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?
That's why it's so terrifying, Jeanne. All of these justices know better (well, except maybe Kavanaugh, who is the least qualified and least intelligent, but I digress), but they no longer act within the confines of the Constitution and the Court's role as set out in Marbury v. Madison. All of these justices are aware of what their role *should* be. But instead of staying within the confines of that role, they are using their positions to shape the country to match their views. They are essentially behaving lawlessly. There's even a book called "Lawless," written by legal scholar Leah Litman, that is intended for a nonlegal audience and explains how the Court has reached this point. I'd also recommend Constitutional scholar Steve Vladeck's Substack, "One First" (He's actually going to be on "The Illegal News" with Sarah this week!) for deep insight into the corruption of this Court and its potential consequences.
Oh also, I have one more thing to add- you state that Kavanaugh is the least intelligent and least qualified, but I think we need to add "for now". I shudder to think which miscreant will be chosen to fill the next opening.
Breah, thank you again and I'm sorry that I misread your name in my earlier post.
I just finished listening to the illegal news with Sarah and Steve Vladeck. It was great, but once again I have more questions than answers. Fundamentally, what recourse do we the people have when faced with a simple majority of 9 unelected people alternately ignoring and attempting to rewrite the Constitution? How can this group randomly elect to operate under a "unitary executive theory", which flies in the face of everything that was intended by the founders, who made it very clear that they feared a tyrant, and attempted to empower 3 co-equal branches with ample checks and balances on power?
No worries re: my name; it’s a strange one! And I wish I had answers to your very valid questions. If nothing is done in Congress to affect court reform, the only certainty I can offer is that, because the Court relies on positive public perception to be effective, as it continues to undermine its own validity, the public will continue to question and ultimately discredit that authority, negating its power. The result of that outcome is terrifying in its own right, so it’s kind of court reform or bust at this point. What that necessary court reform comprises is a hotly debated topic with no clearly superior solution (See, e.g., JVL v. Sarah 😂). There are many views worth considering, including Leah Litman’s, which she presents in her book. As I am not a Constitutional scholar, I won’t even pretend to offer an ideal solution, as that’s way above my pay grade.
They simply don't interpret the language of the Constitution the way you do. They say that is says something else. Of course it's ridiculous. It's the same lame BS that the left used to find a "right" to bodily privacy in the constitution to justify abortion, where none exists. That is the problem with written laws. Future generations are free to try to interpret the language any way they like.
While a woman’s right to have control over her own body is a basic freedom and should not be contested, I will concede that the Roe v. Wade opinion was not infallible. That is an entirely separate topic from this one though—interpretation is not at issue here. This is about the plain language in the Amendment. It says “jurisdiction,” period. Jurisdiction has a legal definition that is wholly different from “legal residence” or “domicile.” It would be like telling someone the word orange could actually be interpreted to mean apple. It’s simply not plausible.
I didn't say it wasn't a crazy idea, just that it was what they were hanging their hats on. Lawyers make wild assertions all the time, many of which they themselves barely, or don't even, believe, to see what might stick.
As a fellow attorney, I’m beyond flabbergasted at how the core issue (the 14th Amd/Constitution’s actual text) is being explained away or blatantly ignored by actual Justices of the Supreme Court. Of course, this is the same Court that ignored other provisions of the 14th Amd in a previous term (insurrectionists on the ballot) so maybe it’s being consistent in a perverse way?
The 14th Amendment discusses the issue of jurisdiction, which is important. For example, at the time of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans were not citizens, and not subject to jurisdiction. If a person comes to the US, has a baby, and shortly leaves, they are not subject of jurisdiction.
Ernest, I don’t understand why you believe that “a person [who] comes to the US, has a baby, and shortly leaves” is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. On what evidence are you basing that assertion?
Because they are not in the US and not subject to US jurisdiction. Month old infants are rarely arrested. For example, at the time of the 14th Amendment, if a baby was born on a foreign ship in US waters, they were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US. A baby born to a diplomat is not subject to jurisdiction. At the time of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans were not subject to the "jurisdiction thereof". This is different than an illegal immigrant who resides in the US.
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.
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.
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.
I think he is truly unaware of how unpopular he is. And I think his main motive for pushing the SAVE Act, although he would be happy if it passed, is to set the table for claiming fraudulent non-citizen voting after the election.
