Discrimination wars: What happens when powerful Republicans feel discrimination they hate

It is clear that radical right Christian nationalists want to discriminate against people and groups they hate and want to oppress. But here is the flip side of how powerful radical right Christian nationalists see it when discrimination goes against their chosen people and ideologies, even when it is false.

The context here is this: Sen Tom Cotton, a potential radical right Republican Christian nationalist criticizes Kroger for firing two Christian employees for refusing to wear rainbow gay pride flag logos. In essence Cotton tells Kroger to go pound sand because Republican s will not help Kroger with a massive merger that Democrats oppose.

Think about it. This is how the discrimination wars are going to play out. If powerful Republican politicians and elites see discrimination they dislike, they are going to punish people and interests the believe are responsible and deserving of regulations by Democrats. Whether the merger is in the public interest or not is beside the point for congressional Republicans. The only thing that counts is if a company toes the rigidly ideological and extremist Republican Party line.

For context, Kroger denies that the logo had nothing to do with gay rights or support for gays. It was just a bit of advertising it wanted employees to wear to help boost good will and sales. There was nothing religious or pro-gay about it. Marketing research suggested the heart logo, which was not a rainbow. Only Sky writes:

Kroger to pay $180K for firing Christians who wouldn’t wear heart symbol

The two Christian employees falsely claimed the heart symbol promoted the LGBTQ community. (It didn’t.)

It was just a multi-colored heart symbolizing their corporate values.

The facts don’t matter, though, because the Christians in question, Trudy Rickerd and Brenda Lawson, claim (wrongly) that they were being told to support LGBTQ rights (which they were not).

This is not the gay pride logo

This is Kroger's marketing ploy

This is the usual gay pride logo

See the difference?

Sometimes this is a variant gay pride logo

See the difference?

This is how irrational and enraged congressional Republican are. They believe lies and then punish the innocent for their false beliefs. The question here is not what Kroger did to two employees, it is whether its proposed merger would be anti-competitive and illegal under anti-trust law. The two things are different, but that makes zero difference to foaming at the mouth, radical right Christian nationalist Republicans with power. They want power and wealth. They will not hesitate one second to kill democracy, inconvenient truth and anything else that gets in their delusional enraged way.

One question that pops right up is why did Kroger pay $180K? Probably because public relations and profit trump inconvenient facts, true truth and sound reasoning. That's probably why. 

Again for the hundredth or thousandth time here, the business of business is profit, not what is right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, or democratic or tyrannical. And the business of radical right Republican Christian nationalists is accumulating power and wealth, not governing in the public interest or in defense of democracy, truth, the rule of law, the environment, or civil liberties.

A NASA gay pride logo

See the difference?

The Satanic Temple's gay pride logo

See the difference?

A slew of gay pride logos

See the difference in every single one?

None are Kroger's marketing ploy

I've said it before dozens of times and say it again, inconvenient facts, truth and sound reasoning are irrelevant to radical right, Christian nationalist and/or brass knuckles Republican elites. Their eyes are on the prize. The Prize? More power and wealth for themselves. Much more. And, at our expense.

Commentaries on the oral arguments in Moore v. Harper

The ones in red circles are fixin’ to fix 

American democracy by damaging it, 

or destroying it completely

Multiple sources are commenting in yesterday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in the Moore v. Harper case that will decide about the independent state legislature doctrine (ISLD). The ISLD holds that state courts cannot interfere much or at all with rules state legislatures make to control elections. Deciding in favor of a robust vision of the ISLD would leave legislatures free to subvert elections and suppress voters. 

A robust vision of ISLD would give red states the power they want to destroy democracy in America. This would roughly parallel how Viktor Orban destroyed democracy in Hungary after being elected into power in 2010. After 2010, national elections in Hungary were rigged and Orban could not lose.

Observers of the oral arguments in Moore suggest there is significant disagreement among the six radical right Republicans. The three Democrats are hostile to ISLD. Three of the radical Republicans are sympathetic to it (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch), but three are apparently conflicted about it (Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett). The conflicted ones apparently do not want to appear to be what they actually are, i.e., partisan Republican Party politicians wearing black robes. 

This is a real surprise to me. I did not imagine that Kavanaugh or Barrett would have any qualms about an appearance of being radical right Republican politicians. Those two are Republican Party fire breathers. I figured they just didn't care about the appearance or actuality of partisanship. 

