Archives for category: Justice

Rudy Guiliani admitted that he defamed two Georgia election workers by accusing them of fraudulently switching ballots. The two are mother and daughter Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. As a result of his repeated accusations on national television, which were repeated by Trump, calling them out by name, the pair were subjected to continual threats, harassment, and intimidation. They are suing Guiliani for a sum between $15.5 million and $43.5 million. Jury selection begins today.

The showdown between the financially strapped Giuliani and the two temporary poll workers he baselessly accused of ballot tampering in 2020 will highlight a major court battle over false claims that became central to former president Donald Trump’s efforts to stay in power and is now at the heart of two criminal cases against him.


U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell has already found Giuliani liable for more than a dozen defamatory statements against Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss, who are mother and daughter, leaving a jury of eight only to decide how much he should pay in damages for violent threats and harassment the pair received. Howell previously ordered Giuliani to pay the women $230,000 in legal fees and sanctions for failing to turn over relevant information. She said those failures, combined with Giuliani’s own admissions, compelled her to rule without a trial that he defamed both women, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on them as part of a civil conspiracy, and owes punitive damages.

If you want to hear the details of what happened to them, watch this clip from the Rachel Maddow show. In addition to hearing their story, you will also hear testimony from the #2 official at the Justice Department, Richard Donahue, who testified to the January 6 Commission that he met with Trump and told him that the Justice Department had investigated all his claims of election fraud and found no evidence for them.

At the recent conference of the Network for Public Education, one of the truly outstanding speakers was Dr. Marvin Dunn, professor emeritus at Florida International University. Dr. Dunn has written several books about Black history in Florida, most notably A History of Florida Through Black Eyes. I read that book and realized that Dr. Dunn was the right recipient for NPE’s annual “David Award,” which goes to someone who spoke out and acted on behalf of justice against the powerful, regardless of the personal risks.

Dr. Dunn is not only an author but an active preservationist of Black history. To make sure that the massacre at Rosewood, Florida, would never be forgotten, he bought five acres there and regularly brings students and teachers to learn about it. He tells the story of visiting his land with his son; a “neighbor” tried to run them over in his truck. Dr. Dunn filed a complaint with the police, and the man was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Dr. Dunn asked to have the sentence reduced, and it was dropped to only one year. The audience was impressed by his generosity of spirit. However, Dr. Dunn tweeted several weeks later that the now-released felon hung a toy skeleton where Dr. Dunn could see it. You don’t need to study Critical Race Theory to know that Racism lives.

I think you will agree that his remarks are highly inspiring.

Arthur Camins writes in The Daily Kos about the war in the Middle East:

So many people I speak with are feeling torn and conflicted. They that say they are afraid to criticize either Hamas or Israel for fear of being attacked for taking one side or the other. I say: If you stand for the human rights and dignity of all, the sides to choose between in the latest Middle East conflict are not the Hamas or Israeli governments. Instead, choose their people.

No, the sides to choose between are:

• Accepting the death of innocent civilians as collateral damage as the price of victory of “our side.”

Or

• Finding the path to peace that starts with mutual respect for democracy and human rights for all.

Neither Hamas nor Israel represents that latter choice. Their behavior says the opposite. So, I condemn both without implied approval of either.

If a path to peace, democracy, and human rights for Israelis and Palestinians–and safety for Jews and Palestinians around the world–are the goals, then attempting to determine moral equivalencies between the behavior of Hamas and the Israeli government is a dead-end.

I also see no need for those of us in the United States to promote a one- or two-state solution. That is up to the people of Israel and Palestine, hopefully with a rejection of both Hamas and the Netanyahu governments, rejection of the primacy of any religion over another or none at all.

Anything short of Israeli abandonment of its illegal settlements in the West Bank and assurance of full Palestinian rights is a non-starter.

A lot of digital ink has been spilled over the definitional accuracy of the terms, war crimes and genocide. We can have that debate, but it deflects attention from the necessary condemnations. It abets useless “whataboutism” rather than forging a path forward.

I am not a pacifist, but I explicitly reject two rationalizations for the murder of innocents: Palestinians have a right to resistance by any means necessary, and Israel has a right to defend itself.

