Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Reigning in rogue MAGA judges?

Judges, GOP lawmakers slam new policy that limits ‘judge shopping’

Federal judiciary officials announced Tuesday that cases with broad ramifications should be assigned randomly

Conservative judges and senior Republican lawmakers are pushing back against a newly announced policy that would require assigning judges at random in civil cases that have statewide or national implications, saying the action conflicts with federal law.

In letters sent to about a dozen chief judges across the country, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — joined by Republican Sens. John Cornyn (Tex.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.) — urged the judges to continue their current case assignment practices, noting: “Judicial Conference policy is not legislation.”

They were responding to an announcement Tuesday by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts. Judicial Conference officials have not yet released their new policy to the public, and a spokesman declined to comment when asked whether the conference has the authority to make the change.

On Tuesday, the conference said cases with statewide or national implications can no longer be automatically filed in single-judge divisions and assigned to the judges who preside there. Such divisions exist in rural parts of the country where courthouses are spaced very far apart.  
Officials said they were trying to address widespread concerns about “judge shopping” — or filing a lawsuit in a courthouse where the lone judge is known or suspected to be sympathetic to a particular cause.
This just adds to the mountain of evidence of the bitter authoritarian intent, moral rot and bad faith that controls and drives the Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party (formerly the GOP). Any pro-rule of law person would want lawsuits assigned and judged in a way that is fair. 

Authoritarians want their lawsuits assigned in ways that advance anti-democratic authoritarianism and corruption. The best way to do that is to do judge shopping and file cases where the judge is an unprincipled authoritarian.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Slate writes about the same proposed anti-judge shopping rule:
John Roberts Just Dropped the Hammer on Rogue, 
Lawless Trump Judges

For more than a decade, conservative plaintiffs have been gaming the judiciary by filing lawsuits before a hard-right judge who’s guaranteed to rule in their favor. Worse, a handful of Republican-appointed judges have made a habit of issuing sweeping decisions that apply nationwide—hobbling the federal government, short-circuiting the democratic process, and transferring inconceivable amounts of power into the hands of a few unelected jurists. The Judicial Conference of the United States, which makes policy for the federal courts, finally struck a blow against this cynical gamesmanship on Tuesday, announcing a new rule to restore the random assignment of cases and close the loophole that lets plaintiffs hand-pick their judges.

Dahlia Lithwick: It’s always hard for me to think that anything the Judicial Conference does is a big piece of news, but they did announce a new policy that sets out to curb judge-shopping. It’s the Conference trying to say: “Hey, you can’t just go to the casino that is Amarillo, Texas, and get Matthew Kacsmaryk every time you file a case.”

Mark Joseph Stern: We can glean that under this rule, when somebody files a lawsuit in federal district court that challenges some kind of federal policy—specifically, if it seeks a nationwide injunction or other sweeping relief—it must be randomly assigned to any judge in that district. The lawsuit cannot simply be glued onto the one judge who happens to sit in the division of the district where the plaintiffs strategically filed to prevail in their case.

As you suggested, this is the Matthew Kacsmaryk fix. Kacsmaryk is the guy who sits in a one-judge division in Amarillo, Texas, who will do whatever anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant plaintiffs ask him to do. The state of Texas goes back into his courthouse over and over again to get sweeping injunctions. The same thing happens with a handful of other Trump-appointed judges in Texas and Louisiana.

Chief Justice John Roberts brought up this problem in one of his annual reports, and now he has dropped the hammer. He’s the head of the Judicial Conference, and one of the other most prominent members is Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sutton is a very Roberts-ian figure who has complained bitterly, and I think correctly, about the scourge of nationwide injunctions. And now they’ve sort of shivved this entire scheme. Their message to these out-of-control district judges seems to be: “It’s over. You can’t keep the grift up. We’re patching this workaround.”

