News chunks: Rule of law wars intensify; Tucker causes bipartisan outrage?

The radical right war on democracy and the rule of law is getting really ugly. Several sources are reporting that radical right Republican politicians in Georgia are pursuing oversight of state prosecutors. This is a direct attack on the rule of law. What prompted it is the possibility that Trump will be indicted for crimes he committed in Georgia. The NYT writes:

To Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Atlanta, several bills in the Georgia legislature that would make it easier to remove local prosecutors are racist and perhaps retaliatory for her ongoing investigation of former President Donald J. Trump.

To the Republican sponsors of the bills, they are simply a way to ensure that prosecutors enforce the laws of the state, whether they agree with them or not.

To Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Atlanta, several bills in the Georgia legislature that would make it easier to remove local prosecutors are racist and perhaps retaliatory for her ongoing investigation of former President Donald J. Trump.

To the Republican sponsors of the bills, they are simply a way to ensure that prosecutors enforce the laws of the state, whether they agree with them or not. 

Ms. Willis has been a centrist law-and-order prosecutor who has targeted some prominent local rappers in a sprawling gang case. She is also part of the changing face of justice in Georgia: The state now has a record number of minority prosecutors — 14 of them — up from five in 2020, the year Ms. Willis, who is Black, was voted into office.

And of course, there is the Trump inquiry, the latest accelerant to the partisan conflagrations that have consumed the increasingly divided state for years. The subject of Ms. Willis’s investigation is whether Mr. Trump and his allies tried to flout Georgia’s democratic process with numerous instances of interference after his narrow 2020 election loss in the state.

“For the hundreds of years we’ve had prosecutors, this has been unnecessary. 

But now all of a sudden this is a priority. And it is racist.” 

Fani Willis, Atlanta district attorney 

Those supporters include United States Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who tweeted in August that Ms. Willis was using taxpayer funds “for her personal political witch hunt against Pres Trump, but will NOT prosecute crime plaguing Atlanta!”

Lawmakers have fired back. At the hearing last month, State Senator Bill Cowsert, a Republican who is the brother-in-law of Gov. Brian Kemp, said, “For you to come in here and try to make this about racism, that this bill is directed at any district attorney or solicitor because of racism, is absurd, and it’s offensive, and it’s a racist statement on its own.”

Senator Brian Strickland, a Republican who was presiding over the meeting, told Ms. Willis, “You’re being emotional.”

So, who is being racist and emotional here, the radical right, the prosecutor investigating Trump, both or neither, in whole or in part? 

Since it is likely we will never know for sure, it seems reasonable to think the radical right is the one being racist and emotional. The evidence is consistent with that belief in the case of Trump trying to screw and subvert democracy in Georgia after the 2020 election. 

In my opinion, the radical right deserves a default position of distrust because it has worked for decades to build distrust in American society. Now, it just seems fair and balanced for the radicals to reap what they have so diligently sowed for so long. If the radical right wants public trust, it can take the time and effort to try to earn trust on the merits. Maybe in a decade or two, the default distrust position would become untenable. At present, the extremist elites are not inclined to earn public trust on the merits. They are all-in on demagoguing the base and shafting us whenever they can.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

From the Wait, what?? Files: The Hill reports on something strange. Faux News’ Tucker Carlson may have actually cause some actual bipartisan outrage. Or maybe it’s just faux outrage from a few Republican fakers. The Hill writes:

Tucker Carlson’s Jan. 6 footage sparks bipartisan outrage

Fox News host Tucker Carlson whipped up a firestorm Tuesday on Capitol Hill, sparking bipartisan backlash and igniting tensions with Capitol Police by downplaying the Jan. 6 Capitol riot on his prime-time program as “mostly peaceful chaos.”

His show divided Republicans, with a number of GOP senators ripping his portrayal of the incursion at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who rarely offers opinions on political issues, said the Monday night show was filled with “offensive and misleading conclusions about the Jan. 6 attack.”

“The program conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video. The commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments,” Manger wrote in a memo to lawmakers.  

Carlson at the same time won plaudits from other Republicans who have similarly criticized and downplayed the attack.

“When will judges begin applying justice equally? Doesn’t look like “thousands of armed insurrectionists” to me,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said in a tweet after thanking McCarthy and Carlson for showing the footage. 

“I’ve seen enough. Release all J6 political prisoners now,” Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) said in a tweet as Carlson’s show aired.