I’m not against resistance to oppression, but that does not include murder and hostage-taking of innocent civilians. I am not opposed to defense against attack, but that does not include bombing and depriving innocent civilians of food, fuel, water, and healthcare.

In the current circumstances, both Hamas and Israel claim that the intransigence, crimes, and inhumanity of the other side justifies their actions. They do not.

Condemnation of both Hamas’s and Israel’s actions is the starting point for any moral and political commitments to working across differences to achieve the safety, respect, democracy, and rights that Palestinians and Israelis deserve.

Empathy is a precondition to peace and justice. If we can imagine the pain and grief of Israelis who lost friends, neighbors, and loved ones to the latest Hamas or any terrorist attack, we must also imagine the loss and suffering of Gazans from the Israeli bombing and blockade. We must also imagine being displaced when our land and homes are violently stolen by illegal settlers.

Call your U.S. Senators and House Representatives. Tell them that a ceasefire, a halt to further military aid, and humanitarian aid to Gazans are the necessary first steps.

Arthur taught and led science professional learning and curriculum and assessment development projects for 50 yrs. He writes about education and social justice. He loves spending time with friends and family, hiking, and gardening.

Oklahoma has a major charter scandal on its hands, which has not dampened the enthusiasm of the Republican Governor, legislators, and state superintendent for charters and vouchers.

EPIC Charter Schools opened in Oklahoma in 2011. It was the state’s first online school and was hailed for its innovative delivery of education. As early as 2013, authorities suspected financial irregularities. Not until 2019 did the public learned that EPIC was under state investigation for embezzling money and inflating its enrollment. The founders tried to block the investigation by insisting that they were a private business and could not be audited. The company collected tuition from the state and retained 10% of its revenues. The state auditor estimated that EPIC’s founders inappropriately diverted $22 million.

But now the founders face new charges of financial crimes.

Founders of Epic Charter Schools are facing new charges of money laundering and presenting false claims to the state, bringing the total number of charges to 15.

Epic co-founders David Chaney and Ben Harris and Chief Financial Officer Josh Brock, were arrested and charged with a list of felonies in June 2022. Charges included racketeering, embezzlement of state funds, and obtaining money by false pretense.

The amount of diverted money so far totals $30 million. Republicans complain about public schools, but no district superintendent or principal has ever been accused of massive crimes like those of EPIC. Let it be noted that virtual charter schools have been the source of the biggest financial crimes.

In Indiana, state officials sued two defunct virtual charters for defrauding the state of $154 million.

In California, the A3 online charter chain was charged with defrauding the state of $400 million.

Sean McManus of Australia, along with Jason Schrock of Long Beach, led a statewide charter school scheme from 2016 to 2019 in which they used a network of mostly online charter schools to defraud the state of approximately $400 million and used $50 million of that amount for personal use. They did so by falsely enrolling students and manipulating enrollment and attendance reporting across their schools to get more money per student than schools are supposed to, prosecutors said.

In Ohio, the state paid the owner of the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) about $1 billion, despite its abysmal graduation rates and scores. When the state auditor demanded repayment of $60 million for phantom students, ECOT declared bankruptcy.

In Pennsylvania, the founder of the Pennsylvania CyberCharter School was sentenced to 20 months in prison for pocketing $8 million.

No matter how many frauds are committed by Cybercharters, they do not lose their luster. Why? Usually, they give generous political contributions.

E.J. Dionne is a thoughtful columnist for the Washington Post. He writes here about the extremists on the left who defend the terrorism and butchery by Hamas. I repost his article because his views are similar to my own. I deplore the callousness and undemocratic policies of the Netanyahu regime. I support a two-state solution. I hope for the day that Israel and its neighbors are willing and able to collaborate to improve the standard of living for everyone in the region. And I deplore the horrific terrorism that Hamas inflicted on Israeli civilians of all ages on October 7. Hamas knew that their attack would provoke a ferocious response by Israel, and that the world would react with fury towards Israel. Hamas uses the Gazans as human shields.

I hope that Netanyahu is permanently disgraced by his failure to seek reconciliation and by the security lapses that allowed Hamas to slaughter civilians. I hope that everyone involved in the attack on Israel is captured and punished. I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and pray for the safety of innocent Palestinians and for a swift end to the Army’s incursion. Above all, I pray for peace among the Israelis and their neighbors.