Judge Sutton, talking about this new rule, said: “I actually think the story is about national injunctions. That’s been a new development, really in the last 10 years and maybe the last two or three administrations, where that has become a thing.” I always love when a judge runs out of words and just says “a thing.” But I think it’s important to understand that this policy doesn’t actually stop a single-judge division from issuing a nationwide injunction. It just makes it harder. It sends cases through the spinner to avoid a case going directly to someone like Kacsmaryk. But cases will still end up being randomly assigned to Kacsmaryk.

Yes. It’s alarming that if a case is randomly assigned to Kacsmaryk, he can still work his mischief. He clearly has no hesitation to do whatever his client-plaintiffs want him to do in their ongoing collusion. So the ultimate solution has to be an end to this trend of single judges purporting to seize control of the law and make it whatever they want because they got 51 votes in the Senate and they have a God complex and they’ve decided that they’re the King of America.

Even Republican politicians are getting in on the bashing of the poor Judicial Conference.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell himself, from the floor of the Senate, delivered a screed against this policy, calling it an “unforced error” and also encouraging district courts to defy the Judicial Conference’s authority and ignore the new policy. McConnell actually sent a letter to the chief judge of every district court in the country, co-signed by GOP Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, encouraging them to disregard the policy, basically saying it’s illegal. So we’re seeing Republicans telling courts to defy the chief justice of the United States and his ultimate authority as head of the entire Article III judiciary. We might see an intra-war branch within Article III between judges who accept the policy and judges who don’t.

pages 1-2 of 6

 


News bits: The CN threat du jour; Thinking about Guernica; Gaza update

Threats from Christian nationalist elites and enablers are n ow coming fast and enraged. The latest blast of aggression comes from radical Christian nationalist Franklin Graham telling the world that God is going to destroy the pro-abortionists in France for protecting abortion rights.


One can wonder how Graham feels about pro-abortionists in America who try to protect abortion rights. Probably the about same or worse.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

A WaPo commentary about the Picasso painting Guernica raises bits of history worth considering:


On April 27, 1937, the London Times reported the following:

“Guernica, the most ancient town of the Basques and the center of their cultural tradition, was completely destroyed yesterday afternoon by insurgent air raiders. The bombardment of the open town far behind the lines occupied precisely three hours and a quarter, during which a powerful fleet of aeroplanes … did not cease unloading on the town bombs weighing from 1000 lbs. downward. … The fighters, meanwhile, plunged low from above the center of the town to machine-gun those of the civilian population who had taken refuge in the fields.”

The Spanish Civil War began when Gen. Francisco Franco, with support from Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, carried out a coup against Spain’s newly installed left-wing government.

Pablo Picasso painted “Guernica,” arguably his greatest masterpiece, in response to this devastating attack, which took place during the Spanish Civil War.

The bombing of Guernica was intended by Hermann Göring, commander in chief of the German Luftwaffe, as a birthday gift for Hitler. The attack was delayed by several days because of logistical issues, but Hitler was pleased nonetheless. The plan was to maximize civilian casualties. Col. Wolfram von Richthofen, who was in charge of the attack, achieved this by pausing after a brief initial bombing, then, after civilians had come out of their shelters, launching a devastating second wave. People were trapped in the open, incinerated, asphyxiated and strafed with machine-gun fire. An estimated 1,500 civilians were killed. Guernica was leveled.

Richthofen, a cousin of Manfred von Richthofen, the notorious “Red Baron” of World War I, described the attack as “absolutely fabulous … a complete technical success.”


I was able to see Guernica in Spain. It is one of the most powerful and moving pieces of art I have ever experienced in person. 
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: This is not intended to equate what the Nazis did to Guernica with what Israel’s war against Hamas is doing to Gaza. It is intended as a Gaza update.

In a long article, the WaPo reports about people missing in Gaza (article not behind paywall):

Thousands of Gazans have gone missing. 
No one is accounting for them.


Many disappeared under the rubble after airstrikes. Others are believed to have been detained at Israeli checkpoints while fleeing south or trying to return to the north. Some simply left one day and never came back.