Politico writes:

The spotlight for Wednesday’s oral arguments was focused on three of the high court’s six conservative justices: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.

Those three justices will likely serve as the deciding factor in any decision. The court’s three liberals were extremely hostile to the theory during oral arguments, while the three other conservatives have signaled sympathy for a muscular version of the theory, both in previous writings and during arguments in front of the court on Wednesday.

Questioning from Roberts to David Thompson, who was representing the Republican legislators, showed hostility to the independent state legislature theory.

“Vesting the power to veto the actions of the legislature significantly undermines the argument that it can do whatever it wants,” Roberts said, citing a 1930s Supreme Court case that found that the U.S. Constitution didn’t prohibit governors from vetoing a congressional map passed by legislatures.

But later, Roberts’ questioning to Neal Katyal, who represented the groups that challenged the initial legislatively drawn maps, showed how some of the court’s swing conservative justices could still potentially rule in favor of the GOP lawmakers without embracing the most robust interpretation of the independent state legislature theory. Roberts seemed to be potentially probing for a way to constrain state courts in some way, particularly on what could be decisions based on broad constitutional provisions.

“Do you think the phrase ‘fair and free elections’ is providing standards and guidelines?” he asked Katyal, who responded affirmatively.

That suggests that the three conflicted ones will look for some version of ISLD that looks and maybe is less extreme than what they actually want but are hesitant to impose for the sake of political optics. A brilliant analysis by Above the Law points to the conflict between optics and the underlying Republican radicalism that are pushing in opposite directions, for and against the ISLD: 

If one were so inclined, the smart money said the Supreme Court would functionally cancel democratic elections, or to be more technical, “cancel any check on gerrymandered state legislatures from erasing elections if they wanted to.”

As the argument unfolded, three distinct camps emerged, with Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor opposed to the whole goofy theory; Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas thrilling at the prospect of authoritarian rule; and the Chief, Barrett, and Kavanaugh wishing there was some way to let Republicans gerrymander at will without turning North Carolina elections into North Korean elections.

Neal Katyal went right at the conservatives with receipts — straight up calling his shot, announcing that he’d been “waiting for this case” so he could unload his can of originalism on Justice Thomas — quoting back their own opinions from every time the shoe was on the other foot, prompting a series of blubbering exchanges from the frustrated justices. His exchange with Gorsuch set the tone. The justice asked Katyal for “one example” of the Court employing Katyal’s theory. He cited a 19th century example. “*grumble* Put that aside!” He cited another. Gorsuch rants and raves trying to figure out why he hadn’t researched this point.** 

** He didn’t research the point because of (i) his rigid authoritarian ideologue radicalism, (ii) his blinding loyalty to the Republican Party, and (iii) normal human confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. All of that allows him to be comfortably and arrogantly self-deluded. All of this is obvious human cognitive biology and social behavior stuff.

Alito concocted a hypothetical about a rogue state supreme court that needed to be brought to heel. Yes… Samuel Alito raised the fear that a court might ignore law and precedent for political gain. You really can’t make this stuff up! Alito is having himself an all-timer week for unintentional comedy. 

Don Verrilli and Elizabeth Prelogar also took turns at battering the GOP theory, with the conservative justices growing quieter if no less strident as the event wore on.

But amid all the twists and turns from Justice Kagan’s incisive questioning (not-too-far-off translation by Professor Leah Litman: “So this theory could end our democracy. Response?”) to Justice Gorsuch arguing that the independent legislature theory is how pre-Civil War Virginia was a bulwark against the 3/5ths clause (or some nonsense), Justice Jackson delivered the most devastating body blow (no transcript… so this may be inexact):

I guess I don’t understand how you can cut the state constitution out of the equation when it is giving the state legislature authority to exercise the legislative power.

Yes. She actually asked this question in different phrasings a few times, but it’s really the only question anyone needs to answer. If state constitutions create state legislatures then how can state legislatures violate state constitutions. It ceases to be a constitutionally ordained legislature at that point!

It’s a chicken and egg problem — except it’s more like which came first the chicken or my dinner tonight — with a single obvious answer. If the state constitution sets guardrails of voting rights and the proper deference required to courts and the executive, then the legislature can only work within that.

At the top of Katyal’s argument he cited the two centuries of election law and declared that it would be “a whole lot of wrong” if “Legislature” meant what the GOP asked for as opposed to how Justice Jackson posed her question.

