption theory: that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution empowers federal law to trump state law when the two conflict. This is the main thrust of a recent article in the Columbia Law Review cited approvingly by the three dissenters in Dobbs.

Greer Donley, a professor of law at the University at Pittsburgh School of Law and one of the article’s authors, said that this theory gave the Biden administration a wide array of constitutional options to combat this decision.

“Given that the [Food and Drug Administration] has both approved medication for abortion and strictly regulated it for the past two decades, that might suggest that states are not actually able to regulate it more harshly than the FDA,” she told me. “And so to the extent that a state is banning an FDA-approved and strictly regulated drug, that is in conflict with the federal government’s policy and is preempted.”

In a statement immediately following the ruling, the Justice Department appeared to adopt this view. “States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” the attorney general said.

But for Wiley, the role of lawyers will be to take their advocacy local.

“The fact that it’s the Supreme Court and not the legislative branch, not the executive branch … means we are in a very long fight, state by state, locality by locality, and federally, about how to get people protected.”

After deplaning on the tarmac of Joint Base Andrews on his last day in office, Donald Trump made a pledge to the crowd of supporters gathered there: “We will be back in some form.”

A year and a half after that day, the Trump’s policies are back, in the form of a supermajority at the Supreme Court.


Jesús Rodríguez is a writer and lawyer in Washington, D.C., and the publisher of Alienhood, a newsletter on law and illegality.

05 Jul 01:37

Researchers Grow Food Plants Without Sunlight

by EditorDavid
James.galbraith

impressive

Photosynthesis "is very inefficient, with only about 1% of the energy found in sunlight ending up in the plant," according to a new announcement from the University of California, Riverside. But now scientists at the school and the University of Delaware "have found a way to bypass the need for biological photosynthesis altogether and create food independent of sunlight by using artificial photosynthesis." The research, published in Nature Food, uses a two-step electrocatalytic process to convert carbon dioxide, electricity, and water into acetate, the form of the main component of vinegar. Food-producing organisms then consume acetate in the dark to grow. Combined with solar panels to generate the electricity to power the electrocatalysis, this hybrid organic-inorganic system could increase the conversion efficiency of sunlight into food, up to 18 times more efficient for some foods. "With our approach we sought to identify a new way of producing food that could break through the limits normally imposed by biological photosynthesis," said corresponding author Robert Jinkerson, a UC Riverside assistant professor of chemical and environmental engineering... Experiments showed that a wide range of food-producing organisms can be grown in the dark directly on the acetate-rich electrolyzer output, including green algae, yeast, and fungal mycelium that produce mushrooms. Producing algae with this technology is approximately fourfold more energy efficient than growing it photosynthetically. Yeast production is about 18-fold more energy efficient than how it is typically cultivated using sugar extracted from corn. "We were able to grow food-producing organisms without any contributions from biological photosynthesis..." said Elizabeth Hann, a doctoral candidate in the Jinkerson Lab and co-lead author of the study. The potential for employing this technology to grow crop plants was also investigated. Cowpea, tomato, tobacco, rice, canola, and green pea were all able to utilize carbon from acetate when cultivated in the dark.... By liberating agriculture from complete dependence on the sun, artificial photosynthesis opens the door to countless possibilities for growing food under the increasingly difficult conditions imposed by anthropogenic climate change. Drought, floods, and reduced land availability would be less of a threat to global food security if crops for humans and animals grew in less resource-intensive, controlled environments. Crops could also be grown in cities and other areas currently unsuitable for agriculture, and even provide food for future space explorers. "Using artificial photosynthesis approaches to produce food could be a paradigm shift for how we feed people," said corresponding author Robert Jinkerson, a UC Riverside assistant professor of chemical and environmental engineering. "By increasing the efficiency of food production, less land is needed, lessening the impact agriculture has on the environment. And for agriculture in non-traditional environments, like outer space, the increased energy efficiency could help feed more crew members with less inputs...." "Imagine someday giant vessels growing tomato plants in the dark and on Mars — how much easier would that be for future Martians?" said co-author Martha Orozco-Cárdenas, director of the UC Riverside Plant Transformation Research Center. Thans to Slashdot reader John.Banister for sharing the link!

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

05 Jul 00:22

Propositioned

by Tim

Yes, this is the way some of this stuff is named.

Yes, it makes me giggle.

The post Propositioned appeared first on Ctrl+Alt+Del Comic.