Their desperate families search hospitals and contact hotlines set up by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). They scour photos of bodies in the streets and of blindfolded men detained by Israeli forces. They share pictures of relatives online, pleading for leads.

From October through February, the ICRC received reports of 5,118 Palestinians missing in Gaza. The Washington Post interviewed 15 people who lost contact with friends and family in Gaza since Oct. 7 — in only two cases were they able to find them. The most painful part, many said, was being in the dark about their fate.

Israel’s war in Gaza, launched after the devastating Hamas-led attack on southern Israel, has killed more than 31,000 people, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians but says the majority of the dead are women and children. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) estimates it has killed between 11,500 and 13,000 militants, as it seeks to eradicate Hamas from the enclave.

The ministry relies mostly on reports from hospitals for its death counts. With the enclave’s medical system in shambles, Palestinian health officials say many more deaths have gone unrecorded.

Saturday, March 16, 2024

How the US Army described fascism in 1945

Fascism is a contested concept. It is hard to explain or describe. The following are portions of a 1945 Army orientation fact sheet.


WAR DEPARTMENT — WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

24 March 1945 

FASCISM! 

Note For This Week's Discussion: Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze; nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism, in order to combat it. Points to stress are: (1) Fascism is more apt to come to power at a time of economic crisis; (2) fascism inevitably leads to war; (3) it can come to any country; (4) we can best combat it by making our democracy work.

"Fascism" is a word that's been used a great deal these last few years. We come across it in our news- papers, we hear it in our newsreels, it comes up in our bull sessions. We've heard about the cruelties of fascism, its terror, its conquest of country after country. We've heard of its concentration camps — like Dachau in Germany and its torture chambers — like Majdanek (Lublin) in Poland. We've heard of its planned mass murder of whole peoples — which scholars call "genocide." 

Some of the things that have been done to people by fascists seem too horrible to believe, especially to Americans who believe in "live and let live." Hard- boiled American correspondents, formerly skeptical, now believe because they have seen. (See page 6.)

Do we know how fascism leads men to do the things done to people at Majdanek? Do we know how it leads them to attack helpless nations? Are Majdaneks and war inevitable results of fascism? Do all fascists speak only German, Italian or Japanese — or do some of them speak our language? Will military victory in this War automatically kill fascism? Or could fascism rise in the United States after it's been crushed abroad? What can we do to prevent it? 

Perhaps we ought to get to know the answers. If we don't understand fascism and recognize fascism when we see it, it might crop up again — under another label — and cause another war.

Fascism is a way to run a country — it's the way Italy was run, and the way Germany and Japan are run. Fascism is the precise opposite of democracy. The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.

Fascism is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state. Why? The democratic way of life interferes with their methods and desires for: (1) conducting business; (2) living with their fellow-men; (3) having the final say in matters concerning others, as well as themselves. The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence — democracy must go! Anyone who is not a member of their inner gang has to do what he's told. They permit no civil liberties, no equality before the law. They make their own rules and change them when they choose. If you don't like it, it's "T.S." 

They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive ideas of "blood" and "race," by skillful manipulation of fear and hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and "realistic" to be pitiless and violent.

Question: How does fascism get in power? How can a violent program that enslaves the people win any support?

Fascism came to power in Germany, Italy, and Japan at a time of social and economic unrest. A small group of men, supported in secret by powerful financial and military interests, convinced enough insecure people that fascism would give them the things they wanted. 

They did so partly by clever propaganda and deception. They promised the people that fascism would bring them great power and prosperity. The details differed from country to country but the general pattern was the same. The Japanese spoke of a "greater Asia co-prosperity sphere." Mussolini mouthed humanitarian ideals and promised a re-born Roman empire. Hitler and his associates adopted the name of National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi) and announced objectives that attracted many German people. The official title of the Nazi party was deliberately worded for its propaganda value, appealing to "nationalists," "socialists," "workers," and all others who might be favorably influenced by these labels. At the very time that the fascists proclaimed that their party was the party of the "average citizen," they were in the pay of certain big industrialists and financiers who wanted to run the people with an iron hand. 