Occam’s Razor remains undefeated.

Make no mistake, Chief Justice Roberts is on record buying into a watered down version of this theory and will, after today’s battering, probably cobble something together that shields Republican legislatures without straining the outer bounds of basic notions of constitutional governance. But whatever compromise the conservatives try to mold will remain haunted by Jackson’s straightforward question.

Which came first, the state constitution or the state legislature? It’s the constitution. It’s always going to be the constitution.

So, it looks like we will probably get a less than absolute version of the ISLD and American democracy will take a serious but not quite lethal body blow. Less likely, but still possible, is the full blown version of ISLD that Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito want for the final fix to what ails democracy as they see it. 

As I’ve argued here before, we do not know how the court decides cases because the court shields its decision-making process from public scrutiny “for obvious reasons.” The obvious reasons have never been publicly stated and they probably never will be. 

That unjustifiable secrecy provides the time and opacity needed for the three hyper-radicals, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito, to convince at least two of the three conflicted ones to join them in finally killing off American democracy by imposing full-blown ISLD on all of us. A 1973 paper, Secrecy and the Supreme Court: On the Need for Piercing the Red Velour Curtain, criticized the Supreme Court’s opaque decision-making like this:

Our thesis may be simply stated: basic democratic theory requires that there be knowledge not only of who governs but of how policy decisions are made. .... We maintain that the secrecy which pervades Congress, the executive branch and courts is itself the enemy. .... For all we know, the justices engage in some sort of latter-day intellectual haruspication, followed by the assignment of someone to write an opinion to explain, justify or rationalize the decision so reached. .... That the opinion(s) cannot be fully persuasive, or at times even partially so, is a matter of common knowledge among those who make their living following Court proclamations.

It feels like there will probably be some nasty haruspication** in American democracy’s future.

** Haruspication: divining truth from a pile of fresh animal guts

Can we discriminate against Christians who discriminate against some others?

A core dogma in American radical right White Christian nationalism is the right for wealthy heterosexual White Christian males to discriminate against whoever they choose to hate or oppress, mostly the LGBQT community, non-white immigrants (legal or not), non-white citizens, women, and filthy atheists and other forms of non-Christian heathens. That is rock solid core sacred belief. It's not negotiable or open to debate. An article at Lawyers, Guns & Money poses an interesting hypothesis: 

BY ALITO’S LOGIC, CAN WE DENY CHRISTIANS SERVICE?

A restaurant in Richmond last week canceled a reservation for a private event being held by a conservative Christian organization, citing the group’s opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

“We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision,” read an Instagram post from Metzger Bar and Butchery, a German-influenced restaurant in the Union Hill neighborhood whose kitchen is helmed by co-owner Brittanny Anderson, a veteran of TV cooking shows including “Top Chef” and “Chopped.” “Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment. We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.”

The group, the Family Foundation, was set to host a dessert reception for supporters on Nov. 30, the group’s president, Victoria Cobb, wrote in a blog post describing the incident. About an hour and a half before it was slated to start, one of the restaurant’s owners called to cancel it, she wrote. “As our VP of Operations explained that guests were arriving at their restaurant shortly, she asked for an explanation,” Cobb wrote. “Sure enough, an employee looked up our organization, and their wait staff refused to serve us.”

I mean, if it’s all about personal values and freedom and such, why can’t we just refuse to serve Christians if we find them outrageous to our value system? I do however await the legal “logic” by which the Supreme Court finds this illegal but refusing to serve gays totally legal.

Interesting, right? Sure, we should be able to deny them whatever they deny us. 

Sadly, that's is what America is degenerating to under radical right Republican Party Christian nationalism and Republican Party brass knuckles, government-hating capitalism. The radical right is forcing people how are attacked and persecuted to defend moral values that radical right Christian nationalists hate and vehemently reject, e.g., tolerance, pluralism, civility, non-heterosexuality, etc.

The theocratic, radical right Republican Party started this war decades ago. It and its supporters are the attackers, oppressors and liars. We have to either defend ourselves or let them screw, abuse and oppress us. 

Q: Is that assessment unreasonably hyperbolic, lies or otherwise not credible?

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Freeze Preach for bringing this fun article to my attention.

News bits: Warnock wins! 😀, etc.

Warnock wins!