05 Jul 00:19

This July 4, let’s declare our independence from the Founding Fathers

by Paul Waldman
James.galbraith

Seriously

Founding Father Fetishism is toxic, and it's keeping us from building the future we need.
04 Jul 19:09

The Michigan Democrat Who Could Solve Her Party’s Identity Crisis

by Adam Wren
James.galbraith

Get someone competent in there, jesus


INDIANAPOLIS — Three hours into the rubber chicken dinner, the waitstaff had cleared the dessert plates and the wine bottles on the tables had long been emptied. The audience was growing restless, having sat through an endless procession of speakers — the mayor of Indianapolis, the candidate for U.S. Senate, the candidate for 1st Congressional District, the candidate for state auditor, the candidate for state treasurer, the representative of a Democratic group called Hoosier Women Forward and the son of the former Marion County sheriff who received a posthumous lifetime achievement award.

Then, a little before 10 p.m., the last speaker of the night rose from a table near the front of the room and headed for the dais. Before she had spoken a word into the microphone, the crowd came alive, a roar of hooting and hollering that lasted a full 18 seconds.

“So, hi, I’m Michigan State Sen. Mallory McMorrow,” she said, as the applause began to subside, “and before we get going, I have to lay down some of my Indiana credits, because why else would I be here in the Hoosier state? I am a graduate of the University of Notre Dame. My dad is a Hoosier.

“But perhaps most notably,” she said, smiling, “I came in second in the Indiana Toll Road logo design competition. That’s right, Indiana. You came this close from seeing my handiwork every single time you have to pay a toll. Which looking back is probably good that I came in second place because you probably wouldn’t like me as much right now.”

And they don’t like her, they love her. Like James Carville, the evening’s keynote speaker who told me he was “smitten” by the 35-year-old McMorrow, they have adored her ever since she delivered “the speech,” the one in which she defended herself from a Republican state senator's unfounded accusations that McMorrow had groomed and sexualized children. The one that has racked up 15 million views and counting on Twitter and ricocheted across Facebook. The one that earned her a congratulatory voicemail from President Joe Biden. The one that Hillary Clinton retweeted and Bette Midler, too. The one in which, as Carville admiringly said, “She just went to the well of the Senate and said, ‘Let me tell you who I am.’”


This crowd of faithful Democrats gathered for the annual Hoosier Hospitality Dinner love McMorrow not because she has driven five hours from her suburban Detroit district to sling red meat about evil Republicans, but because she has come on a Friday night to talk about them. She has come to talk about what it means to be a Democrat, on the receiving end of a seemingly relentless barrage in a never-ending culture war.

“If I know one thing, it’s that we are not defined by the lies that people say about us,” McMorrow said to more cheers. “I took my own identity back and defined myself specifically as a straight, white, Christian, married, suburban mom who knows that hate will only win if people like me stand by and let it happen.”


McMorrow has emerged as an unlikely voice for a party in desperate need of one. In this speech, which was the first of what likely will be many she’ll give at state party dinners that draw politicians with national ambitions, McMorrow wasn’t fighting the culture wars but rather teaching others how to fight them.

She told the audience to talk to everyone. (“You might be the first Democrat people ever meet.”) She gave them tips on knocking on doors. (“Find something on peoples’ porches that you like and compliment it.” For her, it’s “ceramic ducks that people in Michigan put on their porches and they dress them up in different outfits depending on the season. I’m obsessed with them. We talk about that for 20 minutes. And then they ask for a yard sign.”) And she told them to avoid partisan scripts and talking points. (“Be you. Be authentic. Be real.”)



After her 18-minute speech, the audience stood and clapped. She returned to her table where her husband, Ray Wert, and the Democratic operative Lis Smith, her new volunteer communications adviser, were waiting for her. Ray placed his hand on the small of her back. “You crushed that,” Smith told her. Dozens and dozens of audience members made a beeline to her table near the front of the room to thank her and pose for photos. The reception line lasted well over half an hour.

Mallory McMorrow in Design Mode

McMorrow wrote parts of her viral speech in her head, on her MacBook and in a bedside notebook made by Shinola, the classic Detroit-headquartered designer and manufacturer. It was after 9 p.m. on a weeknight in April. She had put her one-and-a-half-year daughter, Noa, to bed a couple of hours before.

Design is important to McMorrow. At Notre Dame, she started as an advertising major but eventually found her way into the industrial design program. She won a national contest to design the 2018 version of the Mazda3 compact car. She took a course at Notre Dame called “The Meaning of Things,” where she learned about the emotional resonance physical products have on people and how to “tell a story around the things that you were doing.”

She wrote a paper about the history of the Tupperware party. “That is the first company to really tap into women organizing, and having gatherings in your home and creating community,” she told me.

As a politician, she is both the product and its designer, which explains a key choice she made about how to frame her speech. At first, she wrote with righteous anger. “A lot of it was just notes about the hypocrisy of the Republican party,” she told me. But then her design thinking — the engineer’s daughter part of her — took over. “After I got all of that out, I crossed a lot of it out because I wanted to get it out of Republican vs. Democrat.”

