Wonderful newsletter as always. Thank you Andrew for taking the time to walk through the text of the dissents in the birthright citizenship case--it was incredibly helpful and informative.
As an attorney, I'd actually like to caution readers against Andrew's take on the dissents. While he is correct that Gorsuch's primary concern was "tourist" parents coming to the U.S. solely to give birth and gain U.S. citizenship for their child, the legal question is not how individuals choose to use the 14th Amendment—the legal question is what does the 14th Amendment say? The Court's role is strictly to interpret the Constitution—not to alter its meaning to fit its own desires. The 14th Amendment's threshold is jurisdiction, which the U.S. holds over every person within its borders for any length of time and for whatever purpose (apart from those with diplomatic immunity). Limiting the application of birthright citizenship to the children of parents domiciled within the U.S. is certainly a potential restriction to consider; however, it is *NOT* what the 14th Amendment says. If the country wants to limit birthright citizenship by domicile rather than jurisdiction, it can do so, but only by passing a new amendment to the Constitution; executive orders and Congressionally passed statutes have no effect. Any SCOTUS justice's willingness to consider accepting a change to the Constitution through any format other than a ratified amendment is a cause for extreme alarm; the fact that 4 of the 9 justices are open to the idea is absolutely terrifying.
Thank you for this clarification, Beth. I posted this very question in the comment section on HCR's morning letter before reading Morning Shots.
I have been extremely alarmed for the past 24 hours, hearing so many people assert that this decision can be easily rectified by passing legislation restricting birthright citizenship to only babies born to documented citizens. I asked how legislation could overturn the Constitution when all my life I've understood that legislation that defies the Constitution is unconstitutional!
So now my question is, how is it possible that 4 of the 9 justices are not aware of that fact?
I think it was Greg Sargent who posited that Birthright Citizenship is being set up by the far right to be the next Roe vs Wade, Roe V Wade having lost some of its oomph after Dobbs. I take that to mean that it is the giant wedge issue they will use to motivate their voters, encouraging them to ignore all other issues. It will be a reason to rally them to vote to secure extremely conservative justices on the Supreme Court. And I believe we have only begun to see the most vile, open racism from elected politicians and their mouthpieces, not to mention their followers, that we have seen for many decades.
I think that they are plenty of authoritarian voters (largely white but not exclusively so) who see a cultural/demographic/gender hierarchy they've benefited from being upended in a more diverse America, so the fact that they've gone after birthright citizenship and Roe v. Wade shouldn't be viewed as a surprise, given the groups of people they're intending to hurt.
I think Trump is making the SAVE Act the hill he wants Republicans to die on. He can’t hold anything or anyone for ransom to get it passed like he is doing to affordable housing.
It is so difficult to honestly argue that the 14th Amendment says something other than what it plainly says that it would seem to impose severe plausibility handicaps on dishonest arguments, too.
Birthright citizenship has explicit Constitutional protections through the 14th Amendment that reproductive rights never did. While there are dishonest factions whose "respect for the Constitution" is mere fiction for getting their way, and who do not deserve to be trusted, there are others for whom what the law actually says does matter, and who'll have a much harder time trusting a faction claiming, implausibly, that the 14th Amendment secretly means something other than what it actually says.
While this is likely true, it will be a monstrously unpopular project and a millstone around the neck of the party. Recall that they won in 2024 off of major gains with non-white voters...
Conventional wisdom had the SCOTUS upholding birthright citizenship. But I was getting nervous that they might not, until the 6-3 or 5-4 ruling. Remember CW had the ruling against Trump until they ruled he has total immunity while performing "Presidential acts".
Maybe not after Dobbs, but back 30 - 40 years ago, I don’t remember anyone questioning birthright citizenship. Back then the Republicans I knew were proud of it compared to the European jus sanguis.
I totally agree. This is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Kavanaugh literally wrote out a plan for how they can dispute or amend the meaning of this part of the 14th amendment. Political hacks, you say??
Andrew, thank you for the thoughtful analysis on the dissents. Yesterday I was looking for a good faith breakdown and was unable to find one. Once again, the Bulwark for the win.
Walking through the legalese reeds has never been so satisfying! Thank you Andrew and Bill. I was relieved at the decision and I am a proud Canadian! By the way folks, it's CANADA DAY! Not ...51st state day:)
Those are the only words I know, but I think you know the rest. Enjoy your day!! You guys are really earning it these days being one of our allies. Sorry...seriously....sorry...