Trump also weighed in on the footage, praising Carlson and McCarthy over its publication and calling the tapes the Fox host played for his audience “irrefutable.”

Although Faux promised to allow Capitol police to review the tapes for security purposes before airing anything, the Hill article says that Tucker and Faux just blew that off. That was just empty bullshit from professional liars.

We all knew this was coming

Remember a couple of posts I recently wrote about Carson, the professional liar, doing a whitewash job with the 1/6 security footage? Calling the violent 1/6 coup attempt mostly peaceful chaos is the sort of thing to be expected. Tucker doing mendacious propaganda like this is no surprise. 

What is a surprise is that a few Republicans in congress expressed disapproval in more than a tiny little squeak of displeasure. Most likely, that will blow over in the next few days. Tucker will be free to continue to lie about the 1/6 coup attempt as he whitewashes it. There will be silent complicity from Republicans in congress, if not their open support. This hiccup will be forgotten. Tucker’s poison will flow freely. 

I have said it before and say it again, the radical right is hell bent on rewriting inconvenient history. The violent 1/6 coup attempt will be mythologized into a tempest in a teapot incident. That is what most of the radical right rank and file believes it was anyway. Extremist elites just need to spread the myth to a larger audience. 

Q: In view of everything that has gone before now, is Republican outrage is credible and real, or is it just political theater for propaganda purposes, e.g., to ease the way for the mendacious mythologizing that Tucker is going to do to the 1/6 coup attempt?

Biden Admin Considers Reinstating Detention of Migrant Families

There's  no shortage of news here when it comes to Republicans. But we're in the third year of the Biden Administration and little is written about its plans, policies and doings here. The following article reports that the Biden Admin is now considering reinstating detention programs of migrant families, like those Biden criticized as a candidate and eliminated for being "inhumane" in 2021.  This story was reported in the New York Times on 3/6/23.

By Eileen Sullivan and Zolan Kanno-Youngs

March 6, 2023

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is considering reviving the practice of detaining migrant families who cross the border illegally — the same policy the president shut down over the past two years because he wanted a more humane immigration system, officials familiar with the discussions said Monday.

Although no final decision has been made, the move would be a stark reversal for President Biden, who came into office promising to adopt a more compassionate approach to the border after the harsh policies of his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump.

The Biden administration has largely ended the practice of family detention, instead releasing families into the United States temporarily and using ankle bracelets, traceable cellphones or other methods to keep track of them.

But the administration has turned to more restrictive measures as it struggles to handle a rise in migrants fleeing authoritarian governments and economic ruin in their countries. Officials also fear a surge at the border after May 11, when a public health measure that has allowed authorities to swiftly expel migrants expires.

Mr. Biden’s tough new measures, including a crackdown announced last month that could disqualify a vast majority of migrants from being able to seek asylum at the southern border, have infuriated advocates who say the president is breaking campaign promises and embracing a Trump-era approach to immigration.

“Ending the inhumane practice of family detention has been one of the only positive immigration policy decisions of the Biden administration,” said Leecia Welch, a lead lawyer in the case that led to the 1997 Flores settlement, which limits the time children can spend in detention and establishes minimum standards for holding facilities.

“It is heartbreaking to hear there could be a return to the Trump-era use of this practice,” she said.

The White House declined to comment, but administration officials reject any comparison to Mr. Trump and say Mr. Biden’s policies are focused on finding ways to decrease the number of illegal crossings and expand migrants’ ability to seek legal pathways.

The Department of Homeland Security said no decisions had been made as the administration prepared for the end of the public health measure, known as Title 42.

“The administration will continue to prioritize safe, orderly and humane processing of migrants,” Luis Miranda, a department spokesman, said in a statement.

But senior White House and homeland security immigration advisers have held several meetings over the past few days to discuss their options, including reinstating the family detention policy, according to five current and former administration officials with knowledge of the discussions.

The officials said the Department of Homeland Security is outlining what it would need to do to restart temporary family detention by May 11.

One of the officials cautioned that the administration would follow the court settlement that sets a 20-day limit for detaining families, rather than holding them for weeks or even months as previous administrations did. Another option would be continuing the practice in place now — releasing families into the country, where they would be tracked and required to report to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, the official said.