Still, she couldn’t restrain a certain YOLO-inspired boldness.

“I’ll be honest: Once this kind of attack was leveraged against me, part of me thought, ‘If I’m going to go down, I’m going to go down swinging.’ And I didn’t expect the reaction that we got, but I think there’s something to be said for that. I didn’t start my career in politics. I just wanted to do the right thing.”

Mallory McMorrow on the March

McMorrow was 30 by the time she entered politics, after a decadelong career in branding and advertising that included stints at the toymaker Mattel and as a creative director of Gawker, the slash-and-burn website. In January 2017, she attended the Women’s March in Detroit following the election of Donald Trump.

After the march, she and other women she met started writing postcards to Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s new education secretary from Michigan, expressing their dismay with the administration. Eventually, a friend asked her if she had ever considered running for office. She applied to the Michigan chapter of a group called Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office.

In May, she and her husband moved into a new house and got married the same month. In August, she announced her run for office in a Republican-controlled district. She flipped the district blue a year later in 2018 on her first attempt. As a state senator, she has introduced 40 bills. Not one has enjoyed a hearing.



Nevertheless, five years later, she is a nationally known quantity, which automatically invites questions about higher office. Would she want to replace the 72-year-old Sen. Debbie Stabenow if she retires? “That is a conversation I haven’t even thought about yet,” she told me. “I haven’t slept in a month and a half.”

For her next act, McMorrow wants to flip the Michigan Senate — a body controlled by Republicans since 1984, “which is longer than I’ve been alive,” she told me. That requires winning back at least four seats (or three with the reelection of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist). For that, McMorrow has been fundraising since her April speech. Her husband Ray, who is also her campaign treasurer, told me the figure is already well over a half a million dollars.

“If I get reelected and flip the Senate,” she said, “that’s my next five years.”

Mallory McMorrow on Lane Two

A little after 3 p.m. on the Friday she would speak to the Indiana Democrats, McMorrow and her still-minuscule entourage — Ray, and Smith, who famously helped raise the national profile of former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg — stopped by a bowling alley and bougie restaurant called Punch Bowl Social in Indianapolis.

McMorrow hasn’t had much normalcy in the last few months, and bowling was the closest thing she could think of doing that felt normal. The place reminded her of the Bowlero Lanes & Lounge back in Royal Oak, where she would bowl with her husband before the pandemic and their daughter arrived. She did a lot of bowling in college, and she joined a bowling league at her first job in Southern California. “I got a turkey once” — three strikes in a row. “It was very exciting.”

McMorrow ordered a blood orange beer from Four Day Ray, a local brewery, and water. We sat down on a couch at the end of the lane. In front of us were what looked like two small tree stumps designed to be tables. She was not impressed; too small and too far away from the couches to be useful, she said.



On this day, a few weeks before Roe would fall, McMorrow had abortion rights on her mind. Not long after her April speech McMorrow received a letter explaining to her that an anonymous donor had made a donation to Notre Dame Law School in her name to counter fellow alum, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

“It’s so disconnected from where a majority of people are,” McMorrow said of the ruling, then still in draft form. “Overnight, Michigan is going to be kind of the most extreme state.”

Why did it take a Michigan state senator to teach Democrats how to message the culture war? I asked her. “It is so wild, because look, I’m not a Democratic strategist,” she said.

Could it be her time at Gawker, I prompted her, or her design chops combined with having grown up in the social media age?

“I think just learning how to write and how to talk online really came from that background,” she said. “And if there’s a huge generational advantage, it’s because Facebook came out when I was in college. We’ve always existed online. A lot of my career is because I had a personality online. And there’s no separation between who I am as a person and my work life, and I think that’s attractive.”

Mallory McMorrow at the After-Party

“Let’s get you a beer,” Wert said.

It was after 11 p.m. and the reception line for photos with McMorrow had finally petered out. They walked a few blocks from the Indiana Convention Center to a nearby bar called Loughmiller’s. Indiana Young Democrats were hosting an after-party, and McMorrow was surrounded again the moment she walked in. As Wert ordered her a Blue Moon, the closest thing on the menu to her Michigan-preferred Bell’s Oberon, she posed for more photos.

Wert told me he is still learning how to be the spouse of a political superstar. He has joked with Chasten Buttigieg, the husband of the transportation secretary, about starting a political spouse support group. (When visiting New York City for the DNC’s LGBTQ gala, McMorrow had drinks with the Buttigiegses and Smith).

At my request, Wert whipped out his cellphone and played the voicemail Biden had left McMorrow. “Hello, Senator, this is Joe Biden—uh, President Biden. I called to tell you how proud I was of your speech,” the president said, before giving her his phone number, which Wert edited out.