He writes:

A conversation I had last week with a progressive Jewish friend is, I think, representative of many discussions happening on the left. Most liberals are horrified and outraged over Hamas’s killings and kidnappings in southern Israel but also strongly support a Palestinian state and are deeply critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

My friend anguished over parts of the left — yes, they are very vocal online but a tiny minority of a broader movement — that not only failed to condemn Hamas’s atrocities but in some cases justified terrorist acts against innocents, many of them left-wing Israelis in kibbutzim who long for peace based on justice for Palestinians and Israelis alike. For my friend, this moral failure signaled that antisemitism had embedded itself in the wing of politics with which she has long identified.

To comment on this intra-left controversy risks distorting the political stakes, since there is a rare consensus in mainstream politics that Hamas’s terrorism was “an act of sheer evil,” as President Biden said in his powerful speechon Tuesday. Little pockets of sympathy for Hamas will have no effect on U.S. politics going forward. The important contrast is between the moral and strategic seriousness of Biden’s response and the petty, unhinged and self-involved rantings of Donald Trump. Maybe, just maybe, Americans pondering a vote for the former president will see more clearly that returning him to the White House would be an act of democratic suicide.

But liberals and supporters of the democratic left like to pride ourselves on being sensitive to injustice, decent in our instincts and capable of making distinctions. To rationalize the sadistic crimes of Hamas meets none of these standards. Doing so also undercuts the arguments that the vast majority on left wants to make about the future of Israel and Palestine.

It’s true that years of right-wing governance in Israel, the spread of settlements on the West Bank and the assault on democracy by the Netanyahu government have altered the balance of forces on the left. Older liberals such as Biden (and, yes, I’m in that camp) have an unshakable and ingrained sympathy for the survival of a Jewish homeland in Israel, while also empathizing with the injustices and suffering that Palestinians confront. We continue to support an increasingly distant two-state solution precisely because we want the Jewish homeland to be democratic and we want Palestinians to have a democratic government of their own.

But the destruction of Israel would be a moral catastrophe, and Hamas longs for that outcome.

Unlike the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Palestinian citizens of Israel, Hamas is explicitly antisemitic and will accept nothing short of the end of Israel. Netanyahu thought he could keep Hamas in check and ignore Palestinians, who, like so many of the Israelis slaughtered in the south, were willing to take risks for peace. The strategy of containing Hamas and privileging settlements on the West Bank has failed in an abysmal and tragic way.

The sharp turn to the right in Israel that Netanyahu engineered has undercut support for the country among younger Americans in the United States. Most of these increasingly vocal critics have resisted supporting Hamas, but the gut liberal sympathy for Israel has largely disappeared among those born after Biden’s generation and mine. If Hamas’s shameful attack has mostly restored consensus in the Democratic Party around the need to defend Israel against mass terrorism, the underlying opposition to Israel’s settlement policies and its refusal to engage with Palestinian demands for self-determination remains.

The shock of these traumatic events should shake everyone into a reassessment rooted in moral realism. As my Post colleague Max Bootargued last week, the imperative of accountability should lead eventually to Netanyahu’s ouster. Even as supporters of Israel stand up for its right to self-defense, analysts with long experience in the Middle East, including Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times and The Post’s David Ignatius, warn of the dangers of overreach in Gaza. Having reported alongside them and learned from them during the war in Lebanon in the 1980s, I share their skepticism of grand military plans that promise to settle a conflict for good. We have seen too many such promises fail in the Middle East. And Biden was right in his speech to call attention to moral obligations that apply even in legitimate wars of self-preservation.

The left should not stop advocating on behalf of justice for Palestinians. And Israel’s center and left should not stop demanding that Netanyahu’s plans to undercut the country’s judiciary be shelved permanently. But terrorism will not create a more democratic Israel or lead to self-determination for Palestinians. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is rife with ambiguities and conflicting moral claims. This cannot be said of what Hamas did. Its actions are, exactly as Biden said, unambiguously evil.

Our Supreme Court used to be an institution that all Americans could rely on to be impeccably honest, nonpartisan, and fair-minded. Tge Court occasionally issued unanimous decisions.