I learned the lyrics to "Oh Canada" when I lived in Buffalo and went to Sabres games. Since many of the fans were from Canada they always played it in the old Aud. Don't know if they still do. The Sabres were playing the Habs when this happened.
Andrew, thank you for the nuanced examination of the citizenship decision. It did in fact make me feel quite a bit better than I was feeling yesterday. And this is why I love the Bulwark. Multiple insights on the same topic to give me a more complete picture.
As for problematic candidates, why don't we start by asking WHY anyone who believes in representative democracy would even entertain voting for someone such as Ken Paxton, or for any candidate who justifies every insane/petty/corrupt decision that Trump makes?
For example, hasn't Susan Collins voted to confirm all of Trump's SCOTUS nominees,thus endorsing decisions granting Trump immunity and denying women the right ro make decisions about when or whether they have children? Sure, Susan's always "concerned".
There’s also an increasingly large number of voters in the US who’ve decided that they don’t really like democracy. They see themselves as an oppressed minority - this was discussed by recent participants in one of Sarah’s focus groups - and as such, they know that majoritarian democracy can’t advance or even sustain their interests. David Frum was right about this - given the choice between adhering to the Constitution’s definition of a democratic republic, and being able to assert their cultural and political dominance by authoritarian means, they’ll abandon democracy and choose authoritarianism.
That focus group seemed to have drunk the koolaid. Do they honestly believe that they would be better off if the oligarchs take complete control of the country? It certainly seemed that way.
The Triad where JVL spelled it out for us about Cletus, well having lived in TX way too long as Linda said, it’s the R. They may think Paxton is awful but they hate that D. Best we can hope for is that D haters just don’t vote.
Because somehow "representative democracy" has been rebranded to mean a wildly liberal, communist, socialist, Marxist, woke, anti-religious, anti-freedom, unpatriotic, open-borders, pro waste-fraud-abuse, 'murica hating agenda. Who wants any of that?!
Every democratic and independent candidate must set focus on ending the abomination that is the Trump regime. All other aspirations must be secondary. There will be no constitutional, economic, social or environmental recovery from the destruction caused by Trump unless and until Trump and MAGA madness are finally and permanently defeated.
Thanks Andrew for the rundown of the dissenting opinions. I was surprised Gorsuch didn't join the majority, but his quibble in birth tourism/domicile is "Gorsuchian" in that he is probably right at the practical level, but if he got his way, the real-world impacts would be substantial with every person born of foreign parents needing to prove their parents (both parents? Probably...) were domiciled in the US (and for sure what "domicile" means would be forever litigated).
Andrew's footnotes are always gold: "I here leave aside Justice Kavanaugh’s milquetoastish foot-in-both-camps partial concurrence, except to remark that, ugh, he would." 😂
"Stephen Miller decried the decision as “one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court,” as did a whole host of MAGA commentators. Ben Shapiro called it a “legal abomination.” The Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts called it a “tremendous betrayal of the republic” that had “inflamed the all-out assault on our sovereignty.” Grant Stinchfield of Real America’s Voice called it “one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.” Many commentators took particular aim at Amy Coney Barrett, quarreling among themselves about whether her betrayal was due to her black adopted children or to her inferior female brain. Maybe both, some suggested."
"Inferior female brain"? I see. So is it reasonable to conclude that DONALD J. TRUMP made a mistake when he nominated Barrett to fill Ginsberg's seat in 2020? Also, aren't these the same people that defend Aileen Cannon? Apparently the inferiority of the female brain is only an issue when a ruling goes against DONALD J. TRUMP.
As for Miller, Shapiro, and Roberts go, it'll never stop being amusing to me that the most accomplished of us are the least thankful for it. And as the mere mention of these men trigger my darkest, most illiberal desires, I'll leave it at that.
NB: I find it fascinating that the Jewish Miller and Shapiro aren't aware right wing fascist types do not consider them part of their "tribe". Maybe they think they're special.
< Narrator > No, they aren't special.
Same principle applies to the Catholic Roberts. FFS, Pete Hegseth's pastor wants to exclude Catholics from political life in the United States, and he's not the only right wing type who holds that view. Kevin must think he's special, too.