For another hour, McMorrow greeted more young Democrats. She posed for more pictures.

Finally, at 12:47 a.m., McMorrow shook a few final hands. And then she and Ray disappeared into the night, headed back to their hotel.

Back in her district later that day, she had doors to knock, ceramic ducks to admire, lawn signs to give out — a whole new Democratic identity to design.



02 Jul 19:38

Mississippi House Speaker pushes for abortion law with no exceptions for incest and rape survivors

by Walter Einenkel
James.galbraith

Fucking idiots. Stop legislating your personal religious belief for every poor bastard in your state

With the official decision by the six radical theocratic clerics on the Supreme Court to take away reproductive rights, so-called “trigger” laws have come into question. In Mississippi, a 2007 trigger law is set to go into effect on Jan. 7 that will ban abortion after 15 weeks “except in cases where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life or where the pregnancy was caused by rape.” The lawsuit that overturned Roe v. Wade was filed by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch’s office and she has finally caught the car she was chasing.

Having caught that car, Republicans can’t even pretend to lie about how much of an infringement on Americans’ rights this is. Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn is answering questions about the new law, and he has some big ideas of how the 2007 trigger law doesn’t go far enough. Rape? Incest? Gunn thinks those things are God’s will and in fact, the moment an egg and a spermatozoid meet should be considered life!

RELATED STORY: Abortion providers in Louisiana and Utah get temporary wins in court

Hours after the Supreme Court decision came down, Mississippi Free Press reports that Speaker Gunn spoke with reporters on the State House floor. Here’s a verbatim retelling of that interaction:

AP REPORTER EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS: What about the case of a 12-year-old girl who was molested by her father or uncle?

SPEAKER PHILIP GUNN: I believe life begins at conception. And every life is valuable. And those are my personal beliefs.

DAILY JOURNAL REPORTER TAYLOR VANCE: So that 12-year-old child molested by her family members should carry that pregnancy to term?

SPEAKER GUNN: That is my personal belief. I believe that life begins at conception.

Gunn then said he only wanted to talk about how Roe v. Wade was overturned and didn’t want the focus to be on what that actually means for human beings living in places like Mississippi. Gunn’s position, and this is not hyperbolic, is that incest survivors and rape survivors should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison if they decide that they would rather terminate an unwanted pregnancy than live with that trauma for months and months, then birth a child into the uncaring GOP hellscape Mississippi Republicans offer up to young parents.

REPORTER TAYLOR VANCE: So that 12-year-old child molested by her father and uncle should carry that pregnancy to term? MS HOUSE SPEAKER PHILIP GUNN: That is my personal belief. I believe life begins at conception.pic.twitter.com/LJU5aWhVfF

— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) June 29, 2022

Campaign Action

Speaker Gunn, like the rest of his GOP cabal, is best known for attacking living wage concerns and saying labor shortages are due to COVID-19 unemployment benefits. For all of Gunn’s talk about the need to protect sacred life and the lip service he and other conservatives have given to the need to help those people having children, Gunn and the Mississippi GOP have yet to expand their Medicaid programs—a move that would directly help alleviate some of the health care problems faced by Mississippians, pregnant and not.

The guy that made the comments above and tweeted out the same day that “The day so many prayed for is here. HB1510 is law and Roe v. Wade is no more. With love for children and the women who bear them, we move forward to secure strong and lasting legal protections and cultural support for life, and a vibrant network of abortion alternatives,” is also the guy that for TWO YEARS in a row has “killed an extension of postpartum Medicaid benefits, likely guaranteeing that many low-income people will lose health insurance benefits only two months after giving birth.”

Mississippi has one of the most abysmal infant mortality rates of any industrialized place in the world. In fact, it has the worst infant mortality rate in the entire United States. Gunn became speaker of the Mississippi House in 2012; since then, the abysmal rate has gone from third worst to worst worst in the country. So, for a decade, Speaker Philip Gunn’s legislation or lack thereof has led to dead babies—thousands of them.

Considering that he is under the delusion that life begins at conception, this means that his God—the same one he pretends is an excuse for his cruel attack on young parents—murders millions of “babies” every year, as about half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, about 10% to 25% will have a miscarriage.”

Mississippi abortion providers are suing the state, arguing there is a state precedent that supersedes the 2007 trigger law. Rob McDuff of the Mississippi Center for Justice was a lawyer on that precedent. He explained to Mississippi Today that “The Mississippi Supreme Court’s 1998 decision interpreting the Mississippi Constitution exists completely independent of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions about the federal Constitution. It is binding precedent. As confirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in that case, the decision about whether and when to have children belongs to individuals and families, not to the state’s politicians.”

