Skip to content

A challenge for Clarence

Wednesday, July 5, 2023

In most of the mainstream media coverage of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing a person who has never been asked to design a website for a gay couple to refuse to design a website for a gay couple, an obvious corollary to the court’s ruling is never mentioned.

If I can refuse services to a gay couple out of a sincere religious objection to gay marriage, why can’t I refuse services to an interracial couple out of sincere religious objections? There is absolutely no rational distinction, and lets put aside any claim that no one has such sincere religious objections, because what was manufactured in the case just decided, can be manufactured again.

It may be that as the fascists continue their assault on democracy and equality, they will exempt interracial marriage from the assault, at least temporarily, to spare Clarence Thomas, their willing tool, from having to come up with a reason why it’s okay to discriminate against everyone else, but not okay to discriminate against him. I’m sure he could come up with some distinction without a difference, though it would be interesting to see if the other fascists on the court go along with him.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Somewhat good news?

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

So, the Supreme Court has rejected the so called “independent state legislature” theory, , a legal argument so flimsy that in my law school days, had anyone attempted to make the argument in a constitutional law class, he or she would have failed. But, all is not lost for the fascists and racists pushing this theory:

The ruling soundly dismissed the theory, one that an unusually diverse array of lawyers, judges and scholars across the ideological spectrum viewed as extreme and dangerous. Adopting the theory, they warned, could have profound consequences for nearly every aspect of federal elections, including by erasing safeguards against partisan gerrymandering and curtailing the ability to challenge voting restrictions in state courts.

But some election law specialists cautioned that Tuesday’s decision elevated the power of federal courts in the process, allowing them to second-guess at least some rulings of state courts based on state law.

“This gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ultimate say over the meaning of state law in the midst of an election dispute,” Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, wrote in a blog post. “This is a bad, but not awful, result.”

We all remember that Roberts, who wrote the decision, wanted to avoid outright reversing Roe v. Wade, preferring instead to proceed, as the Wicked Witch counseled, “SLOWLY”. Roberts wanted to let the right to abortion die of a thousand cuts rather than kill it off immediately, and my take is that he feels the same way about killing off democracy.

Look for this court to green light extreme gerrymandering, except in the rare instance when it benefits Democrats. It has already refused to do anything about it on its own, and we will now begin to see it “second guess” any state court that actually tries to do something about it.

This decision was probably the best the court liberals could get, but they’ll be in the minority in future cases. I hope I’m wrong. It’s a small victory at the moment, but bear in mind that all the court did was reject a legal theory that was absurd on its face, which still got three dissents.

As an aside, how absurd is the New London Day’s headline for this article?

Supreme Court Rejects Election Reforms

A legal theory designed to subvert democracy is hardly a reform. If you don’t believe me, here’s the OED on the subject:

make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it.

I’ve always suspected that whoever pens the headlines for the Day is a right winger, and this buttresses my theory.

Update: Joe Patrice, over at Above the Law got there before me, but in my defense, I didn’t read his post until after I posted the above.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Bad Moons Rising

Sunday, June 25, 2023

This article, discussing the ongoing pogrom in Israel, reminds us that we’re not the only country in which a fascist future is a real threat. It’s one of history’s ironies that Israel is far ahead of us on that front.

Off the subject a bit: this is just one of many stories that the media feels is less important than the deaths of five entitled rich people who decided (with the exception of one who was pressured by his father to go) to board an unsafe submarine.

The Israeli pogrom, and this historical moment generally, happen to mesh a bit with a book I’m currently reading, and a PBS series my wife and I are currently binge watching on my Ipad, it being the first quasi-television viewing we’ve done in years.

The book is The Rope, by Alex Tresniowski, which I picked up at a gift shop in Deerfield. It’s about a murder of a little girl in Asbury Park, New Jersey in 1910, the quick arrest of a black man against whom they had no evidence, the attempt to lynch him and the ongoing threat to do so, Ida Well’s campaigns against lynching, and the efforts of an honest detective to find the real murderer.

The PBS series is Seaside Hotel, a Danish series (sub-titled). We’re currently in the 5th of nine seasons. It takes place at a hotel in Denmark, where the same guests come each summer. Each season is a summer. It started in 1928 and it’s now 1933, and Hitler has taken over in Germany.