< Narrator > No, he's not special.
In other words, once the executive branch and the legislature starts making arbitrary decisions on who is and who isn't an American citizen based on the color of their skin or their religion, there's no limiting principle to the fuckery that can ensue. Conservatives ostensibly understood that once upon a time. Then again, this current lot isn't conservative in an meaningful sense.
Western Civilization is in a doom loop now, I fear. From the manifest racism on the right and the "barely-even-thinly-disguised antisemitism is no electoral liability" on the far left...I am just depressed beyond my ability to explain.
If it wasn't for the ample supply of books to read, I'd go completely insane.
Wolfpack, this is a real question, not an opinion disguised as one. I, too, am troubled by the rising anti-semitism on the left. But it seems to me to be almost equally matched by anti-semitism on the right, which is rarely mentioned, at least in the pieces I read. Am I wrong about that? I actually think it is particularly terrifying if it becomes a point of unity on the right and left, but it seems that all the handwringing is about the left.
I'm more concerned about the anti-semitism on the right. I don't think we'll know how much of the anti-semitism on the left is really anti-Bibi and his regime until Bibi is off the stage.
Ok - I'm not the best informed - but it seems to me that the situation in Israel and Palestine is so nuanced (everyone using the poor Palestinians - Hamas doesn't care about their lives, and Israel always has to worry about its survival) and we don't deal with complicated information very well. (Mona Charen had an informative interview btw). And the fear of the other always at our shoulder. The names and assumptions we make about each other are glib and facile and anger inducing and tribal encouraging. Can we change THAT - what do you think (social media won't allow?)
I too am concerned about Anti-Semitism, and racism, and the coarsening of discourse and the lack of reverence for each unreproducible life in the world (and heck the earth itself) and the feeling among some that kind is passe. We need to NOT get used to the ugliness! and call it out? (is that even possible - will it work or mire us)
And the anti-intellectualism - which leads to coarse labeling. (is that too hoity toity?)
If you read this mess - thanks (& apologies from the paragraph queen)
Is it anti-semitism or anti-zionism? Maybe anti-Israeli? Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but where are those on the left attacking Jewish people? I hear a lot of folks are against AIPAC and the Israeli government's actions, but why does that make them anti-semites?
You are not wrong, but I see it as part and parcel of their general white (and by white, they obviously also mean Christian only in Republican Jesus form) supremacy.
With the Coalition for the Enlightenment, I expect better. Yet it is getting worse. One DAC (in a 90/10 NYC district) is an anomaly. After last night, it's a trend. A worse/more clearly antisemitic candidate won, the incumbent was inoffensive (unlike Espillat), Denver rather than NYC.
It's alarming, even if it's every bit as vile and present on the GOP side (but those fuckers will accept anything and everything, so long as they get tax cuts and judges). Because as a Coalition for the Enlightenment? This poison will kill us dead.
In 1998, just in time for Israel’s 40th, I started work at a Jewish community newspaper. Bibi was PM.
I left a year later. Bibi, with some gaps, is still there 28 years later.
Like Trump, he is all a generation knows. I blame him (and his fellow travelers like Ben-Gvir … or is it Bibi who’s the fellow traveler?) for making Israel a villain.
Hamas and Hezbollah are unspeakable and their bad faith and brutality are not going to change. But Israel bombing the shit out of Gaza and Lebanon does nothing to destroy them, and probably breeds recruits.
I don’t have any answers, and I wish a country’s actions didn’t get conflated with its religion. But here we are.
I said it before; Bibi's obliteration of Gaza and now Lebanon in real life reminds me of Daenerys Targaryen (in Game of Thrones) and her dragon obliterating Kings Landing. Yes, Game of Thrones was fantasy. But they are too close for comfort. I can honestly see why a lot of people say it is genocide.
On the left it's not anti-Semitism, it's more anti-Zionism. They're not against people of the Jewish faith (although anti-Semitism does infect the whole political spectrum) it's that they're against the far right, fascist Zionist government and their genocide against Palestinians and now the Lebanese.
Thanks as always for all the great info & analysis -- The cheap shots made me feel a little sad about how Trumpasaurus Rex has eaten the 250 celebration - excellent youth bands! Just what we need - although I'm sure local communities are filling in - at least for the 4th if not in a 250 way. (whatever happened to the bipartisan 250?)