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...
It doesn't have the moral cache that Roe does. Roe worked because it was a proxy for a lot of other issues on a lot of subtler levels. It also worked because of its constitutional ambiguity- the word abortion appears nowhere in the constitution. Basically, abortion (and to a lesser extent, gun rights) was a great wedge issue because it was also a fantastic dog whistle.
Even if they were fine obtaining abortions, personally, almost every racist, every misogynist, supported the "pro-life" platform. This is because anti-abortion laws reinforce the social ladder of whites over blacks, men over women. To boot, it could easily be weaved into a theology/religion apparatus that had long been used to support Jim Crow.
Birthright citizenship doesn't have any of those things. An issue that does have them, though, and I think will be the next proxy issue after abortion, is trans rights.
The main issue for which Roe is a proxy is race. The impetus for the pro life movement was Nixon/Ford/Carter moving to end tax exemptions for religious private schools like Bob Jones University that wanted to remain segregated.
Even on gender issues, enforcing male privilege reinforces racial hierarchy.
Then we need to use the words of their various "pastors" and mouthpieces who are spoiling to take away a woman's right to vote. I think we could make this a big issue for our side. We shouldn't just wait for their attacks. Take the battle to them.
I don't KNOW that they would do it, and it would be hard for them to "get away with it," BUT we should use their words as a cudgel. It's time we raise all the specters that their fringier folks love to talk about to inspire fear in those folks in the middle. FEAR!!!! It's apparently what drives most votes. One would hope the votes would be aspirational...but no. Sigh.
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.
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".
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??
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Those are great questions, and I suspect the answer to the first is something along the lines of, “They vote when someone sufficiently charismatic encourages them to believe that the political system can be relevant and useful to them personally, and they also own multiple firearms.” As for the second question, as much as I wish there were a way to give all prospective voters crash courses in civics and current events, and maybe policy analysis, I have trouble envisioning how to implement a Jim Crow-style “voter suppression for fascism sympathizers” program that wouldn’t seem (bizarrely) un-American. I reflexively believe, steadfastly, that all citizens should vote, but am a bit stumped as to how to prevent the wealthy and powerful from accumulating control of the legal, political and media systems in order to gain and maintain more power.
I did read that article and those people are disturbing. We can see that pandering to people's worst fears, while it might win their votes, it's toxic to civil society.
I think that’s exactly right, and reminds me why much of Congress wanted to create the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine back when TV promised to bring not just vaudeville, but demagoguery, into US living rooms for free every night.
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.
Imagine feeling that marginalized, antagonized, and resentful. Yikes. Now imagine feeling that way, not because you’re poor and can’t get ahead socioeconomically, but because you bought the big house and the expensive car, and the boat, and you’re still feeling unfulfilled and resentful because getting there was harder than you thought it would or should be, and because the political system seems to worry too much about the plight of poor people. If the oligarchs are fielding politicos who promise to assuage that resentment, however spuriously and vindictively, apparently lots of Americans will go with oligarchs.
This might actually explain some people I know and have not been able to understand. The difference is that they are probably millionaires, but never had a chance to become billionaires. They probably only have a few million dollars to spend.
I wanted to call them weak, but won't they simply don't have backbone - perhaps they also lacked nutrition, and a warm loving home ( bitter, small minded etc )
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.
That is the biggest problem. Repetition. Saying over and over and over again that Democrats are evil and cherry-picking odd, minority support of policies to paint everybody with the same brush has been extremely effective for the Republican party.
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?!
"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.
I'll just be sitting over here in solidarity with all of the citizens of the US territories, like my Puerto Rican parents, born in and living in said territories, who are unable to vote in Federal elections, even for the president (unless they are living outside of their territory/serving in the military). Each territory relegated to one delegate each to congress... who also has no vote.
That's about 3.6 million American (second-class) citizens.
Which may seem like an issue that has no relation to birthright citizenship, but I assure you that Stephen Miller and the rest of the bigoted, supremacist, eugenics-loving cohort of cretins would eventually have looked towards the (predominantly non-white) citizens of these territories and sought to (further) restrict or deny their rights as well.