Tresniowski describes a number of lynchings, which certainly find their echo in the events in Israel. It seems that when the white folks decided to lynch a black person, the authorities would either step aside, put up a feeble and meaningless defense before letting the lynch mob get its quarry, or, in the case where the event was a white mob attacking communities of black people, like the Israelis are currently attacking the Palestinians, direct the forces of the law against the black people defending themselves instead of the white people doing the attacking. Like Netanyahu, the white politicians would, of course, condemn the violence, but for various reasons, the perpetrators could never be identified. You can be sure that the same will hold true in Israel.

In Seaside Hotel, only one character appreciates the Nazi threat. He tries to convey his concerns to the others, but they all pretty much ignore him, as they have other things to worry about and, anyway, Hitler can’t possibly be that dangerous, can he? It will all turn out okay in the end! It reminds me too much of the present attitude of so many in our country, particularly in the media, where the threat of fascism is ignored (witness the media’s now somewhat abandoned lavish praise for Ron DeSantis and his great -tough ultimately disastrous- response to COVID), and/or its proponents (Boebert, Greene, Gaetz) mocked. The fact that these very people have virtually full control of the Republican Party (see, e.g., the recent censure of Adam Schiff and the ongoing subservience to full on fascist Donald Trump) rings no alarm bells. We may be lucky, and avoid a fascist future, but we can’t do it without recognizing the threat.

Once again, it should go without saying, that the Democrats have to start calling this out for what it is.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

Emptywheel documents the atrocities

Wednesday, June 14, 2023

This is, in my opinion, a must read near diatribe by emptywheel.

It is a fact that much of the non-Fox media has been complicit in helping to legitimize Republican propaganda by passing it on without putting it in what should be an obvious context. In the linked post she demonstrates how much of the media has ignored history in passing on the Republican claim that Jack Smith’s prosecution is a political hit job orchestrated by Biden and Garland, when in fact there is no evidence that is the case, while there is a great deal of evidence that Trump and his cronies engaged in precisely the type of conduct of which they are accusing Biden and Garland, e.g., the phony Durham investigation. That’s not surprising, of course, because whenever Republicans make an accusation, it’s really a disguised confession.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Too stupid to be president? Not if you’re a Republican.

Thursday, June 8, 2023

It seems like every Republican that has announced his or her candidacy for the presidency immediately finds a way to say something that proves beyond doubt that he or she is far too stupid to be president, or, is pretending to be far too stupid to be president, because you can’t get the Republican nomination any other way. Case in point, this astonishing quote from Chris Christie, a man who will never come close to getting the nomination, about why he is now choosing to attack Donald Trump, whose ass he used to kiss on a regular basis:

“I would never have supported Donald Trump had I known he had ever shown less than total integrity in his financial dealings.

Just as a for instance, while Trump was running for president he was being sued for scamming people with his Trump University, and he settled that case, paying money to do so, although the money actually came from someone else and we must wonder precisely what that person got in exchange. There’s more, of course:

The office of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in September 2013 that it was considering joining a New York lawsuit against Trump University. Four days later, the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated \(25,000 to “And Justice for All”, a 527 group supporting Bondi’s re-election campaign. Following this, Bondi declined to join New York. According to a Bondi spokesman, Bondi had personally solicited the donation from Trump several weeks before her office announced it was considering joining the lawsuit. In March 2016, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the IRS about the potentially illegal donation. In September 2016, it was reported that the donation violated laws against political contributions from nonprofit organizations, and that Donald Trump had reimbursed the foundation from his own money and paid the IRS a \)2,500 excise tax as a penalty. Trump denied the donation was connected to the Trump University lawsuit, saying it was for Bondi’s performance as Attorney General.

Okay, I admit it was a minor issue during the campaign, because after all, there were her emails! Still, the New York Times did mention it, though it didn’t devote an entire front page to the story.

This was only the first example of financial skullduggery that came to mind when I read Christie’s quote. Were I not so lazy I’d document more. Anyone with an ounce of brains and the ability to read would have known long before 2016 that Trump has, to amend a phrase, “[n]ever shown less than total the least semblance of integrity in his financial dealings”. He has, in short, always been a scam artist, a fierce practitioner of the Art of the Con.

So we are left to wonder: is and was Christie truly unaware of this? It’s unlikely, of course, that he will ever be confronted by a member of the media on this issue, as he will avoid anyone who would bring it up. But, long and short, it’s impossible that Christie didn’t know about Trump’s history, so he’s lying now, but then, he’s a Republican, and that’s pretty much all they do.