And, of course, other abominations (ballroom, arch, public golf course - stealing money from regular National Park - et cetera, yadda yadda) are worse/bigger - crueler more corrupt- more economically fraught (poor Haitians, poor elders) - but still, sometimes feel wistful for Americana that had us all meet together smiling- AND Walter Cronkite.
"The resulting order is a major punch in the mouth for the Trump administration. Not every justice was willing to haul off and deliver such a punch. But a majority of the Court, it seems, was not merely willing but determined to do so. That isn’t just something to breathe a sigh of relief over. It’s something to stand up and applaud."
This is laying it on quite thick. Two thirds of the court gave a ruling that was obvious to any literate and honest person, and they took way too long to do it. I'm not going to turn into a sudden SCOTUS-stan over it.
Wonderful newsletter as always. Thank you Andrew for taking the time to walk through the text of the dissents in the birthright citizenship case--it was incredibly helpful and informative.
As an attorney, I'd actually like to caution readers against Andrew's take on the dissents. While he is correct that Gorsuch's primary concern was "tourist" parents coming to the U.S. solely to give birth and gain U.S. citizenship for their child, the legal question is not how individuals choose to use the 14th Amendment—the legal question is what does the 14th Amendment say? The Court's role is strictly to interpret the Constitution—not to alter its meaning to fit its own desires. The 14th Amendment's threshold is jurisdiction, which the U.S. holds over every person within its borders for any length of time and for whatever purpose (apart from those with diplomatic immunity). Limiting the application of birthright citizenship to the children of parents domiciled within the U.S. is certainly a potential restriction to consider; however, it is *NOT* what the 14th Amendment says. If the country wants to limit birthright citizenship by domicile rather than jurisdiction, it can do so, but only by passing a new amendment to the Constitution; executive orders and Congressionally passed statutes have no effect. Any SCOTUS justice's willingness to consider accepting a change to the Constitution through any format other than a ratified amendment is a cause for extreme alarm; the fact that 4 of the 9 justices are open to the idea is absolutely terrifying.
Thank you for this clarification, Beth. I posted this very question in the comment section on HCR's morning letter before reading Morning Shots.
I have been extremely alarmed for the past 24 hours, hearing so many people assert that this decision can be easily rectified by passing legislation restricting birthright citizenship to only babies born to documented citizens. I asked how legislation could overturn the Constitution when all my life I've understood that legislation that defies the Constitution is unconstitutional!
So now my question is, how is it possible that 4 of the 9 justices are not aware of that fact?
I think it was Greg Sargent who posited that Birthright Citizenship is being set up by the far right to be the next Roe vs Wade, Roe V Wade having lost some of its oomph after Dobbs. I take that to mean that it is the giant wedge issue they will use to motivate their voters, encouraging them to ignore all other issues. It will be a reason to rally them to vote to secure extremely conservative justices on the Supreme Court. And I believe we have only begun to see the most vile, open racism from elected politicians and their mouthpieces, not to mention their followers, that we have seen for many decades.
Like I said yesterday: Sure, there are perks to losing, but I'd take winning any day of the week.
As Charlie Sykes said yesterday: Lets take the win. ( concerning birthright citizenship)
I'm not saying it would be better to have lost! Just that we should understand how this is likely to be used politically.
I think that they are plenty of authoritarian voters (largely white but not exclusively so) who see a cultural/demographic/gender hierarchy they've benefited from being upended in a more diverse America, so the fact that they've gone after birthright citizenship and Roe v. Wade shouldn't be viewed as a surprise, given the groups of people they're intending to hurt.
I agree. SCOTUS also defanged the biggest of the trans issues so birth right citizenship probably will take center stage.
I think Trump is making the SAVE Act the hill he wants Republicans to die on. He can’t hold anything or anyone for ransom to get it passed like he is doing to affordable housing.
But SAVE won’t be passed, so…
It is so difficult to honestly argue that the 14th Amendment says something other than what it plainly says that it would seem to impose severe plausibility handicaps on dishonest arguments, too.
Birthright citizenship has explicit Constitutional protections through the 14th Amendment that reproductive rights never did. While there are dishonest factions whose "respect for the Constitution" is mere fiction for getting their way, and who do not deserve to be trusted, there are others for whom what the law actually says does matter, and who'll have a much harder time trusting a faction claiming, implausibly, that the 14th Amendment secretly means something other than what it actually says.