The GOP is diabolically good at taking these issues and "othering" them along with vilifying the objects of their hatred and fear. So that a country can argue about whether or not an infant born on American soil is *actually* a citizen, especially after that infant has grown to adulthood here. To render us such moral misers that too many of us can look at these people and say: "These people are a major part of whatever it is that makes me unhappy, poor, disadvantaged, etc. Take them away, children and all. They are not worthy."
It's amazing that the worst of the GOP love defending a fetus, but will incarcerate children, deport them, deny them. (All while refusing to pass gun laws to protect the "legal" ones at the schools they underfund, but, you know, that's a whole other topic)
All while having the gall to call themselves family orientated, fiscally responsible and, for the majority, "Good Christians."
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." 😂
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?
Yes I agree with you - it is a false equivalence to maintain that being against the Israeli regime and their odious practices and/or policies is the same as being against Jews in general or participating in antisemitism.
It’s like maintaining that if one doesn’t like it that the US Armed Services is going around killing civilians running boats that may or may not be transporting contraband, you’re anti American.
Oh, wait… I guess that’s become a bit of a problem these days. Disagreeing with - or even not being - a member of the ‘R’ tribe - means you hate ‘muricans. And if you’re against Israeli actions then you hate jews.
So you mean like how to most of South and Central America Americans are oppressive monsters who have inflicted horrors on the people who are just trying to live and be free the same way they are, while to Europeans we are simply deeply misguided and somewhat childish barbarians who worship capitalism to the point where we've let it enslave us, while most Americans think we are the pre-eminent Manifestation of God's will in His creation?
Your saying being a Jew is becoming just as watered down as every other kind of nationalist identity now that its left the protections of the synagogue and joined the world and started committing atrocities in the name of its worshipers? Imagine that.
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.
Think about an 18 yr old voting for the first time; Trump has dominated the national discourse for over half their lives, and they have only experienced a Bibi-flavored Israel.
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 good news is that Trump has buried any pretense of celebrating America at the same time he's strangling what's left of representative democracy in America, so the best thing that Americans can do to celebrate American freedom now is the same thing they did 250 years ago. Revolt.
You are so right (if revolt means protest not perpetrate violence). I agree that we are lucky Trump is not smooth enough to inject a. little more Kumbaya to his me, me, mean.
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?
That's why it's so terrifying, Jeanne. All of these justices know better (well, except maybe Kavanaugh, who is the least qualified and least intelligent, but I digress), but they no longer act within the confines of the Constitution and the Court's role as set out in Marbury v. Madison. All of these justices are aware of what their role *should* be. But instead of staying within the confines of that role, they are using their positions to shape the country to match their views. They are essentially behaving lawlessly. There's even a book called "Lawless," written by legal scholar Leah Litman, that is intended for a nonlegal audience and explains how the Court has reached this point. I'd also recommend Constitutional scholar Steve Vladeck's Substack, "One First" (He's actually going to be on "The Illegal News" with Sarah this week!) for deep insight into the corruption of this Court and its potential consequences.
Oh also, I have one more thing to add- you state that Kavanaugh is the least intelligent and least qualified, but I think we need to add "for now". I shudder to think which miscreant will be chosen to fill the next opening.
Bove with cannon having an outside chance .
I simply can't check a heart on this one, but I agree that those are the most likely miscreants under consideration.
I'm more worried about Ho getting on
Breah, thank you again and I'm sorry that I misread your name in my earlier post.
I just finished listening to the illegal news with Sarah and Steve Vladeck. It was great, but once again I have more questions than answers. Fundamentally, what recourse do we the people have when faced with a simple majority of 9 unelected people alternately ignoring and attempting to rewrite the Constitution? How can this group randomly elect to operate under a "unitary executive theory", which flies in the face of everything that was intended by the founders, who made it very clear that they feared a tyrant, and attempted to empower 3 co-equal branches with ample checks and balances on power?
Sounds like I need to read "Lawless".
No worries re: my name; it’s a strange one! And I wish I had answers to your very valid questions. If nothing is done in Congress to affect court reform, the only certainty I can offer is that, because the Court relies on positive public perception to be effective, as it continues to undermine its own validity, the public will continue to question and ultimately discredit that authority, negating its power. The result of that outcome is terrifying in its own right, so it’s kind of court reform or bust at this point. What that necessary court reform comprises is a hotly debated topic with no clearly superior solution (See, e.g., JVL v. Sarah 😂). There are many views worth considering, including Leah Litman’s, which she presents in her book. As I am not a Constitutional scholar, I won’t even pretend to offer an ideal solution, as that’s way above my pay grade.