Addendum: I spent most of the day driving to Vermont, which is where I am as I’m writing this. I haven’t checked the news all day, and I just now learned that Trump’s been indicted! Two indictments down, and two more to go!

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Book report: The Earth Transformed

Tuesday, June 6, 2023

I just finished reading Peter Frankopan’s The Earth Transformed. I have to admit that it was a bit of a slog, as there’s only so much depressing reading you can do at one time. Still, I highly recommend it as it emphatically brings home the horrors we may face as a result of climate change.

The book, which is clearly well researched, recounts the many times humans have had to deal with climate changes caused by various natural events, such as volcanic eruptions, and the many and varied ways in which humans have altered the natural environment, most often in ways that come back to haunt them. Anthropogenic changes to the environment are nothing new, but our current technology, combined with globalization, has enabled those living today to alter the environment more quickly, and more profoundly than was possible in the past. One can’t read this book without coming to the conclusion that the entire human race is approaching a crisis that will be devastating. How it will play out is not a certainty, but there are few optimistic scenarios, and all of them require political leadership that takes the problem seriously and takes serious action to minimize the effects of climate change. As Frankopan observes:

It is worth bearing in mind, however, that much of human history has been about the failure to understand or adapt to changing circumstances in the physical and natural world around us, and the consequences that ensue.

Those failures have wreaked havoc in the past, but they tended to be somewhat localized, while our current failure promises worldwide havoc.

The book should be required reading for every member of every legislative body in this country. You never know. Maybe one or two congressional Republicans would decide that saving the planet is more important than stopping drag shows or persecuting trans people, though I admit that’s unlikely. Unfortunately, if history, both of the sort Frankopan recounts and we have experienced from Republicans recently, is any guide, then we have little hope that the coming crisis will be averted or its impact mitigated by constructive action. I now have three little grandchildren, and I am truly afraid of how they will fare in the world that we have inflicted on them.

Filed in Book reports | | Comments (0)

Republicans in disarray

Sunday, June 4, 2023

The Democrats in Disarray! trope has been a favorite of the mainstream media for some time now. There are a lot of reasons they have pounded on it, often manufacturing the disarray in order, for instance, to prove their evenhandedness for, after all, both sides!.

It will be interesting to see if we’ll be hearing about Republicans in Disarray, for they most certainly appear to be.

A few days ago I posited that we might be seeing the beginning of Republicans eating their own, focusing on the current move in Texas to impeach Ken Paxton, something their doing now though he has been a known criminal for years.

Now, we have another example: Steve Bannon exhorting his griftees (new word, but if there are grifters there are of necessity griftees) not to donate to the RNC because that awful Kevin McCarthy didn’t tank the economy in service to fascism.

A few days before the final vote on the debt limit my wife was watching someone on TikTok who predicted that McCarthy would eventually cave because the money people behind him aren’t interested in destroying the economy in service to fascism. Not that they’re necessarily against fascism, they just don’t want to lose any money in the process. The argument sounded right to me, and I suspect that it was indeed such pressure that led McCarthy to go along with a deal in which he got a few fig leafs, but essentially caved. That, and the probability that destroying the economy might lead to him losing his job in 2024.

It seems highly likely that the full on fascists like Bannon, Greene, et. al., will continue to cause turmoil, (i.e., “disarray”) within the Republican ranks, by increasingly attacking the mere fascist enablers. It’s also highly likely that many Republican incumbents will spend as much time running away from other Republicans as they spend running against Democratic opponents.

It is to be hoped that the Democrats can take advantage of this. It will require that they speak with one voice. Unfortunately, that’s something they have been incapable of doing in the past, but maybe they’ve learned.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Why are the Republicans in Texas impeaching Paxton just because he’s a criminal?

Monday, May 29, 2023

I have been mulling over the Ken Paxton situation in Texas, ever since I read this article. He has been impeached, the argument being that he has committed various crimes, which is undoubtedly true.

However, we are long past the time when Republicans care about criminal behavior by their fellow Republicans. The standard response is to portray criminal Republicans as victims of a leftist press or some other fictional bogeyman. Paxton himself has been under criminal indictment for years. It is a mystery to me why he had not gone to trial in all that time, but he hasn’t. Moreover, for all of that time until recently there has been no move to impeach him, and he has been renominated and reelected.