The fascists promised everything to everyone: They would make the poor rich and the rich richer. To the farmers, the fascists promised land through elimination of large estates. To the workers they promised elimination of unemployment — jobs for all at high wages. To the small business men they promised more customers and profits through the elimination of large business enterprises. To big business men and the industrialists they secretly promised greater security and profits through the elimination of small business competitors and trade unions and the crushing of socialists and communists. To the whole nation they promised glory and wealth by conquest. They asserted it was their right, as a "superior people," to rule the world. 

As soon as these methods had won them enough of a following to form their Storm Troops, the fascists began using force to stifle and wipe out any opposition. Those who saw through the false front of fascism and opposed them were beaten, tortured, and killed.
The fascists knew that all believers in democracy were their enemies. They knew that the fundamental principle of democracy — faith in the common sense of the common people — was the direct opposite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few. So they fought democracy in all its phases. At the same time that they proclaimed the "superiority" of the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, they proclaimed also that the German, the Italian, the Japanese peoples were really unfit to rule themselves. It became "Heil Hitler" in Germany, and "Believe, obey, fight" in Italy. 

They played political, religious, social, and eco- nomic groups against each other and seized power while these groups struggled against each other.

Question: How could the fascists keep their contradictory promises, once they got in power? How did their program actually work out?

It was easy enough for the fascists to promise all things to all people before they were in power. Once they were actually in power, they could not, of course, keep their contradictory promises. They had intended in advance to break some, and they did break those they had made to the middle classes, the workers, and the farmers. 

As soon as the fascists were in control of the government, the torturings and the killings were no longer the unlawful acts of a political party and its hoodlum gangs. They became official government policy. Among the first victims of this official policy were those farmers, workers, and small business men who had believed the promises that had been made to them and who complained that they had been "sucked in." Some simply vanished. Often they came home to their families by return mail in little jars of ashes. 

The concentration camps and graves filled with the opponents of fascism. Out went equality before the law, free elections and free political parties, independent trade unions and independent schools, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and, in time, freedom of religion.

Question: Have any groups in America used fascist tactics and appeals? 

Most of the people in America like to be good neighbors. But, at various times and places in our history, we have had sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which experience has shown can be properly identified as "fascist." 

Can we afford to brush them off as mere crackpots? We once laughed Hitler off as a harmless little clown with a funny mustache. 

In January 1944, 30 Americans, many of them native born, were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on charges of conspiring with "the Nazi party to accomplish the objectives of said Nazi party in the United States." These objectives, according to the indictment, included undermining and impairing "the loyalty and morale of the military and naval forces of the United States." The case ended in a mistrial caused by the death of the presiding judge. The question of re-indictment is still under consideration. 

Whenever free governments anywhere fail to solve their basic economic and social problems, there is always the danger that a native brand of fascism will arise to exploit the situation and the people. 
Fascists in America may differ slightly from fascists in other countries, but there are a number of attitudes and practices that they have in common. Following are three. Every person who has one of them is not necessarily a fascist. But he is in a mental state that lends itself to the acceptance of fascist aims. 

1. Pitting of religious, racial, and economic groups against one another in order to break down national unity is a device of the "divide and conquer" technique used by Hitler to gain power in Germany and in other countries. With slight variations, to suit local conditions, fascists everywhere have used this Hitler method. In many countries, anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews) is a dominant device of fascism. In the United States, native fascists have often been anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-Labor, anti- foreign-born. In South America, the native fascists use the same scapegoats except that they substitute anti-Protestantism for anti-Catholicism.
Interwoven with the "master race" theory of fascism is a well-planned "hate campaign" against minority races, religions, and other groups. To suit their particular needs and aims, fascists will use any one or a combination of such groups as a convenient scapegoat. 