They simply don't interpret the language of the Constitution the way you do. They say that is says something else. Of course it's ridiculous. It's the same lame BS that the left used to find a "right" to bodily privacy in the constitution to justify abortion, where none exists. That is the problem with written laws. Future generations are free to try to interpret the language any way they like.
While a woman’s right to have control over her own body is a basic freedom and should not be contested, I will concede that the Roe v. Wade opinion was not infallible. That is an entirely separate topic from this one though—interpretation is not at issue here. This is about the plain language in the Amendment. It says “jurisdiction,” period. Jurisdiction has a legal definition that is wholly different from “legal residence” or “domicile.” It would be like telling someone the word orange could actually be interpreted to mean apple. It’s simply not plausible.
I didn't say it wasn't a crazy idea, just that it was what they were hanging their hats on. Lawyers make wild assertions all the time, many of which they themselves barely, or don't even, believe, to see what might stick.
Yes, lawyers sometimes play that role, but not judges, especially not SCOTUS justices.
Thanks Breah; your explanation was crisp.
As a fellow attorney, I’m beyond flabbergasted at how the core issue (the 14th Amd/Constitution’s actual text) is being explained away or blatantly ignored by actual Justices of the Supreme Court. Of course, this is the same Court that ignored other provisions of the 14th Amd in a previous term (insurrectionists on the ballot) so maybe it’s being consistent in a perverse way?
Yep...I expect the 19th amendment will be challenged in the next few years.
Can't help but agree. What a time to be alive...
Good point, Jobu. And that perverse consistency portends our doom...
Thank you! His take has been driving me nuts for two days now.
Thanks for all your comments on this thread--I learned so much from them.
The 14th Amendment discusses the issue of jurisdiction, which is important. For example, at the time of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans were not citizens, and not subject to jurisdiction. If a person comes to the US, has a baby, and shortly leaves, they are not subject of jurisdiction.
Ernest, I don’t understand why you believe that “a person [who] comes to the US, has a baby, and shortly leaves” is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. On what evidence are you basing that assertion?
Because they are not in the US and not subject to US jurisdiction. Month old infants are rarely arrested. For example, at the time of the 14th Amendment, if a baby was born on a foreign ship in US waters, they were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US. A baby born to a diplomat is not subject to jurisdiction. At the time of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans were not subject to the "jurisdiction thereof". This is different than an illegal immigrant who resides in the US.
But they are in fact in the U.S. and thus subject to its jurisdiction?
It is a grey area. Not everyone at the time of the 14th amendment was subject to the jurisdiction of the US
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.
I'm not saying it would be better to have lost! Just that we should understand how this is likely to be used politically.
Uh huh you're right . 👍
As Charlie Sykes said yesterday: Lets take the win. ( concerning birthright citizenship)
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.
They’re white nationalists.
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.
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.
For Trump, the SAVE act is much needed voter suppression. Although I’m not sure why isn’t worried about suppressing Republican voters.
I think he is truly unaware of how unpopular he is. And I think his main motive for pushing the SAVE Act, although he would be happy if it passed, is to set the table for claiming fraudulent non-citizen voting after the election.
He probably is unaware. Polls suggesting he’s unpopular are dismissed as “fake news.”
And he's surrounded with people who won't tell him the truth.
I think the thinking is they’d cancel more Democratic votes than Republican ones, so it would be worth it.
Maybe!
But SAVE won’t be passed, so…
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.
It doesn't have the moral cache that Roe does. Roe worked because it was a proxy for a lot of other issues on a lot of subtler levels. It also worked because of its constitutional ambiguity- the word abortion appears nowhere in the constitution. Basically, abortion (and to a lesser extent, gun rights) was a great wedge issue because it was also a fantastic dog whistle.
Even if they were fine obtaining abortions, personally, almost every racist, every misogynist, supported the "pro-life" platform. This is because anti-abortion laws reinforce the social ladder of whites over blacks, men over women. To boot, it could easily be weaved into a theology/religion apparatus that had long been used to support Jim Crow.
Birthright citizenship doesn't have any of those things. An issue that does have them, though, and I think will be the next proxy issue after abortion, is trans rights.