No more.

Several justices have been criticized for accepting money from people or groups with issues before the Court.

None is more profligate in accepting gifts of great value than Justice Clarence Thomas.

ProPublica, a nonpartisan investigative website, has reported on Justice Thomas’s acceptance of many expensive gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow. Vacations, private jets, tuition for his nephew, the purchase of his mother’s home, etc.

Now ProPublica reports that Justice Thomas attended Koch events as a draw to bring in additional donors to Koch’s campaigns to privatize schools, cut taxes on billionaires, and undercut all government programs. Charles Koch and his late brother David had interest in many cases before the Court, but Thomas never revealed his ties to the billionaires nor did he recuse himself.

ProPublica wrote:

On Jan. 25, 2018, dozens of private jets descended on Palm Springs International Airport. Some of the richest people in the country were arriving for the annual winter donor summit of the Koch network, the political organization founded by libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch. A long weekend of strategizing, relaxation in the California sun and high-dollar fundraising lay ahead.

Just after 6 p.m., a Gulfstream G200 jet touched down on the tarmac. One of the Koch network’s most powerful allies was on board: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

During the summit, the justice went to a private dinner for the network’s donors. Thomas has attended Koch donor events at least twice over the years, according to interviews with three former network employees and one major donor. The justice was brought in to speak, staffers said, in the hopes that such access would encourage donors to continue giving.

That puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has brought cases before the Supreme Court, including one of the most closely watched of the upcoming term.

Thomas never reported the 2018 flight to Palm Springs on his annual financial disclosure form, an apparent violation of federal law requiring justices to report most gifts. A Koch network spokesperson said the network did not pay for the private jet. Since Thomas didn’t disclose it, it’s not clear who did pay.

Thomas’ involvement in the events is part of a yearslong, personal relationship with the Koch brothers that has remained almost entirely out of public view. It developed over years of trips to the Bohemian Grove, a secretive all-men’s retreat in Northern California. Thomas has been a regular at the Grove for two decades, where he stayed in a small camp with real estate billionaire Harlan Crow and the Kochs, according to records and people who’ve spent time with him there.

Please open the link and keep reading.

The Koch’s invested well. In a 2021 decision, called Americans for Prosperity v. Rob Bonta, Justice Thomas concurred that it violated the first amendment rights of Koch donors (dark money) to require them to disclose their names. Rob Bonta W’s the Attorney General of California, who was trying to force disclosure of the names of donors to the Koch group called Americans for Prosperity.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat is an expert on fascism and authoritarianism. She teaches European history at New York university. I subscribe to her blog Lucid, where this post appeared. The acquittal of a corrupt State Attorney General is a warning to the nation about what the GOP has become (if further warning were needed).

She writes:

For two reasons, it’s unsurprising that Paxton was acquitted of all charges by his cronies in the Texas Senate. The Texas GOP is one of the most extreme in the nation. Paxton has been a vociferous supporter of Trump’s claim that Trump won the 2020 election. In October 2021 Paxton, a hard-core Trump defender, characterized Joe Biden’s presence in the White House as an “overthrow” –the word implying that Biden pulled off a coup to take power.

A 2022 Texas GOP resolution expands on this attempt to make Biden a lawless figure: it calls him an illegitimate and “acting” president. For those who study authoritarianism, this is a red flag: it not only discredits Biden but implies that he won’t be there for long and can be removed at any time..

The logic of corruption also matters here. The GOP has embraced the methods and values of authoritarianism. It now depends on propaganda (the “Big Lie”), intimidation, and corruption –election denial being a form of corruption–for its identity and to maintain itself in power. In particular, it is a party that has remade itself in Trump’s image, with the goal of protecting the corrupt and the criminal dictating its actions.

With its leader and many luminaries now indicted for trying to overturn the 2020 election, and those running for president pledging on live television that they will support a convicted criminal as nominee, it is dangerous for the GOP to stand up at the state level for accountability. How much more appropriate to keep a corrupt attorney general in office. Authoritarianism is rule by the lawless. At its peak, as in the states of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, authoritarianism becomes political rule in support of kleptocracy.