2. Fascism cannot tolerate such religious and ethical concepts as the "brotherhood of man." Fascists deny the need for international cooperation. These ideas contradict the fascist theory of the "master race." The brotherhood of man implies that all people — regardless of color, race, creed, or nationality have rights. International cooperation, as expressed in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, runs counter to the fascist program of war and world domination.
In place of international cooperation, the fascists seek to substitute a perverted sort of ultra-nationalism which tells their people that they are the only people in the world who count. With this goes hatred and suspicion toward the people of all other nations. Right now our native fascists are spreading anti-British, anti-Soviet, anti-French, and anti-United Nations propaganda. They know that allied unity now foretells the certain defeat of fascism abroad. They know that post-war allied unity means world peace and security. They realize that fascism cannot thrive or grow under these conditions. 

3. It is accurate to call a member of a communist party a "communist." For short, he is often called a "Red." Indiscriminate pinning of the label "Red" on people and proposals which one opposes is a common political device. It is a favorite trick of native as well as foreign fascists. 
Many fascists make the spurious claim that the world has but two choices — either fascism or communism, and they label as "communist" everyone who refuses to support them. By attacking our free enterprise, capitalist democracy and by denying the effectiveness of our way of life they hope to trap many people.

Hitler insisted that only fascism could save Europe and the world from the "communist menace." There were many people inside and outside Germany and Italy who welcomed and supported Hitler and Mussolini because they believed fascism was the only safe- guard against communism. The "Red bogey" was a convincing enough argument to help Hitler take and maintain power. The Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis, whose aggressions plunged the world into global war, was called the "Anti-Comintern Axis." It was proclaimed by Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito as a "bulwark against communism." 
Learning to identify native fascists and to detect their techniques is not easy. They plan it that way. But it is vitally important to learn to spot them, even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy. (emphasis added)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The thing to compare that with is modern American radical right authoritarianism (ARRA). The three major strains of ARRA vying for wealth and power are (1) DJT’s desire for dictatorship and armed with his demagoguery (dark free speech), (2) plutocrats armed with brass knuckles capitalist ideology and demagoguery, and (3) Christian fundamentalist theocrats armed with Christian nationalist dogma and demagoguery. All three are greedy and kleptocratic. None has much or any social conscience, including concern for the environment or for protecting civil liberties.

The Army’s description of fascist ideology and tactics sounds a lot like the ARRA wealth and power movement. But there seems to be two significant differences that I think I see.
  • It is hard to see any form of the ARRA movement starting to commit mass murder once democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties have been snuffed out. Repression and oppression, yes, mass murder, no. However, at present that outcome cannot be predicted with a high degree of rational confidence. The odds seem to be low, but not zero.
  • It is hard to see any form of the three-headed ARRA movement imploding and morphing into a single headed dictatorship that brutalizes and minimizes the power of the theocrats and plutocrats once democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties have been snuffed out. But, that too cannot be predicted with a high degree of rational confidence. If DJT gets replaced by a more competent and charismatic tyrant wannabe, a dictatorship only outcome becomes more plausible.
Other than those two apparent major differences, what the Army described in 1945 in terms of the fascist mindset and tactics sounds a lot like the mindset and tactics of the one, two or all three strains of the modern ARRA wealth and power movement. Prominent examples are, (i) ARRA propaganda routinely calls the Democratic Party socialist or communist, and (ii) DJT constantly claims the mantle of fighting for the little guy, despite being a blatant elitist who despises the rank and file who support him.


Q: What other significant differences are there between the fascist mindset and tactics and the mindset and tactics of the ARRA movement?


Thanks to Freeze Peach for bringing this gem to my attention.

News bits: Tax increase myths; Court decides on interest conflict; About Sotomayor

Robert Reich debunks 12 popular myths about tax increases for wealthy people. 


Thanks to MC63 for bringing this video to my attention.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

The Hill reports about the judge’s decision to let prosecutor Fanni Willis remain on the case even though her sex affair created an appearance of a conflict of interest:
Georgia Judge Scott McAfee has provided a pathway for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) to move forward with criminally prosecuting former President Trump, but he also gave her a scolding reprimand over a romance with a top prosecutor.