Election law attorney Adam Bonin joins Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast to talk about what moves Democrats can make

02 Jul 19:15

MIT Engineers Design Engine That Converts Heat To Electricity With Over 40% Efficiency

by BeauHD
James.galbraith

well then

Engineers at MIT and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have designed a heat engine with no moving parts. It converts heat to electricity with over 40% efficiency -- making it more efficient than steam turbines, the industrial standard. MIT Technology Review reports: The invention is a thermophotovoltaic (TPV) cell, similar to a solar panel's photovoltaic cells, that passively captures high-energy photons from a white-hot heat source. It can generate electricity from sources that reach 1,900 to 2,400C -- too hot for turbines, with their moving parts. The previous record efficiency for a TPV cell was 32%, but the team improved this performance by using materials that are able to convert higher-temperature, higher-energy photons. The researchers plan to incorporate the TPV cells into a grid-scale thermal battery. The system would absorb excess energy from renewable sources such as the sun and store that energy in heavily insulated banks of hot graphite. Cells would convert the heat into electricity and dispatch it to a power grid when needed. The researchers have now successfully demonstrated the main parts of the system in small-scale experiments; the experimental TPV cells are about a centimeter square. They are working to integrate the parts to demonstrate a fully operational system. From there, they hope to scale up the system to replace fossil-fuel plants on the power grid. Coauthor Asegun Henry, a professor of mechanical engineering, envisions TPV cells about 10,000 feet square and operating in climate-controlled warehouses to draw power from huge banks of stored solar energy.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

02 Jul 02:30

Clarence Thomas cites claim that Covid vaccines are ‘developed using cell lines derived from aborted children’

by Kelly Hooper
James.galbraith

Fuck this guy


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion Thursday cited claims that Covid-19 vaccines were “developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

The conservative justice’s statement came in a dissenting opinion on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers. The state requires that all health care workers show proof of vaccination.

“They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas said of the petitioners.

None of the Covid-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses. Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in research during the development of the Covid vaccine, a practice that is common in vaccine research.

A group of doctors, nurses and other health care workers brought the case, suing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in an objection to the state’s vaccine mandate on religious grounds. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed it and the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the challenge on Thursday.

The court instead left in place the lower court ruling rejecting petitioners’ claim that New York’s mandate violates the First Amendment right against religious discrimination. All 16 health care workers were either fired, resigned, lost hospital admitting privileges or decided to receive the vaccine.

Democrats called attention to Thomas’ comments after a new conservative Supreme Court supermajority delivered several groundbreaking decisions this term, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But some Thomas defenders argued that he was simply reciting the allegations made by those refusing to get the vaccine on religious grounds.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in his dissenting opinion.

Thomas argues in the opinion that the court should have granted a petition to open for full deliberation the question of whether a mandate like New York’s can ever be neutral or generally applicable if it doesn’t exempt religious conduct but does permit secular conduct — such as medical exemptions.

The state allows a narrow medical exemption for those who are highly allergic to the Covid-19 vaccine.

“Because I would address this issue now in the ordinary course, before the next crisis forces us again to decide complex legal issues in an emergency posture, I respectfully dissent,” Thomas writes.

01 Jul 23:18

It’s time to break the glass on the five-alarm fire that is the U.S. Supreme Court

by Joan McCarter

Here’s just a sliver of what the Supreme Court did in the past two weeks of decisions. It doesn’t even count the atrocities it  rolled out earlier in the session, including all of the destructive shadow docket decisions that were made without hearings, without any transparency, and often even without the Court’s extremists signing their names.

In one term, the extremist Supreme Court: -overturns Roe v. Wade -guts Miranda rights -ends regulations on open-carry of guns -allows prayer in schools by employees -ends federal regulation of greenhouse gases

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) June 30, 2022

For the coup de grâce of the session, the Court announced that it will hear Moore v. Harper, the North Carolina Republicans’ appeal in a redistricting case that, in my colleague Stephen Wolf’s words, “could have catastrophic consequences for voting rights and fair elections across the country next year in advance of the pivotal 2024 elections.” Not to put too fine a point on it, but the case could pave the way for Donald Trump to effect the electoral coup John Eastman cooked up to overthrow the 2020 election. And there are at least four extremists on the Court that will be willing to go there.

The case in question involves a Republican appeal of a state court ruling that struck down their congressional gerrymander earlier this year and replaced it with a much fairer map in a groundbreaking ruling that held that the state constitution prohibits partisan gerrymandering. Republicans are now asking the Supreme Court to rule that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures near-absolute power to set all manner of federal election laws, including district maps—regardless of whether state constitutions place limits on abuses such as gerrymandering.

Campaign Action

The case centers on a wacky legal theory cooked up in conservative fever dreams: the “independent state legislature” theory. Adherents assert that state legislatures have independent authority—over state courts—to set election laws and draw congressional maps in their “originalist” reading of the constitution.