While this is likely true, it will be a monstrously unpopular project and a millstone around the neck of the party. Recall that they won in 2024 off of major gains with non-white voters...
I hope so.
Different parallel to,Roe Set up is using trans athlete case. Setting up as separate group. First step in overturning Obergefel.
I appreciate Andrew's optimism, but after Dobbs, I'll never again believe that SCOTUS has settled any issue once and for all.
Justin didn’t we all believe birthright citizenship was settled law until this pack of hyenas took over the government.
Conventional wisdom had the SCOTUS upholding birthright citizenship. But I was getting nervous that they might not, until the 6-3 or 5-4 ruling. Remember CW had the ruling against Trump until they ruled he has total immunity while performing "Presidential acts".
Not me. I also don't believe presidential term limits is settled law. If I ever had any faith in SCOTUS, it went out the window with Dobbs.
Maybe not after Dobbs, but back 30 - 40 years ago, I don’t remember anyone questioning birthright citizenship. Back then the Republicans I knew were proud of it compared to the European jus sanguis.
Seconded.
Absolutely!!!!
Yup. My Cynicism-O-Meter is still pegged at "11".
I totally agree. This is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Kavanaugh literally wrote out a plan for how they can dispute or amend the meaning of this part of the 14th amendment. Political hacks, you say??
Andrew, thank you for the thoughtful analysis on the dissents. Yesterday I was looking for a good faith breakdown and was unable to find one. Once again, the Bulwark for the win.
Walking through the legalese reeds has never been so satisfying! Thank you Andrew and Bill. I was relieved at the decision and I am a proud Canadian! By the way folks, it's CANADA DAY! Not ...51st state day:)
"Oh, Canada..."
Those are the only words I know, but I think you know the rest. Enjoy your day!! You guys are really earning it these days being one of our allies. Sorry...seriously....sorry...
O' Canada!
I sang that in my head every time I read those 2 words! 🤣😂
:) Their national anthem is O' Canada. I once made the mistake of saying Oh,Canada myself and was corrected quickly!
I learned the lyrics to "Oh Canada" when I lived in Buffalo and went to Sabres games. Since many of the fans were from Canada they always played it in the old Aud. Don't know if they still do. The Sabres were playing the Habs when this happened.
https://youtu.be/mMbsvYDlQIY?si=9Yk4eebwdgfvXuEO
His convention is going up against the NFL opener?? LOL!
It is unfortunate that the Cowboys aren't playing in that opener
Another great decision made by DJT!
Andrew, thank you for the nuanced examination of the citizenship decision. It did in fact make me feel quite a bit better than I was feeling yesterday. And this is why I love the Bulwark. Multiple insights on the same topic to give me a more complete picture.
Roberts stood up.
But even some dogs can walk on their hind legs briefly.
For everything else, he is " downward facing dog."
Yoga/SCOTUS humor - you're speaking my language!
As for problematic candidates, why don't we start by asking WHY anyone who believes in representative democracy would even entertain voting for someone such as Ken Paxton, or for any candidate who justifies every insane/petty/corrupt decision that Trump makes?
For example, hasn't Susan Collins voted to confirm all of Trump's SCOTUS nominees,thus endorsing decisions granting Trump immunity and denying women the right ro make decisions about when or whether they have children? Sure, Susan's always "concerned".
They’d vote for Paxton because of that “R” after his name.
They've been groomed to do that.
Well, there is that...
Unfortunately, that is how 95%of all Republicans vote now a days. (Regardless)
There’s also an increasingly large number of voters in the US who’ve decided that they don’t really like democracy. They see themselves as an oppressed minority - this was discussed by recent participants in one of Sarah’s focus groups - and as such, they know that majoritarian democracy can’t advance or even sustain their interests. David Frum was right about this - given the choice between adhering to the Constitution’s definition of a democratic republic, and being able to assert their cultural and political dominance by authoritarian means, they’ll abandon democracy and choose authoritarianism.
That focus group seemed to have drunk the koolaid. Do they honestly believe that they would be better off if the oligarchs take complete control of the country? It certainly seemed that way.