- ________________________________________________

 

In related news, the Biden Administration, last month,  proposed a new rule that would would hold that migrants are not eligible for asylum if they entered the country unlawfully. The proposed rule, put forward by DHS,  can be read here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/23/2023-03718/circumvention-of-lawful-pathways As the NYT explains:

"It would allow rapid deportation of anyone who had failed to request protection from another country while en route to the United States or who did not notify border authorities through a mobile app of their plans to seek asylum....

President Biden took office vowing to restore a humane approach to the border crisis after his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump, introduced a series of harsh immigration policies, including the separation of migrant children from their parents. But as the Biden administration has struggled to quell a surge of migrants fleeing economic ruin in their countries, including Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, it has turned to more restrictive measures.

The decision, announced jointly by the Homeland Security and Justice Departments, was sharply rebuked by human rights advocates who said the policy mirrored an earlier, much-criticized restriction under Mr. Trump that denied asylum to most migrants who had not first applied for it in Mexico or another country along their way. That policy had been struck down by several federal courts.

Many migrants do not apply for asylum in Mexico, preferring to try their luck in the United States. The new policy was expected to erect a formidable barrier to those hoping to submit U.S. applications."

See this explainer for further discussion and details:  https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/02/bidens-border-crackdown-explained-refugee-law-expert-looks-legality-and-impact-new-asylum-rule/383350/

 

 

 

 

Op-Ed: Whose nanny state?

 When I was a wee lad, my dad taught me a game of solitaire called Idiot’s delight. Chances of winning were slim — about 1 in 20. But the odds for idiots have changed today.

By Robert Kahn

Deputy editor emeritus, Courthouse News

Republican lawmakers and candidates today love to whang on what they refuse to call the Loyal Opposition. They claim Democrats hunger to set up a “nanny state,” to control our every move.

The technical term for this malicious fantasy is psychological projection: projecting your own undesirable emotions onto an imaginary aggressor, rather than dealing with them honestly.

I went in search of a nanny state, and offer you these new laws and proposals, all within the past year, by Republicans.

Smelling the wind from the governor’s office, the Florida High School Athletic Association wanted to require high school athletes to answer the questions: “When was your most recent menstrual period?” and, “How many periods have you had in the past year?” if they want to play on a high school team.

This insane, intrusive proposal springs from Gov. Ron DeSantis’ signing a law that bans transgender athletes from competing in public schools, from kindergarten through college. It is vomitous on so many levels:

“No menstrual periods from you, hey, Joanna? Lemme see who you really are. Drop ‘em, Johnny.”

“No menstrual periods from you for two months, hey, Joanna? Are you thinking about getting an abortion? Well, we’ve got you on file here, darling.”

Also in Florida, law prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. DeSantis wants to reduce it to 6 weeks — before most women know they’re pregnant.

But let’s not stop at Florida. Idaho is just as bad — except it’s prettier, the climate is better, and the people are nicer and younger, except for the neo-Nazis up in the Panhandle.

In Idaho, state Sen. Tammy Nichols of Middleton and state Rep. Judy Boyle of Midvale introduced a bill that would criminalize doctors who administer mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccines, such as the Covid vaccines discovered by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech.

“If passed as written, it would also preemptively ban the use of countless other mRNA vaccines that are now in development, such as shots for RSV, a variety of cancers, HIV, flu, Nipah virus, and cystic fibrosis, among others,” according to Ars Technica, a website that, since it studies science and technology, obviously has a nefarious Master Plan: to keep people from dying young.

Why would these allegedly “pro-life” idiot Republicans propose such a law?

“It’s obvious, Dude!” a young skateboarding friend of mine explained. “Young people vote for Democrats! They want young people to die!”

As proof, consider Alaska state Rep. David Eastman (R-Wasilla), who said that, once a child has been sexually abused, it might be better to just let the kid die, as a “benefit to society,” because treatment "could cost the family and broader society $1.5 million in terms of trauma and what the child could potentially have earned over their lifetime.”

Ahh! Those pro-life Republicans.

And how about those Republican storm troopers in North Dakota, whose Senate Bill 2360 would send librarians to jail and fine them $1,500 if they allow “partially denuded human figures” to appear in books on their shelves.

Like the Venus de Milo? (Man, did you see the tits on that Mona Lisa chick? Wuddaya think she’s smiling at?) Obviously inappropriate for just about everyone.

Or Michelangelo’s David. (What was Mike thinking? A groomer, that’s all he was.)