You correctly stated that Roe was "a proxy for a lot of other issues," but you missed the main issue for which it is a proxy: the sexual revolution.
The main issue for which Roe is a proxy is race. The impetus for the pro life movement was Nixon/Ford/Carter moving to end tax exemptions for religious private schools like Bob Jones University that wanted to remain segregated.
Even on gender issues, enforcing male privilege reinforces racial hierarchy.
Then we need to use the words of their various "pastors" and mouthpieces who are spoiling to take away a woman's right to vote. I think we could make this a big issue for our side. We shouldn't just wait for their attacks. Take the battle to them.
Surely they couldn’t get away with that…. I hope.
I don't KNOW that they would do it, and it would be hard for them to "get away with it," BUT we should use their words as a cudgel. It's time we raise all the specters that their fringier folks love to talk about to inspire fear in those folks in the middle. FEAR!!!! It's apparently what drives most votes. One would hope the votes would be aspirational...but no. Sigh.
Yeah that makes sense the maga party needs a simple message for simple people .
The way I would say it is that they need a simple message that focuses their grievances against a targeted scapegoat.
MAGA is obsessed with the issue. You see them in the comments at the WSJ. The post Covid migration surge under Biden really energized them.
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.
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.
I lost all faith after the 5 to 4 bush vs. gore decision . States run the elections until they don't .
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.
The old Republican Party seems to be dead. I don’t know if it can be resurrected.
It is, but one time it firmly believed in birthright citizenship.
Yep. Gone now.
Nope .
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".
Seconded.
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??
Yup. My Cynicism-O-Meter is still pegged at "11".
Absolutely!!!!
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...
I CAN hum it. And in fact, it is stuck in my mind! Happy Canada Day!
The next line is " I will drink a case of Molson with thee " .
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
I just read that Trump is declining to renew CUSMA (free trade agreement). I think that means it continues unchanged for now.
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.
His convention is going up against the NFL opener?? LOL!
It is unfortunate that the Cowboys aren't playing in that opener
We will convention very strongly
We'll convention like no one has ever seen before. The big men will fill the convention center ...tears streaming down their faces.
Another great decision made by DJT!
I guess he never watched Friday Night Lights…
The bigliest crowd ever .
Even biglier than the crowds at the fair!
Awesomely humongity will be oversized. Wonder if his makeup melts or if there's some special adhesive.......
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.
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.
Permanent defeat will come only with Trump's death. Fortunately, he's neither young nor healthy . . .
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".
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.
If they don't want democracy, then why do they vote? And should we allow them to?
Those are great questions, and I suspect the answer to the first is something along the lines of, “They vote when someone sufficiently charismatic encourages them to believe that the political system can be relevant and useful to them personally, and they also own multiple firearms.” As for the second question, as much as I wish there were a way to give all prospective voters crash courses in civics and current events, and maybe policy analysis, I have trouble envisioning how to implement a Jim Crow-style “voter suppression for fascism sympathizers” program that wouldn’t seem (bizarrely) un-American. I reflexively believe, steadfastly, that all citizens should vote, but am a bit stumped as to how to prevent the wealthy and powerful from accumulating control of the legal, political and media systems in order to gain and maintain more power.
I did read that article and those people are disturbing. We can see that pandering to people's worst fears, while it might win their votes, it's toxic to civil society.
I think that’s exactly right, and reminds me why much of Congress wanted to create the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine back when TV promised to bring not just vaudeville, but demagoguery, into US living rooms for free every night.
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.
Imagine feeling that marginalized, antagonized, and resentful. Yikes. Now imagine feeling that way, not because you’re poor and can’t get ahead socioeconomically, but because you bought the big house and the expensive car, and the boat, and you’re still feeling unfulfilled and resentful because getting there was harder than you thought it would or should be, and because the political system seems to worry too much about the plight of poor people. If the oligarchs are fielding politicos who promise to assuage that resentment, however spuriously and vindictively, apparently lots of Americans will go with oligarchs.
This might actually explain some people I know and have not been able to understand. The difference is that they are probably millionaires, but never had a chance to become billionaires. They probably only have a few million dollars to spend.