Back in March, the Supreme Court chose not to block the congressional maps approved by state courts in both North Carolina and Pennsylvania in challenges brought by those states’ Republicans. But three of the extremist justices made it clear that they would have granted the emergency and a fourth issued an invitation to North Carolina to push the issue with a petition to the court.

“This case presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections,” Justice Alito wrote in March, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that “The issue is almost certain to keep arising until the court definitively resolves it,” but it shouldn’t be done in an election year. Then he invited North Carolina to come back. He said that the court should grant a petition “in an appropriate case—either in this case from North Carolina or in a similar case from another state.”

Where Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are on this one isn’t clear, but you can bet at least one of them will be happy to go along with finishing her brethren’s coup.

The consequences for the nation—for the globe—are dire. On everything, from abortion to criminal justice to the environment to voting rights. The only way this centuries-long experiment in democracy will survive is by taking minority rule away from the Court and from the Senate which created it. 

End the filibuster. Expand and reform the court. Or wave goodbye to every freedom that matters.

Election law attorney Adam Bonin joins Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast to talk about what moves Democrats can make

01 Jul 17:43

Highlights from The Downballot: Democrats need a 'real plan' to codify Roe, and Pennsylvania updates

by Dorothy He
James.galbraith

Need a real plan to do anything :P

This week on The Downballot, the threat from the Supreme Court's leaked ruling last month to overturn Roe v. Wade became a reality. Their final decision last Friday essentially ended the fundamental right to abortion, and this week, our hosts David Nir and David Beard talk about what  the repeal of Roe could mean for the November general elections, and what they think Democrats should be doing and saying in response.

They also recapped a few primaries from a very big primary night on Tuesday. Lastly, they covered the jumbo swing state of Pennsylvania, which once again is hosting a number of hotly competitive races. Joining the hosts to discuss the Keystone state was longtime Pennsylvania election attorney and political commentator, as well as Daily Kos contributor, Adam Bonin.

You can listen below or subscribe to The Downballot wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also find a transcript for this week right here. New episodes come out every Thursday!

While the Supreme Court's decision may be motivating to some, many Democrats feel dejected right now—especially because of the response from the White House and congressional Democrats, which, in Nir’s words, has been “quite supine.” The White House has so far refused to expand the court, curtail the filibuster, and talk about setting up abortion clinics on federal lands.

“It really seems like there's very little the White House has said that it is willing to do, and they don't actually have to do any of these things right now,” Nir said, adding that, like many others have said, “it feels like we're just being told to vote harder when we already did vote harder. We [already] did that in 2020.”

Everyone is mindful of the limitations on Democratic power due to the structure of the Senate, and especially due to obstinate voices in the Senate. But it was New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who offered the greatest clarity, Nir added. He quoted two tweets of hers in a longer thread:

For the moments when we do insist on elections, we must be precise with what we need and what we will do with that power. How many seats does the party need to codify Roe? Dems must say that. Not just go vote or give us $6 to win. That is demoralizing, losing unfocused nonsense … Dem leaders must tell voters the plan. What's the actual need? Which specific seats are we focused on? What votes do we need and where? What states and races and what's the return? What is Biden/Congress actually willing and able to do at 52 or 60 seats? Be honest. Details motivate.

“What's going to happen come January, what will be different? What will you do if we in fact do vote harder. Tell us, and we’ll do it. But you have to tell us,” Nir continued.

This was not a surprise, Beard emphasized, yet messaging and action from Democratic leadership lacked the necessary urgency:

This was a decision that we expected to probably be coming for more than a year. This was a decision that we almost certainly knew was coming since it leaked a number of weeks ago. And yet the Democratic response, not just the Biden administration's lack of any action, but even the political response was just like go vote. As you said, there was no sense of here is what we need to do. Here is the terribleness that we need to fight back against. There was no sense of anger. There was no sense of frustration that so many people shared by this decision. And the emails, the press releases just did not have that. It was very much like this was just another day in politics when it really, really wasn't.

The country could see a wide range of outcomes due to the completely unprecedented nature of this decision, according to Beard. The lack of precedent makes it almost impossible to know how things will play out because the Supreme Court has never overturned a decision like Roe v. Wade before that affects so many millions of people.

“It's hard to sit here and say how this will affect the 2022 elections, because we don't know, to be honest, other than I think that it definitely will in some form or fashion,” Beard added. “Could it turn into a really sort of electorally positive benefit for Democrats in terms of turning out Democratic voters, in terms of persuading pro-choice Republican leaning voters to vote for Democrats to push back against this? Very possibly, but that's no guarantee, and that's not something that's going to be done without a ton of work either.”