As for DeSantis’s “education” “reforms,” specifically, Florida House Bill 999? Straight out of Vlad (the Impaler) Putin and Xi Jinping. This bill would prohibit schools from teaching, or mentioning, the history of Reconstruction, perhaps the Civil War itself, the Klan, the civil rights conflicts of the 1960s, George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door shouting, “segregation forever!” I presume it would also prohibit jazz studies.

All this is just a whiff of the fragrant bouquet of bullshit laws today’s Republican Party want to set on our doorsteps and set on fire. Consider the party’s attack on child labor laws. The Iowa bill would also “exempt employers from liability if these young workers are sickened, injured or killed on the job,” according to The Guardian’s U.S. website, which covers the United States way better than most of our homegrown newspapers do, although The New York Times did catch up a bit last week.

Finally, for sheer idiocy, consider Florida’s Senate Bill 932, which would make it illegal for a driver to let a dog stick his head out the window while in motion, punishable by a $5,000 fine, with the possibility of barring “offenders” from owning an animal.

We’ve all heard about the traffic “offense” of driving while Black. This one would criminalize driving while human.

https://www.courthousenews.com/whose-nanny-state/

The other side of the coin…

Yesterday, our esteemed leader and blog owner, Germaine, posted an OP regarding the bad things that the collective right (republicans and conservatives) tends to criticize the collective left (democrats and liberals) of doing/believing.  So that we’re all on the same page, if you haven’t yet read yesterday’s OP, please take a look at it before continuing here (click on link above).

As a rebuttal, I suggested that in the spirit of fairness (though, as Germaine pointed out, “Fairness is the epitome of an essentially contested concept”), I suggested we should also make a list of what the collective left tends to criticize the collective right of doing/believing.

Now, I’m not sure what actual good it would do (other than cementing our personal views and/or getting personal grievances off our chests) but let’s get “the other side of the story” (i.e., how the left sees the right).

Your Task: List the collective left’s grievances of the collective right. 

I will start off the list with a dozen of my own perceived grievances of the right.  I could have gone on, but no need to hog the joint. 😉

I will update the list here with any incoming from you, the bloggers.  You may also, if you wish, give your reasons for your personal grievances, in order to bolster your argument(s). You can also add rebuttal to items others have posted, but that you disagree with.  Here we go:

1. The right is greedy (PrimalSoup)
2. The right sees the left as out to take away their money (PrimalSoup)
3. The right doesn’t like to pay their fair share of taxes (PrimalSoup)
4. The right tries to suppress voting (PrimalSoup)
5. The right is suspicious of "the other" (PrimalSoup)
6. The right doesn’t vote for education programs (PrimalSoup)
7. The right doesn’t believe in climate change (PrimalSoup)
8. The right is very into conspiracy theories (PrimalSoup)
9. The right has no qualms about lying to bolster their arguments (PrimalSoup)
10. The right has an unhealthy obsession with guns (PrimalSoup)
11. The right loves unfettered regulations (PrimalSoup)
12. The right thinks more in "me" terms than in "we" terms (PrimalSoup)
13. The right tacitly promotes violence as an alternative to the political process (e_monster) 
14. The right is monolithic (dubious)
15. The shameless hypocrisy (Freeze Peach)
16. They have been Trumpatized (SNOWFLAKE)
17. Most of the radical right is anti-democracy (Germaine)
18. Most of the radical right is anti-civil liberties such as abortion (Germaine)
19. Most of the radical right is anti-privacy and voting rights (Germaine)
20. Most of the radical right is pro-authoritarian (Germaine)
21. Most of the radical right is pro-Christian theocrat (Germaine)
22. Most of the radical right is anti-secular (Germaine)
23. Most of the radical right is vehemently anti-inconvenient fact, true truth and sound reasoning (Germaine)
24. Most of the radical right is heavily reliant on identity politics (Germaine)
25. Most of the radical right is brass knuckles capitalist (Germaine)
26. Most of the radical right is heavily dependent on intentionally, bitterly divisive, polarizing, dark free speech, including hate speech, slanders and debunked crackpot conspiracy theories (Germaine)
27. Most of the radical right believes Democrats are socialist tyrants trying to establish an atheist police state, etc. (Germaine)
28. The right makes SCOTUS Appoiintments of unqualified, neoliberal, often fanatically religious partisans who would enforce their moral beliefs on everyone (larrymotuz)
29.