The dangers of accountability, transparency, impartial investigation and other bedrock values of democracy for authoritarian leaders and parties is why these inevitably go after members of the press and the judiciary and often the intelligence sector as well. In the American case, this motivates attacks against the FBI, which is still investigating Paxton (who also faces a state securities fraud case).

In the short term, Paxton will be further emboldened to aggressively undermine the rule of law in his state. On cue, Paxton denounced the “weaponization of the impeachment process to settle political differences.” No matter that the GOP as a whole is seeking to impeach Biden, at Trump’s bidding, to “settle political differences” and take revenge on Biden for having committed the sin of having been legally elected to the office of the presidency.

For the authoritarians of the GOP, who no longer see free and fair elections as valid ways of deciding America’s leadership, that amounts to an “overthrow,” to use Paxton’s word. This is where the GOP is now.

The Texas Observer is a feisty journal that specializes in investigative journalism. Like all such media that live to fight the powerful and the corrupt, it survives by a shoestring. I have a special fondness for the Ibserver because that was where I published my first article after finishing college.

What can one say about disgraced Attorney General Ken Paxton’s acquittal in his impeachment trial other than there seems to be no justice or accountability for flagrant public corruption in Texas. “While Paxton is back in power, his troubles aren’t over,” writes Senior Staff Writer Justin Miller. “Next month, he’ll finally go to trial on the state securities fraud charges for which he was indicted nearly a decade ago. Then, there’s the federal investigation into him for the very same allegations that brought his impeachment.”

Justin Miller wrote:

Impeached but not convicted, Ken Paxton is returning to helm the Texas Attorney General’s office.

After a nearly-two week trial and hours of private deliberation, the Texas Senate voted to acquit Paxton on all 16 of the articles of impeachment that were brought to trial by the House. No single vote came close to reaching the two-thirds majority required to convict, and only two Republicans—Senators Kelly Hancock and Robert Nichols—joining Democrats on most articles.

Having spent his political career dodging legal and ethical challenges, Paxton’s acquittal of impeachment charges involving serious and sweeping corruption allegations marks a whole new level of victory for the attorney general.

His impeachment stemmed from several of his top deputies reporting him to the FBI after coming to believe that Paxton may have committed crimes and abused his office by providing extraordinary access and favors to his friend and campaign donor Nate Paul, a real estate investor in Austin. All of those deputies then either resigned or were fired.

Some of those deputies filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the AG’s office, which was fought for over two years, and finally reached a settlement in the beginning of this year. Then, a Texas House committee began secretly investigating the nature of that settlement and the whistleblowers’ complaint, culminating in a sudden-onset impeachment vote against Paxton at the every end of the 2023 legislative session.

Paxton’s impeachment trial in the Senate was full of drama and tension, with the public hearing directly from many of the people—including the whistleblowers—involved in these allegations for the first time. One of the strangest moments came on Thursday, when Paxton’s adulterous girlfriend Laura Olson showed up at the capitol to testify, only to leave before taking the stand—explained only in an announcement by Lieutenant Governor that she was deemed “unavailable” to testify.

In the defense’s closing arguments, Houston lawyer Tony Buzbee condemned, vilified, mocked and threatened the House, the prosecution team, the “so-called whistleblowers,” the media, and the political establishment for trying to take down Paxton on a bunch of unverified “maybes” and “could-be’s.” This echoed the defense’s consistent theme throughout the trial that this was all part of a dark conspiracy by establishment Republicans to take down Paxton after failing to defeat him at the ballot box….

After the final votes were taken, Dan Patrick–who presided over the trial as judge—didn’t waste a second letting his true feelings be known after being largely silent over the preceding three months.

He unleashed a tirade against the House and its Speaker Dade Phelan for the rushed and half-cocked process for impeaching Paxton in the first place. Patrick promised that he would push to pass constitutional amendments in the next session that would reform the state’s impeachment laws. Prior to the trial, Patrick’s campaign received $3 millionfrom the pro-Paxton PAC Defend Texas Liberty…

While Paxton is back in power, his troubles aren’t over. Next month, he’ll finally go to trial on the state securities fraud charges for which he was indicted nearly a decade ago. Then, there’s the federal investigation into him for the very same allegations that brought his impeachment.

With the help of an outside pressure campaign led by billionaire allies, Paxton survived this political trial. Can he do the same in an actual court?