McAfee said Trump’s election interference case can proceed with Willis at the helm so long as her once-romantic partner, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, steps aside. [which he has now done]

His 23-page decision went on to criticize the district attorney at multiple turns — both over the romance itself and her public comments — saying Willis created an appearance of a conflict.

“Our highest courts consistently remind us that prosecutors are held to a unique and exacting professional standard in light of their public responsibility — and their power,” McAfee wrote. “Every newly minted prosecutor should be instilled with the notion that she seeks justice over convictions and that she may strike hard blows but never foul ones.”

While the judge didn’t outright call anyone a liar, he did note “reasonable questions” that Willis and Wade weren’t truthful when they testified under penalty of perjury.

“However, an odor of mendacity remains,” McAfee wrote. “The Court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court. Such an expectation would mean an end to the efficient disposition of criminal and civil proceedings.”
The bit about the odor of mendacity is troubling. DJT is probably going to use this to slow the proceedings. Presumably he will appeal all the way up to the USSC if that is possible. In the end, the Georgia election interference case could just blow up and go away.  

Graham rips ‘nonsensical’ ruling on Fani Willis disqualification: 
‘Today is a sad day for Georgia’

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) criticized Georgia Judge Scott McAfee’s “nonsensical” ruling not to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) for once having a romantic relationship with a prosecutor she appointed to the case against former President Trump.

Graham said “politics” is hanging over the election interference case against Trump and his allies, and McAfee’s decision “reinforces” the narrative of a “two-tiered” justice system going after the defendants.
This decision is not nonsensical. But it is helpful to DJT’s court case and MAGA propaganda generally. Willis really screwed the pooch and all of us she she decided to have sex with a guy she put on the prosecution team. What an idiot move.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

A month or so ago, we all remember that I posted about Sonya Sotomajor pulling a Ruth Bader Ginsberg and dying while DJT was in office again. She travels with a medic in case of a medical emergency. That fact prompted me to instantly think, ‘Aw crud! Here go again. Another RBG is just waiting to happen.’ Welp, fellow worry warts (and other kinds of warts), someone else has the same concern. Bloomberg Law writes
Quiet Fears About Sotomayor Echo Ginsburg Retirement Concerns

Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a point of describing how “tired” she is at a recent public event and how she’s working harder than expected on the eve of turning 70.

But the nation’s first Latina on the US Supreme Court has faced little public pressure from progressives to retire ahead of the November election in which Republicans could regain control of the White House, Senate—or both.

Progressives similarly felt uneasy calling for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to step aside while Barack Obama was in office. Some regretted that silence when her death from pancreatic cancer at 87 mere weeks before the 2020 election paved the way for a 6-3 conservative court.

As was the case with Ginsburg, a feminist icon, there is a sensitivity in pushing for the retirement of the first woman of color to serve on the Supreme Court, said Paul Collins, a legal studies and political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“The optics of that don’t look great in many progressive circles,” said Collins, who co-authored a book on the impacts of race and gender in Supreme Court confirmations.
If the RGB scenario comes to pass, the Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party (formerly the GOP) will have a 7-2 majority. And this time the 7th vote will not be a product of Leonard Leo. It will be a product of a corrupt, bigoted authoritarian horror that DJT and MAGAlandia elites dredge up out of the sewer.

Just my humble opinion.

DJTs next nominee in action 😮

A THREAD ABOUT A WEAK WEST

 I have long been amused and disheartened by the west's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Here I am, a liberal Snowflake, typically against military interventions, wondering how in the world we could have lost our hawkishism. One reason, maybe the only reason, we may have needed a Nikki Haley.

What is typical in leftist circles, is something left over from failed wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We shouldn't be interfering in the affairs of other nations.

All of the above and below are my own personal observations. I will not be posting any links to any publications to give me the ideas I have circulating around in my head. So here goes..........