The NYT writes:

To Republicans who have said the strong turnout in the general election and the runoff showed the absence of any voter suppression, Mr. Warnock disagreed. “Just because people endured long lines that wrapped around buildings, some blocks long, just because they endured the rain and the cold and all kinds of tricks in order to vote,” Mr. Warnock said, “doesn’t mean that voter suppression does not exist. It simply means that you, the people, have decided that your voices will not be silenced.”

One can be glad that Warnock pushed back on Republican lies about voter suppression. I want to see the data that shows no voter suppression. The Republican Party worked long and hard to earn distrust. So, now it gets the distrust it worked hard to foment. 

Lawsuit goes against Trump Co.

The NYT writes:

The Trump Organization, the family real estate business that made Donald J. Trump a billionaire and propelled him from reality television to the White House, was convicted on Tuesday of tax fraud and other crimes, forever tarring the former president and the company that bears his name.

The conviction on all 17 counts, after more than a day of jury deliberations in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, stemmed from the company’s practice of doling out off-the-books perks to executives: They received luxury apartments, leased Mercedes-Benzes, extra cash at Christmas, even free cable television. They paid taxes on none of it.  

The felonies — tax fraud, scheming to defraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records — are hardly a death sentence for the Trump Organization. A company cannot be imprisoned, and the Trump Organization is not publicly traded, meaning there are no financial regulators to punish it or public shareholders to flee from it. The maximum penalty it faces is $1.62 million, a pittance for Mr. Trump, who typically notched hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue during his presidency.

Although most of the MSM is saying this is a big deal and a major blow to Trump, it does not look that way to me for at least two reasons. First, the company faces a paltry fine of up to $1.6 million. Just $1.6 million?? That is nothing. Second, prosecutors did not charge Trump with any crime. Once again, he gets off free and clear with no personal accountability to anyone for any of his crimes.

This is more evidence that the rule of law in America is at least two-tiered. One tier is is fuzzy and friendly for service to the rich and powerful. The 2nd tier is nastier and designed to whack the rest of us, some harder than others (a 3rd tier?). Maybe one day, some prosecution somewhere will finally nail the SOB and put him behind bars where he belongs. In the meantime, I’m not holding by breath.

Contempt for the rule of law and defiant arrogance is how Trump and his corrupt company sees this. The NYT writes:

In a relatively muted statement, Mr. Trump said he was “disappointed with the verdict” but planned to appeal. He blamed Mr. Weisselberg, saying the case was about his “committing tax fraud on his personal tax returns.”

The Trump Organization lamented in its own statement that it was being made accountable for Mr. Weisselberg’s crimes. “The notion that a company could be held responsible for an employee’s actions, to benefit themselves, on their own personal tax returns is simply preposterous,” the statement said.

This is how privileged and wealthy people see the law. It is a sad, sick joke at our expense.

Bringing some jobs back to the US

Finally after years of politicians and companies just talking about it, there appears to be some tangible progress in returning at least some manufacturing jobs back home. CNBC writes:

CEO Tim Cook confirmed that Apple will buy U.S.-made microchips at an event in Arizona on Tuesday, where President Joe Biden also spoke. 

The plants will be capable of manufacturing the 4-nanometer and 3-nanometer chips that are used for advanced processors such as Apple’s A-series and M-series and Nvidia’s graphics processors. 

The factories in Arizona will be partially subsidized by the U.S. government. Earlier this year, Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law, which includes billions of dollars in incentives for companies that build chip manufacturing capabilities on U.S. soil. 

TSMC said on Tuesday that it would spend $40 billion on the two Arizona plants. The first plant in Phoenix is expected to produce chips by 2024. The second plant will open in 2026, according to the Biden administration. 

The TSMC plants will produce 600,000 wafers per year when fully operational, which is enough to meet U.S. annual demand, according to the National Economic Council.

Note that the spending that bill Biden and the Dems passed against Republican Party opposition was needed to get this deal put together. One can reasonably believe that Republican politicians will take credit for bringing jobs back, despite opposing spending to actually do it. That’s just standard Republican SH (shameless hypocrisy) tactics.

Loyalty, Trump-style

A WaPo opinion piece comments on a key, highly loyal group of his supporters:

Republican support for former president Donald Trump is declining. Even his popularity among evangelicals has faded — not because they have discovered his abysmal character or lack of reverence for the Constitution, but because they fear he might not be a winning candidate.

Aw, isn’t that sweet? Evangelicals are just as loyal to Trump as he to them.