Who were his billionaire allies? The Texas Monthly says that Paxton’s bills were paid by the same evangelical Texas billionaires who are funding the voucher campaign.

Much of that money [for Paxton’s defense] came from a Midland oilman named Tim Dunn. Dunn was a strong, ideological right-winger and an evangelical Christian who had helped Republicans beat back the Democratic wave and shore up control of the House in 2010. (Dunn was joined by other donors, and later his money was greatly supplemented by oilmen Dan and Farris Wilks, but he was, and is, the whale.) After the election, Straus invited Dunn to breakfast at the Capitol, hoping to establish some rapport and lines of communication. Dunn seemed uninterested for many reasons, but one in particular: Straus was the state’s first Jewish Speaker. Only Christians should be in leadership positions, Dunn told the Speaker. Straus settled in for a long siege.

Funny how issues like vouchers, vote suppression, abortion, attacks on gay rights, and disrespect for Black history get intertwined.

Blogger Robert Hubbell explains why Trump will force Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. to lock him up. With his insults directed at judges, prosecutors, and potential witnesses, he is encouraging political violence.

He wrote:

Trump knows that a jury of his peers will convict him in a fair trial. He has therefore resorted to extra-judicial efforts to intimidate and prejudice the jury pool. His efforts are not only extra-judicial, they are undemocratic, thuggish, and illegal. Like a crime lord with feral instincts, Trump knows how to threaten without threatening and brutalize without leaving fingerprints at the scene of the crime. Instead, he grants permission to his followers to violate laws and norms, encouraging them to do the dirty work necessary to defend the indefensible.


Over the last several days, the breadth and viciousness of Trump’s assault on the legal system became manifest as MAGA extremists attacked the judge and jurors in Trump’s various criminal proceedings. Before reviewing the latest insults to the rule of law, let’s skip to the end to discuss the solution: We must recognize that Trump is engaged in political terrorism designed to frighten good people who are the backbone of democracy. We cannot let that happen. The solution is not to shrink in fear, but to swell in numbers, strengthen our resolve, and dispel the exaggerated fears created by a skulk of cowards who hide in internet shadows.


In America, there is an ever-present risk of violence that cannot be entirely dismissed. Law enforcement and prosecutors should, therefore, vigorously pursue and prosecute the small, frightened, impotent cultists who threaten jurors, judges, and prosecutors. But we must recognize that the business model of political terrorism is for a few individuals to instill outsized and unwarranted fear in the masses. Recognizing that truth should allow us to keep in perspective the fact that a few thousand online pseudo-terrorists vanish to nothingness compared to 335 million Americans.


America is bigger than Trump and his minions. We should not cower in fear but should pursue justice with confidence and righteousness. We are protecting the Constitution and our system of laws. We cannot fail in that task—and there is nothing that cowards with keyboards can do to deter us.


Against that background, let’s look at the events on the ground.


Abigail Jo Shry of Alvin, Texas, threatened Judge Tanya Chutkan in a voicemail message that began with racial slurs and ended with threats of violence. Shry was quickly questioned, arrested, and charged in federal court. The magistrate ordered that she remain in pretrial detention for at least 30 days pending a determination of her danger to the community. That is type of federal response that will deter future threats….

There have also been threats against members of the Fulton County grand jury that indicted Trump and eighteen other defendants on RICO charges. See NYTimes, Officials Investigate Threats Against Trump Grand Jurors in Georgia (accessible to all). The Fulton County sheriff issued an anodyne statement acknowledging the threats and stating that the sheriff was investigating. (The statement said the sheriff was “aware of online threats against grand jurors and was working with other agencies to track down their origin.”)

A stronger statement from the sheriff and the quick arrest of several perpetrators would go some distance to damping the false bravado of other beer-fueled couch terrorists. A stronger reaction is necessary because the online threats are directed not only against the grand jurors, but future jurors who will preside over Trump’s criminal trials.

But there is more.

Trump released a video in which he attacked special prosecutor Jack Smith as a “deranged lowlife” for obtaining Trump’s Twitter feed. See Forbes, Trump Attacks Jack Smith For Gaining Access To His Old Twitter Account. This is the type of statement that should cause Judge Tanya Chutkan to remand Trump into custody. At the very least, the statement should be added to the list of offenses that will finally cause Trump to be detained pending trial.