The west has gone soft. Dangerously soft. In my opinion. Iran may well achieve it's goal of building a nuke. Israel may well take care of that problem on it's own. Because we in the west don't have the balls any longer to stop Iran from doing so. If Israel does so the west will turn even MORE against Israel than it already has. That is how we roll now. 

When Russia invaded two territories belonging at the time to Georgia, the west barely blinked. Ditto when Russia invaded Crimea. The west kept believing, as did the leftist snowflakes, that surely that would be the end of Putin's adventurism. Guess what? And yet we keep hearing from the same leftist snowflakes that Russia will stop after they have taken Ukraine. 

Here is how Russia should have been dealt with and can still be dealt with. Be prepared. You are going to hear things from this liberal snowflake you would never have expected to hear from him.

After the invasion of Crimea, massive amounts of weapons, including offensive weapons, should have been shipped to Ukraine. NATO forces should have been stationed in Ukraine. Massive financial aide should have been given to Ukraine. Pre-emptive. 

Next: why do we still have pro-Russian regimes like Cuba still on our doorsteps? It would only take a minimum effort to remove the commies once and for all from Cuba. Ditto with Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Go in full force, take the governing regimes out. Would help enormously with illegal immigration as well. Those invasions would actually be humanitarian since people suffer in those countries.

But too late now. So what can the west do now? 

They could still take out the commie regime in Cuba at the bare minimum. Get it done!

And get this - Russia has now shipped nukes to Belarus and barely a blink from the west. Again acting like chickens. If Russia can ship nukes to Belarus then the west can ship some nukes to Poland, the Baltics, Finland. 

The west can also send combat troops to Ukraine. Never mind that congress is tying up aide to Ukraine. NATO can send troops. They do not need to be employed offensively but employed to defend the Capital of Ukraine and it's larger cities. Even offensively, what is Russia going to do, threaten us with nukes? THAT threat alone has already caused the lilly livered west to quake in their boots. Seriously?

Clearly we need another John F. Kennedy who had no problem facing the Ruskies down. Putin is bluffing. If the west had nukes placed in NATO countries bordering Russia, I think that would send a clear message. The counter-argument would be "but that would only provoke Putin." Imagine how Putin must be laughing at us. Mind you, the US had to be dragged into WWII because peaceniks didn't want us involved. Only an invasion on Pearl Harbor woke us up from our slumbers. 

What will it take this time? NK hitting us with a nuke? Russia invading a NATO country? When will the west grow a spine?

BTW, none of this rant is about making a suggestion about who should be Prez. Biden, in this department has been weak. Congress is just as or more weak. Trump would be worse. Bring on Nikki Haley or someone on the D side (if there is anyone) with the determination to take on Putin. 

BEFORE IT'S TOO DAMN LATE!

Friday, March 15, 2024

News chunk 'n bits: Trickle down economics trickles up; The Biden impeachment

A WaPo opinion by Jennifer Rubin discusses the evidence that trickle down economics cause wealth to flow up to the top, increasing inequality:
‘Trickle-down economics’ is a scam that ignores decades of evidence

Like climate change denial, the claimed economic benefits of tax cuts for the rich don’t hold up under scrutiny. .... Republicans often reply: “But look at the growth and jobs!” Actually, we have seen a steady stream of evidence debunking this rationale.

Last July, NEC Director Lael Brainard laid out the overwhelming evidence that “trickle-down” economics — defined as “cutting taxes for big businesses and those at the top” — has been a bust.

“Economic inequality increased, many communities suffered from sustained disinvestment, and earnings growth for many Americans failed to keep pace with the cost of necessities like health care, housing, and education,” she said. “Investments in infrastructure and vital industries stagnated.”

This isn’t new evidence, either. A 2020 paper by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London examined “18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015,” CBS News reported. “The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn’t, and then examined their economic outcomes.” It turns out that “per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn’t, the study found.”

But there was one significant difference: “The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.” Oops.