It's sad that a percentage of Americans is sated when the people they DON'T like are being hurt.
The Triad where JVL spelled it out for us about Cletus, well having lived in TX way too long as Linda said, it’s the R. They may think Paxton is awful but they hate that D. Best we can hope for is that D haters just don’t vote.
And we have 40 years of FOX demonizing Democrats for this.
Because somehow "representative democracy" has been rebranded to mean a wildly liberal, communist, socialist, Marxist, woke, anti-religious, anti-freedom, unpatriotic, open-borders, pro waste-fraud-abuse, 'murica hating agenda. Who wants any of that?!
:-(
May I recommend John Carpenter 's sci-fi movie
"They Live", about an alien takeover of Earth?
Every democratic and independent candidate must set focus on ending the abomination that is the Trump regime. All other aspirations must be secondary. There will be no constitutional, economic, social or environmental recovery from the destruction caused by Trump unless and until Trump and MAGA madness are finally and permanently defeated.
Thanks Andrew for the rundown of the dissenting opinions. I was surprised Gorsuch didn't join the majority, but his quibble in birth tourism/domicile is "Gorsuchian" in that he is probably right at the practical level, but if he got his way, the real-world impacts would be substantial with every person born of foreign parents needing to prove their parents (both parents? Probably...) were domiciled in the US (and for sure what "domicile" means would be forever litigated).
Andrew's footnotes are always gold: "I here leave aside Justice Kavanaugh’s milquetoastish foot-in-both-camps partial concurrence, except to remark that, ugh, he would." 😂
"Stephen Miller decried the decision as “one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court,” as did a whole host of MAGA commentators. Ben Shapiro called it a “legal abomination.” The Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts called it a “tremendous betrayal of the republic” that had “inflamed the all-out assault on our sovereignty.” Grant Stinchfield of Real America’s Voice called it “one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.” Many commentators took particular aim at Amy Coney Barrett, quarreling among themselves about whether her betrayal was due to her black adopted children or to her inferior female brain. Maybe both, some suggested."
"Inferior female brain"? I see. So is it reasonable to conclude that DONALD J. TRUMP made a mistake when he nominated Barrett to fill Ginsberg's seat in 2020? Also, aren't these the same people that defend Aileen Cannon? Apparently the inferiority of the female brain is only an issue when a ruling goes against DONALD J. TRUMP.
As for Miller, Shapiro, and Roberts go, it'll never stop being amusing to me that the most accomplished of us are the least thankful for it. And as the mere mention of these men trigger my darkest, most illiberal desires, I'll leave it at that.
NB: I find it fascinating that the Jewish Miller and Shapiro aren't aware right wing fascist types do not consider them part of their "tribe". Maybe they think they're special.
< Narrator > No, they aren't special.
Same principle applies to the Catholic Roberts. FFS, Pete Hegseth's pastor wants to exclude Catholics from political life in the United States, and he's not the only right wing type who holds that view. Kevin must think he's special, too.
< Narrator > No, he's not special.
In other words, once the executive branch and the legislature starts making arbitrary decisions on who is and who isn't an American citizen based on the color of their skin or their religion, there's no limiting principle to the fuckery that can ensue. Conservatives ostensibly understood that once upon a time. Then again, this current lot isn't conservative in an meaningful sense.
Western Civilization is in a doom loop now, I fear. From the manifest racism on the right and the "barely-even-thinly-disguised antisemitism is no electoral liability" on the far left...I am just depressed beyond my ability to explain.
If it wasn't for the ample supply of books to read, I'd go completely insane.
Wolfpack, this is a real question, not an opinion disguised as one. I, too, am troubled by the rising anti-semitism on the left. But it seems to me to be almost equally matched by anti-semitism on the right, which is rarely mentioned, at least in the pieces I read. Am I wrong about that? I actually think it is particularly terrifying if it becomes a point of unity on the right and left, but it seems that all the handwringing is about the left.
I'm more concerned about the anti-semitism on the right. I don't think we'll know how much of the anti-semitism on the left is really anti-Bibi and his regime until Bibi is off the stage.