Detaining Trump before tria is not only inevitable but also necessary. Trump’s continued attacks are having a corrosive effect that seeps into the nooks and crannies of the justice system everywhere. Many readers have commented on the raid on a Kansas newspaper because of efforts by the newspaper to report on the failure of local police to enforce DUI laws against a local businessman. Based on a questionable search warrant issued by a local magistrate, police seized computers, cell phones, and files—a gross violation of federal protections granted to members of the news media.

The public outcry and obvious illegality of the seizure forced the police to return the seized items and the local prosecutor to withdraw the questionable warrant due to ‘insufficient evidence’. But the question remains, “How could this happen? How is it that local police and magistrate could ignore constitutional and statutory protections for the press?” Some of the sordid answers are detailed in this investigative piece by The Wichita Eagle, Judge Laura Viar, who approved newspaper raid, has DUI arrests.

Apart from the local magistrate’s questionable potential bias due to her own history of DUI troubles, another answer is that the police and magistrate are modeling themselves after a national GOP in which the rule of law is an impediment to power. In short, they thought they could get away with trampling the Constitution. Fortunately, they were wrong—and will likely be charged with crimes and serve time in jail. As should Trump.

If Americans see that Trump is punished for his attacks on the justice system pending trial, others will realize that they, too, must respect the justice system. We owe the Constitution nothing less.

Robert Hubbell shares some interesting and informative comments about our Supreme Court, which seems determined to roll back the past century of social progress. The Court is whittling away—in some cases, hacking away—at our rights. Whereas we long believed that the High Court would always defend the rights of citizens, we can no longer count on it. The Court majority seems determined to impose a far-right “Originalist” philosophy on the entire nation. Of course, if they were really Originalists, pretending that it was 1790, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas would resign at once. The Founding Fathers never imagined that women and Blacks would vote, become lawyers and judges. Resign, Amy and Clarence.

Robert Hubbell writes:

Last week’s rulings from the Supreme Court continue to lead the news as the nation celebrates the 4th of July holiday. The Washington Post’s headline reads Biden faces renewed pressure to embrace Supreme Court overhaul. The details matter less than the fact that the notion of Supreme Court reform is the top story on a day when the Court issued no opinions. And the Supreme Court is top of mind for many readers, many of whom recommended articles and action items for other readers in yesterday’s Comment section. Chief among those recommendations was Rebecca Solnit’s exhortation in The Guardian, The US supreme court has dismantled our rights but we still believe in them. Now we must fight.

Solnit is a gifted writer who hit the mark in capturing the feelings of millions of Americans. She first addresses the feelings of anger and frustration about a Court that is out of control:

The first thing to remember about the damage done by the US supreme court this June and the June before is that each majority decision overturns a right that we had won. [¶]

Each of those victories was hard-won, often by people who began when the rights and protections they sought seemed inconceivable, then unlikely, then remote, and so goes the road of profound change almost every time. [¶]

To recognize the power of this change requires a historical memory. . . . Memory is a superpower, because memory of how these situations changed is a memory of our victories and our power. Each of these victories happened both through the specifics of campaigns to change legislation but also through changing the public imagination. The supreme court can dismantle the legislation but they cannot touch the beliefs and values.

In words that I wish I had written, Solnit urges us to action:

[H]istory shows us that when we come together with ferocious commitment to a shared goal we can be more powerful than institutions and governments. The right would like us to feel defeated and powerless. We can feel devastated and still feel powerful or find our power. This is not a time to quit. It’s a time to fight.

Other readers shared Jennifer Rubin’s op-ed in The Washington Post, Self-government is worth defending from an illegitimate Supreme Court.

On this Independence Day, we should reaffirm the twin pillars of democracy: Voters (not the mob) pick their leaders, and elected leaders (not unelected judges) make policy decisions for which they are held accountable.

On this Independence Day, we should reaffirm the twin pillars of democracy: Voters (not the mob) pick their leaders, and elected leaders (not unelected judges) make policy decisions for which they are held accountable.