Well, what about the huge tax cuts passed by MAGA Republicans in 2017? Were those any different? “Mr. Trump’s tax cuts have lifted the fortunes of the ultra-rich,” the report found. “For the first time in a century, the 400 richest American families paid lower taxes in 2018 than people in the middle class, the economists found.”  
But economic growth made up for this handout, right?! Not so fast. Wages for average Americans did not keep up with the cost of living. Worse, “Even before the pandemic, income inequality had reached its highest point in 50 years, according to Census data,” as CBS News reported. And, before Biden came into office, income inequality worsened as the pandemic hurt the less-well-off more severely than it did the rich.
We all knew it, but a reminder is useful.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

The NYT reports that House TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) elites are getting worried that they will never be able to impeach president Biden. Instead, they want to send a slew of criminal referrals to the DoJ against Joe and his family in a desperate move to save face and make it look like they are not being “political.” 

Mr. Armstrong said he believed criminal referrals were the much more likely outcome. Mr. Armstrong suggested House Republicans could make referrals regarding alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act in connection with international business deals by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, and suggested that the Justice Department investigate accusations of obstruction.

“I’m still interested in why we haven’t gotten better answers on the whole-of-government approach to obstructing all of these investigations,” Mr. Armstrong said.

Given how jaw-droppingly incompetent and politically stupid Merrick Garland is, he will probably comply and start investigations so as not to look political. The disaster called the TTKP is un-effing believable. So is Garland. 

I still remember those 4 or 5 slam dunk obstruction of justice felonies that DJT committed to subvert the Mueller investigation. Garland still has not lifted a finger to prosecute America’s loud and proud Felon-in-Chief. Fire Garland. Lest we forget, here is a four felony obstruction analysis that Law Fare published in 2019:

And here is a five felony analysis by a different attorney:

___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Crackpottery from Lindellandia: This is sort of about the 2020 stolen election lie, more or less. Raw Story reports that Mike Lindell backed away from showing the public explosive evidence that would shatter modern civilization and destroy everything, leaving Earth a lifeless ball of rock, microplastics and Teslas (Teslae?) with discharged battery packs:
“The Supreme Court case, the lawyers will be turning it in later on on Thursday,” Lindell said of his purported evidence. “We were going to do it right on-site at the Supreme Court, but they said, no, Mike, it's too risky.”

“It’s going to be too dangerous,” he added. “The evidence we’re going to put in this case has never been seen before. And the only reason we’re able to do it is because they kicked this case out on standing. Had they not done that, we wouldn’t be able to add this new evidence.”

“And it is so explosive.”

One might have realized from this blither that the nutter Lindell is well past bat guano crazy. Maybe people have to go to Lindell’s personal website, where they may or may not be asked to buy pillows, before they can see the explosive evidence. Maybe the evidence will cause people’s computers to explode. Who knows? One peanut in the gallery commented astutely: This guy is so full of shit his breath stinks!

Also note, that the USSC does not determine the actuality or legal relevance of evidence. That is the job of trial courts and discovery demands. American politics has officially hit ludicrous speed!

What ludicrous speed looks like

Direct threats from Christianlandia: 

“The government doesn’t make the law. The people rise up, power rises up from the people and the people make the law. And that law should be in accordance with God’s word and the conscience. And these federal laws are restricting both of those things. So when this authority – namely the federal government – commands what God has forbidden or has not required, second – whenever it forbids what God commands or has not forbidden, third – whenever it oversteps its constitutional jurisdiction, or fourth – binds the conscience that God alone has jurisdiction, we – those who are their authority – we are the authority for the federal government in this situation, we are not to obey them whenever they take tyrannical action.” – Christian nationalist Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers.
Notice the nonsense in Deevers’ deranged blither? The people make the law but God makes the law and those [mostly White males] who claim God’s authority are God’s authority, whatever that might be. Or something like that.




And that is all the politics fit to print. Hi yo Silver, ludicrous speed away!