Ok - I'm not the best informed - but it seems to me that the situation in Israel and Palestine is so nuanced (everyone using the poor Palestinians - Hamas doesn't care about their lives, and Israel always has to worry about its survival) and we don't deal with complicated information very well. (Mona Charen had an informative interview btw). And the fear of the other always at our shoulder. The names and assumptions we make about each other are glib and facile and anger inducing and tribal encouraging. Can we change THAT - what do you think (social media won't allow?)
I too am concerned about Anti-Semitism, and racism, and the coarsening of discourse and the lack of reverence for each unreproducible life in the world (and heck the earth itself) and the feeling among some that kind is passe. We need to NOT get used to the ugliness! and call it out? (is that even possible - will it work or mire us)
And the anti-intellectualism - which leads to coarse labeling. (is that too hoity toity?)
If you read this mess - thanks (& apologies from the paragraph queen)
As Charlie Sykes says; You can separate your hatred of Bibi (and his policies)and still support the Israeli people.
I can't support people who gather to watch and cheer on the bombing of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza and Lebanon.
Is it anti-semitism or anti-zionism? Maybe anti-Israeli? Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but where are those on the left attacking Jewish people? I hear a lot of folks are against AIPAC and the Israeli government's actions, but why does that make them anti-semites?
You are not wrong, but I see it as part and parcel of their general white (and by white, they obviously also mean Christian only in Republican Jesus form) supremacy.
With the Coalition for the Enlightenment, I expect better. Yet it is getting worse. One DAC (in a 90/10 NYC district) is an anomaly. After last night, it's a trend. A worse/more clearly antisemitic candidate won, the incumbent was inoffensive (unlike Espillat), Denver rather than NYC.
It's alarming, even if it's every bit as vile and present on the GOP side (but those fuckers will accept anything and everything, so long as they get tax cuts and judges). Because as a Coalition for the Enlightenment? This poison will kill us dead.
In 1998, just in time for Israel’s 40th, I started work at a Jewish community newspaper. Bibi was PM.
I left a year later. Bibi, with some gaps, is still there 28 years later.
Like Trump, he is all a generation knows. I blame him (and his fellow travelers like Ben-Gvir … or is it Bibi who’s the fellow traveler?) for making Israel a villain.
Hamas and Hezbollah are unspeakable and their bad faith and brutality are not going to change. But Israel bombing the shit out of Gaza and Lebanon does nothing to destroy them, and probably breeds recruits.
I don’t have any answers, and I wish a country’s actions didn’t get conflated with its religion. But here we are.
I said it before; Bibi's obliteration of Gaza and now Lebanon in real life reminds me of Daenerys Targaryen (in Game of Thrones) and her dragon obliterating Kings Landing. Yes, Game of Thrones was fantasy. But they are too close for comfort. I can honestly see why a lot of people say it is genocide.
Agreed.
Right and left agree on Jew hatred …
Same! You should see the pile next to my reading chair.
On the left it's not anti-Semitism, it's more anti-Zionism. They're not against people of the Jewish faith (although anti-Semitism does infect the whole political spectrum) it's that they're against the far right, fascist Zionist government and their genocide against Palestinians and now the Lebanese.
Thanks as always for all the great info & analysis -- The cheap shots made me feel a little sad about how Trumpasaurus Rex has eaten the 250 celebration - excellent youth bands! Just what we need - although I'm sure local communities are filling in - at least for the 4th if not in a 250 way. (whatever happened to the bipartisan 250?)
And, of course, other abominations (ballroom, arch, public golf course - stealing money from regular National Park - et cetera, yadda yadda) are worse/bigger - crueler more corrupt- more economically fraught (poor Haitians, poor elders) - but still, sometimes feel wistful for Americana that had us all meet together smiling- AND Walter Cronkite.
I wouldn't mind going back to the tax rates on the wealthy we had in the 1950's and 60's.
Yeah but: then we had Vietnam and all those assassinations. Sooo, we've always had our challenges.
Word!
"The resulting order is a major punch in the mouth for the Trump administration. Not every justice was willing to haul off and deliver such a punch. But a majority of the Court, it seems, was not merely willing but determined to do so. That isn’t just something to breathe a sigh of relief over. It’s something to stand up and applaud."
This is laying it on quite thick. Two thirds of the court gave a ruling that was obvious to any literate and honest person, and they took way too long to do it. I'm not going to turn into a sudden SCOTUS-stan over it.
Too long is right...Alito and Thomas in particular knew where they stood on this 50yrs ago.