Rubin identifies the many ways in which the Court has strayed from its legitimate role as a judicial body (familiar ground for readers of this newsletter) but highlights the particularly destructive role of the “Major Questions Doctrine.” That judge-made doctrine arrogates to the Court the right to overturn any decision by a federal agency with which the reactionary majority disagrees. The pseudo-rationale for the doctrine is that if Congress intends to delegate discretion to federal agencies on “major questions,” it should use a level of specificity that is to the liking of the Supreme Court.

Says who?

The doctrine was invented from whole cloth to justify judicial activism in service of an anti-government agenda. As Jennifer Rubin writes,

The mumbo-jumbo “major questions doctrine” is not the stuff of judging. No wonder the chief justice got touchy when Kagan pointed out that the court “is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like student-loan relief.”

Ian Millhiser explains the Major Questions Doctrine in detail in his article in Vox, entitled, The Supreme Court’s student loan decision in Biden v. Nebraska is lawless and completely partisan. Millhiser does not mince words:

Let’s not beat around the bush. The Supreme Court’s decision in Biden v. Nebraska, the one canceling President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, is complete and utter nonsense. It rewrites a federal law which explicitly authorizes the loan forgiveness program, and it relies on a fake legal doctrine known as “major questions” which has no basis in any law or any provision of the Constitution.

Roberts’s opinion in Nebraska effectively overrules the decision of both elected branches of government. It overrides Congress’s unambiguous decision to give this power to the secretary of Education. And it overrules the executive branch’s judgment about how to exercise the authority that Congress gave it. As Kagan writes in dissent, “the Secretary did only what Congress had told him he could.”

Like Rebecca Solnit, Jennifer Rubin ends her op-ed on a note of optimism and determination to right the wrongs of the Court:

On this Independence Day, which celebrates rebellion against a monarch lacking consent of the governed, it behooves us to dedicate ourselves to robust and authentic democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people — not by arrogant right-wing justices….

Without regard to any of the present controversies surrounding the Court, substantially increasing the Court’s size is a reasonable proposition. But considering the Court’s descent into illegitimacy and usurpation of legislative power, increasing its size substantially is an easy call: We must do it to overcome the reactionary majority. We have no other choice.

Enlarging the Court requires only a majority vote in both chambers of Congress, while virtually every other structural reform would require a constitutional amendment—a 2/3rds approval in both chambers of Congress and ratification by 3/4ths of the states. That will never happen. (If you propose imposing 18-year term limits, I urge you to read the plain words of the Constitution: Article III Section 1 | U.S. Constitution.)

Urgency is required. As reader John C. posted in response to my 4th of July newsletter,

I agree that the long term looks promising, but many people cannot wait for the long term. Women who want abortions, victims of gun violence, refugees, same-sex couples who want goods or services, students who are barred from colleges, and so forth are suffering now and lack the luxury of waiting.

We can work our way out of this daunting situation in the short term at the ballot box—by retaking the House and defending the Senate in 2024. And then demand boldness from our leaders. While they have temporized and appointed commissions and fretted about the “legitimacy” of an enlarged Court, tens of millions of Americans have been injured by a rogue Court that abandoned the rule of law and adopted the agenda of religious nationalism. The solution is staring us in the face and is within our grasp. Let’s take it!

In the words of Rebecca Solnit, “This is not a time to quit. It’s a time to fight.”

And if you are looking for guidance on where and how to direct your fighting spirit, there is no better place to look than Jessica Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water on Substack. Her post on the 4th of July is filled with action steps you can take, including word scripts for calling your elected officials in Washington, D.C., and important organizing / fundraising events, such as:

  • An event on Wednesday, July 5th at 5:30 PM Eastern with Senator Sherrod Brown and Ohio Democratic Party Chairwoman Liz Walters about how you can help get out the “NO” vote in the Ohio special election set for August 8th. Register here.
  • A Force Multiplier event with Senators John Tester and Raphael Warnock on Monday, July 10, 7:00 PM Eastern. The event will help build grass roots support for Senator Tester in what is expected to be a hard-fought campaign. Register and donate here.

While you are at it, sign up for Jessica Craven’s Chop Wood, Carry Water for the latest on daily actions you can take to help defend democracy!

Please open the link to read Robert Hubbell’s concluding thoughts.