Beard also flagged the enormous potential impact the overturning of Roe could have on a number of state races—particularly governors races, state legislative races, and then even state Supreme Court races and attorney general races. All these offices have different effects on abortion law in different states and in different ways. Now that the issue of abortion rights has been returned to the states, it has become even more important who the governor of each state is, whether or not the state legislature is pro-choice or anti-choice. Kansas has a constitutional amendment on the ballot on Aug. 2 that will determine whether or not the state constitution protects the right to an abortion, as the Supreme Court has currently upheld in that state.

The one piece of the puzzle that congressional Democrats also have to think about is the U.S. House. Even if they pull off this feat of electing 52 Democratic senators, they must hold the House in order to codify Roe v. Wade. Looking toward how things might shake out, Nir and Beard examined one interesting data point from earlier this week—a shocking result from the special election in Nebraska's 1st Congressional District.

In this district, the race was necessary to fill the vacant seat left open by former Republican Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, who was forced to resign after he was convicted of lying to investigators about concealing a scheme to receive illegal campaign funds from a foreign national. “This is a district that Trump would have won by a 54-43 margin. In a year like 2022 when Democrats have been struggling in the national environment that is quite pro-GOP, we would've easily expected the special election results to look like the Trump results or even worse. In other words, a bigger Republican blowout,” Nir said.

Instead, the opposite happened. Republican state Sen. Mike Flood beat fellow state Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks by just 53-47 margin. He won, but a six-point win is five points worse than Donald Trump's margin. Further, Flood outspent Pansing Brooks by 10-1 on the airwaves, and there was really no outside spending here.

Offering his analysis, Nir said:

Democrats certainly didn't think that this one was going to be close. Is it possible that a very late surge of Democratic voters or moderate Republican voters angry about the Supreme Court decided to show up at the polls? It's possible. I want to believe that's the case, but we definitely cannot say that with any certainty and we will need to see, like I said, a whole bunch more data before we make any conclusions like that.

This result was all the more surprising, Beard added, given that there was no particular issue with the Republican candidate or an unusually strong Democratic candidate: “She seemed like a very good generic candidate, but broadly, you would expect it to reflect sort of the national mood. And the fact that Democrats outperformed here is just really, really surprising.”

The pair then recapped some primary outcomes, starting in Illinois’s 6th Congressional District that featured a race between two incumbent Democrats, Sean Casten and Marie Newman. Casten ended up winning in a total landslide, 68 to 29. I wasn't expecting that wide of a result, but Newman had faced an ethics investigation and she was on the receiving end of attack ads over that. So that may have contributed to those results. They also discussed results from the 7th and 15th Districts.

Runoffs for the two Republican congressional primaries took place this week down in Mississippi as well. In Mississippi’s 3rd District, Rep. Michael Guest only very narrowly—by a couple of hundred votes—led his opponent, Navy pilot Michael Cassidy, in the first round, along with a third candidate who took a small number of votes. Guest had expected to coast to reelection, and with outside advertising help, he easily outperformed Cassidy in the runoff, winning 67% to 33%.

In Oklahoma, there was a Senate primary on the Republican side for the seat of Jim Inhofe, who is resigning at the end of the year, and House Rep. Markwayne Mullen and former state Speaker T.W. Shannon advanced to a runoff, but Mullen received 44% of the vote in the first round while Shannon only got 18% of the vote. Mullen appears to be the strong favorite to advance the general and then become a senator in the new year.

Next, Bonin joined the hosts to focus on all things Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state and potential bellwether. Bonin is an election lawyer and was called to Lehigh County, Pennslyvania, to a tight race to fill a third judicial vacancy, where one candidate was separated from his opponent by only 74 votes, and there were 261 ballots in dispute. After a long and arduous process, the Supreme Court got involved and ruled for a recount.

Placing this tricky fight over voting rights and ballot counting into the broader context of Republican attempts to suppress voters, Nir explained that a lot of this work, particularly around mail voting, is more popular among Democrats than Republicans. “[This is all] part of a bigger fight around voter suppression that Republicans are going after,” he said.”

In Pennsylvania, Nir noted, one of the things that Democrats saw in 2020 was the fact that the state took a very long time to count the mail ballots because they were not allowed to start processing them ahead of time. “Should we expect that same situation as Pennsylvania is one of the most important states in this upcoming 2022 election? Or has the situation improved at all?” he asked.

Unfortunately, Bonin replied, nothing has improved on this:

Nothing has been enacted in the wake of the 2020 election changing Pennsylvania's election law in any way. The only exception being and it was just passed by both chambers of the legislature, but it is likely to be vetoed by the Governor is a bill authored by Senator Doug Mastriano to increase the number of poll watchers in polling places and to allow out of county watchers to be permitted in.