Yes, sadly true. Some of those people view themselves as "temporarily displaced millionaires".
even if they had more, they would want more yet
I wanted to call them weak, but won't they simply don't have backbone - perhaps they also lacked nutrition, and a warm loving home ( bitter, small minded etc )
They’d vote for Paxton because of that “R” after his name.
They've been groomed to do that.
Unfortunately, that is how 95%of all Republicans vote now a days. (Regardless)
Well, there is that...
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.
That is the biggest problem. Repetition. Saying over and over and over again that Democrats are evil and cherry-picking odd, minority support of policies to paint everybody with the same brush has been extremely effective for the Republican party.
Absolutely. Fox specializes in it.
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?!
:-(
Yep...the research that showed these people are against being little "d" democratic was truly sad and distressing.
May I recommend John Carpenter 's sci-fi movie
"They Live", about an alien takeover of Earth?
"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.
Was thinking the same thing.
I'll just be sitting over here in solidarity with all of the citizens of the US territories, like my Puerto Rican parents, born in and living in said territories, who are unable to vote in Federal elections, even for the president (unless they are living outside of their territory/serving in the military). Each territory relegated to one delegate each to congress... who also has no vote.
That's about 3.6 million American (second-class) citizens.
Which may seem like an issue that has no relation to birthright citizenship, but I assure you that Stephen Miller and the rest of the bigoted, supremacist, eugenics-loving cohort of cretins would eventually have looked towards the (predominantly non-white) citizens of these territories and sought to (further) restrict or deny their rights as well.
The GOP is diabolically good at taking these issues and "othering" them along with vilifying the objects of their hatred and fear. So that a country can argue about whether or not an infant born on American soil is *actually* a citizen, especially after that infant has grown to adulthood here. To render us such moral misers that too many of us can look at these people and say: "These people are a major part of whatever it is that makes me unhappy, poor, disadvantaged, etc. Take them away, children and all. They are not worthy."
It's amazing that the worst of the GOP love defending a fetus, but will incarcerate children, deport them, deny them. (All while refusing to pass gun laws to protect the "legal" ones at the schools they underfund, but, you know, that's a whole other topic)
All while having the gall to call themselves family orientated, fiscally responsible and, for the majority, "Good Christians."
I'm glad SCOTUS upheld the 14th amendment.
Still mad as hell, though.
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." 😂
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?
Yes I agree with you - it is a false equivalence to maintain that being against the Israeli regime and their odious practices and/or policies is the same as being against Jews in general or participating in antisemitism.
It’s like maintaining that if one doesn’t like it that the US Armed Services is going around killing civilians running boats that may or may not be transporting contraband, you’re anti American.
Oh, wait… I guess that’s become a bit of a problem these days. Disagreeing with - or even not being - a member of the ‘R’ tribe - means you hate ‘muricans. And if you’re against Israeli actions then you hate jews.
Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, as my Jewish friends love to remind me when they talk about the things they'd do to Netanyahu's government.
Agree. But it's getting a bit blurred to my mind--and I have been critical of Netanyahu and sympathetic to the Palestinians for decades.
So you mean like how to most of South and Central America Americans are oppressive monsters who have inflicted horrors on the people who are just trying to live and be free the same way they are, while to Europeans we are simply deeply misguided and somewhat childish barbarians who worship capitalism to the point where we've let it enslave us, while most Americans think we are the pre-eminent Manifestation of God's will in His creation?
Your saying being a Jew is becoming just as watered down as every other kind of nationalist identity now that its left the protections of the synagogue and joined the world and started committing atrocities in the name of its worshipers? Imagine that.
No, that's not what I mean. And I think this is probably not a useful engagement at this point.
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.
Think about an 18 yr old voting for the first time; Trump has dominated the national discourse for over half their lives, and they have only experienced a Bibi-flavored Israel.
Agreed.
Right and left agree on Jew hatred …
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.
Same! You should see the pile next to my reading chair.
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.
The good news is that Trump has buried any pretense of celebrating America at the same time he's strangling what's left of representative democracy in America, so the best thing that Americans can do to celebrate American freedom now is the same thing they did 250 years ago. Revolt.
You are so right (if revolt means protest not perpetrate violence). I agree that we are lucky Trump is not smooth enough to inject a. little more Kumbaya to his me, me, mean.
Yeah but: then we had Vietnam and all those assassinations. Sooo, we've always had our challenges.
Word!