The article to which I’ve linked was written just before the impeachment process came to fruition. Paxton was calling for the resignation of the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, claiming that he had been drunk while presiding over a session of the House. Paxton hadn’t been impeached, but he no doubt knew it was coming.

Again, we must ponder: since Republicans don’t mind if their fellow Republicans engage in criminal conduct, precisely what do the vast majority of Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives have against Paxton. I’m not sure, but it brings to mind the old saw about revolutions eventually eating their own. You know, Robespierre and all that. The Republican Party has been taken over by a cult, and there are no doubt some within it that are not terribly happy about that. Moreover, cultists tend to fight among themselves, for deviations from the one true way are not tolerated, and the definition of the one true way tends to become a bone of contention. I think it’s entirely possible, no make that probable, that we’ll be seeing a lot more internecine fighting within the Republican ranks, especially if Trump is consigned to a position in which he must attack other Republicans, as he is currently doing with DeSantis.

Maybe I’m looking too much on the bright side, but I’m betting we’ll be seeing more of this sort of thing.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

How will the Supreme Court get around this. They will you know.

Wednesday, May 17, 2023

This is interesting. It appears that there’s been some language missing from one of the most important Reconstruction statutes, 42 USC 1983, a statute that has been used to protect Americans from “deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States”. There has been a lot of important litigation filed using this statute to protect or establish constitutional rights. It can be used to seek declaratory relief, such as a declaration that a given state policy is unconstitutional, or can be used to seek damages against a state actor that has deprived a person or persons of constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court has, however, carved out a massive loophole in the law, known as qualified immunity. Police, for instance, have taken advantage of the loophole for years. Basically, a plaintiff is thrown out of court unless he, she or they can prove that a court has already ruled that the constitutional violation in question is in fact a constitutional violation. So, unless you can find a previous case with an identical fact pattern in which another cop was allowed to escape liability,but the court found that the actions in question did indeed violate the constitution, you are entitled to no more than a judge telling the cop that he or she violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, but they are free to walk out of court without penalty, for how were they to know that the particular conduct in which they engaged, heinous as it may have been, violated the constitution.

Apparently, when the federal statutes were first compiled the compiler, whether intentionally or unintentionally, omitted some qualifying language, to the effect that a defendant was liable “any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the state to the contrary notwithstanding”.

The Supreme Court based its “qualified immunity” jurisprudence on its assertion that 1983 did not “displace immunities protecting officials that existed when the law was enacted”. In my own humble opinion that was a rather tortured reading of the bowdlerized version of the statute, but it doesn’t pass the sniff test if you consider the language of the statute as actually enacted. The court should certainly reconsider its qualified immunity decisions in light of this discovery.

The cops and similar constitution violaters need not fear however. I’m sure the Supreme Court will find a way to preserve their right to deprive us of our rights. My guess is they’ll give the job to Sammy Alito, who did such a good job of explaining that women have no right to abortion because a 17th century witch hunter said they didn’t.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Rudy’s been naughty

Monday, May 15, 2023

So Rudy is being sued by a former employee for sexual harassment in the extreme. You can read many of the gory details here. Among them:

[The] 70-page suit cites audio recordings and accuses Giuliani, 78, in graphic detail of subjecting her to sexual assault and harassment throughout her employment, forcing her to engage in “violent sex” and attend work video conferences naked and work in short shorts he bought printed with an American flag.

“He often demanded oral sex while he took phone calls on speaker phone from high-profile friends and clients, including then-President Trump. Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that he enjoyed engaging in this conduct while on the telephone because it made him ‘feel like Bill Clinton,’” reads Dunphy’s suit.

You have to wonder why anyone would continue to work under such conditions. I don’t doubt that the allegations are true, but if I were Rudy’s lawyer I think the defense I’d try (after, apparently (since in this hypothetical I am indeed his lawyer), trying in vain to avoid the job), though I wouldn’t have much confidence in it, would be that it couldn’t have happened because no reasonable person would continue to work under those conditions. What other defense could there possibly be. Lest I be accused of sexism, I must add that my wife had the same initial reaction. Why didn’t she quit? I guess we’ll find out when the case goes to trial.

Despite my incredulity that anyone would continue to work under those conditions, I hope she wins and she probably will.

Filed in Lawyer stuff, Right Wing Idiots | | Comments (0)