Right now, obviously anyone can be outside of polling place. And Lord knows our plans in 2008 to 2012, 2016 in Philadelphia and 2020, were all built around the threat of what might happen outside of polling places. But the idea of actually putting the people into polling places as well where you often have elderly volunteers manning the table to check voters in it's a recipe for a disaster.

With these new, more fair maps, Democrats are able to consider some big opportunities after years in the minority in both chambers of the legislature. “So what kind of gains might we be looking at and where might Democrats have an opportunity even for a majority in one or two of the chambers?” Beard inquired.

Bonin disclosed that he represents both the House and Senate Democratic campaign committees here in Pennsylvania, and would be replying based on what he hopes and expects his clients to be doing:

House majority is in play this cycle. It absolutely is and especially with a voter base based on early polling and early activism, I think everyone believes is going to be energized and motivated by the court's awful decision in Dobbs last week on the state Senate. Just because of the nature of the body that only half of it is up every two years, that's likely a two cycle project to get to a majority. But there are competitive seats this year. There are going to be plenty of competitive seats two years from now simultaneous with the presidential election. There is the potential for a lot of good things to happen here in Pennsylvania over the next few years.

As of right now, abortion continues to remain legal in Pennsylvania, but there's no guarantee of that continuing, making the outcome of the governor's race even more critical. In that race, Democratic candidate and state Attorney General Josh Shapiro is facing off against state Sen. Doug Mastriano, an explicitly and overtly religious pro-Trump candidate whose strong views make him very popular with a certain portion of the Republican base in the state.

Bonin noted that Mastriano’s ads are very good at distracting from the biggest issues:

When you look at some of his ads, his ads in particular about ending COVID restrictions or his rhetoric this week in terms of, ‘Oh, voters don't really want to talk about Dobbs and Roe. They want talk about inflation and the economy.’ He knows how to dial it down, and it's going to be up to Democrats to tell people exactly what they'd be voting for if they voted for Doug Mastriano.

“In particular around abortion, this is really a race that very well could determine whether or not abortion remains legal in Pennsylvania, right? Mastriano has a very extreme anti-choice position and Shapiro has promised to continue to protect abortion rights in Pennsylvania,” Beard followed up.

Bonin agreed, noting that for 20 out of the past 24 years, Pennsylvania has had pro-choice governors, both Democratic and Republican, with Tom Corbett being the only exception:

Mastriano will sign whatever the Republican legislature gives him in terms of restrictions, including potentially an overall ban. There's no question about that. And then the only question would be the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as to whether they believe that there were grounds under the Pennsylvania constitution, and it's separate protections of privacy and equality as to whether that contained separate protection for women's reproductive freedoms, which go beyond what now exists on the federal level.

Nir, Beard, and Bonin also discussed the battle for Pennsylvania's open Senate seat, for which Daily Kos offered an endorsement of Democrat John Fetterman earlier this week. “But this is going to be another super expensive and nasty race and also has huge implications for restoring abortion rights, because Fetterman is a key to the possibility of electing a democratic majority to the Senate that supports filibuster reform,” Nir said.

The Downballot comes out every Thursday everywhere you listen to podcasts! As a reminder, you can reach our hosts by email at thedownballot@dailykos.com. Please send in any questions you may have for next week's mailbag. You can also reach out via Twitter: @DKElections.

01 Jul 17:41

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - ISO

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
How come there are all these initial public offerings but never a final public offering?


Today's News:
30 Jun 23:19

How carbon emissions got caught up in a Supreme Court showdown

by John Timmer
James.galbraith

Because the same money that has picked these retrograde hacks comes from massive polluters.

A man walks up the steps of the US Supreme Court.

Enlarge / A man walks up the steps of the US Supreme Court. (credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Thursday's Supreme Court decision regarding the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants comes down to two specific issues: Should the Supreme Court take the case at all; and did Congress delegate sufficient authority to the EPA for it to implement a specific regulatory scheme first proposed during the Obama administration? But the case was decided against a backdrop of conflict between the court's conservative and liberal justices, and some of that conflict spills into this decision.

We'll tackle each issue below and discuss what this means for US climate policy. But one thing that should be clear is that this is a fairly minimalist decision since it applies only to the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions from existing facilities and not to environmental regulations more broadly. While it doesn't leave the EPA with an obvious next step, it leaves avenues for regulating new power plant construction.

Why now?

As described in our immediate coverage, the decision is focused on the Clean Power Plan, a set of EPA rules formulated during the Obama years that immediately faced lawsuits that put it on hold, where it remained until the Trump administration rescinded it. With yet another new administration in place, the EPA is now formulating replacement rules. As such, the EPA saw no reason for the Supreme Court to intervene at this point.

Read 20 remaining paragraphs | Comments