Thank you for mentioning what's going on on the floor of the Texas House. For those of you skipped down to the Cheap Shot, the Texas government has locked a Democratic member of the Texas House on the floor of the House until Wednesday. She cannot leave, because she refused to sign a document giving state troopers permission to follow her everywhere she goes and arrest her any time they want.
Fascism is here, folks, and Texas is leading the way.
As I just wrote on Fanone’s Substack on this topic, I thought I had misunderstood this story at first. This can’t be happening. I wish the dam would just break already; the tension is too high.
Yeah, they mentioned it, but in an absurdly milquetoasty way. Possibly legal? Are you kidding me? Read the damn constitution. This is pure police state stuff and ought to be leading every news report, particularly those partial to the "opposition." And where's the loud and public support for Nicole Collier?
I'm sure they can legally tail them, if they suspect they will do something illegal - like abandon their seats and leave the state to deny quorum. It's like an undercover security agent following a shopper around if they suspect they might shoplift. You don't wait until they are out of the store and three blocks away to start pursuing them.
All the Texas GOP did here was make them sign a release, "consenting" to being tailed, so they can't sue for it later. Tomorrow night, this will all be over, anyway.
Can you identify what section of the Texas criminal code makes it illegal for a state representative to leave the state during a special legislative session? Its not illegal to leave the state and deny the legislature a quorum because you feel like its unfair and should be illegal, or because Ken Paxton or Gregg Abbott say so. There needs to be an actual law being broken.
I didn't say it was illegal to leave the state. I just said it is illegal (or perhaps that is not the right word) to not report to the Capitol for legislative sessions - or at least the government has the authority by the constitution to compel you to attend. They aren't going to let these Democrats escape again. There will be a quorum today. Sort the rest out in court afterward.
Silly me, and here I assumed you understood that cops can’t just detain someone without suspecting them of a crime. Agents of the state can’t just detain Americans and hold them against their will locked in a building bc they feel like it, and don’t want to “let them escape again.” And a state constitution that empowers its police to do exactly is not a defense of those actions. It’s a grotesque tyranny, but shame on the Democrats for not getting this and deciding to come back. They should have stayed out of the state until next year if need be.
Well, I don't think the government is as sure as you are. Why else would they think they need written consent to avoid being sued?
"Tomorrow night, this will all be over" is rather cavalier when it comes to detaining someone without cause or warrant. I'm sure Ms. Collier thinks it's a pretty long time. To say nothing about there being no time requirement before illegal and/or constitutional violations become actionable, nor imho should there be. I think this suggestion is pretty outrageous.
Your analogy to an undercover security agent following a shopper around is imho inapposite for a number of reasons including the distinction between private and public spaces, the distinction between private individuals and elected officials acting in their official capacity, the different standards of reasonableness and limits on conduct applicable to privately employed security agents versus police and more.
Nobody will leave you alone with diamonds on the counter in a jewelry store. That doesn't mean they suspect you will steal them. It just means they aren't going to give you the chance. These Democrats will be in the House when the Speaker gavels it into session today, one way or another.
Also, nobody said she couldn't go home. They just said she had to consent to being monitored, because she was suspected of potential bad behavior - due to her previously documented bad behavior.
Also, leaving the state to deny quorum is not an official duty in her job description.
A jewelry store employee is not an agent of the state, observation is not state detention, and no jewelry store has ever locked its doors to keep me from leaving against my will or sent people to tail me home after I left the store… for any reason, never mind because she’s suspected of “potential bad behavior” based on her “previously documented bad behavior” whatever the hell that means.
Helluva liberty standard for justifying state detention and police power you’ve adopted there. “Suspected of potential bad behavior” is surely a valid standard for determining if locking someone up bc you don’t like the way they exercise political power satisfies the reasonable seizure test under the 4th amendment
No, but being in the state and not reporting to the Capitol apparently is - or at least it is legal to compel your attendance, by surveillance and force if necessary. In this new era, the GOP will not be "gotcha-ed" by these obstruction tactics. I hate Donald Trump with the heat of a hundred suns, but I also have no patience for these tactics to delay legislation after elections have been won. I'm still a Republican, after all. There will be a world after Donald Trump.
Please. They didn't break quorum to prevent a special session vote on flood relief measures or emergency funding. This is not normal legislative activity with the purpose of enacting policies that Republicans ran and won on in the last election. If that were the case and the Democrats left the state to break quorum you might have a point about unwarranted obstruction. But its not and you don't. This is anti-democratic election rigging to consolidate engrained Republican power in the structure of government so that the next election results won't even matter.
There is no rationale, no purpose to this special session to redistrict the State of Texas in 2025 other than that, and no one is even trying to engage in plausible deniability here as Trump boasts that the goal of this powerplay is to gerrymander so hard that Texas can eliminate 5 more Democratic members of Congress, which will increase his margin for error when he attempts to keep the Republicans in power in 2027 no matter what happens in the 2026. That is the only gotcha tactic being employed here and your refusal to see something so transparently clear speaks volumes.
Hate to tell you, but the Texas constitution permits the governor (or state House, or somebody) to forcibly detain and transport legislators to the chambers to conduct business, if they refuse to do so voluntarily. They couldn't do that while these people were hold-up out of state, but within state lines, their constitution and law enforcement rules.
I hate the idea of mid-decade redistricting, but I also hate these sleezy "lets run away and break quorum") tactics to avoid the hard reality that elections have consequences. Win them if you want a say.
As for Abbott and the Texas GOP, what did you expect them to do? Those Democrats are not going to be permitted to get away again. That would just be stupid. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After Wednesday, my guess is they can go anywhere they like.
It’s not the state constitution. The legislature has a “call of the House/Senate provision” which essentially locks the doors, but it would apply to everyone, not individuals.
My prediction is even Dems do well in the midterms, their new members will not be sworn in. The NC Supreme Court race last year will be replayed in almost every close race. Congress will basically be nuked and Trump will issue executive order after executive order to consolidate power. Whether the people will stand idle when that happens is the question.
Seems plausible. I suspect MAGA will employ a variety of tactics to steal the election. “Flood the zone”. That’s when a national strike should take place, in my opinion. We should all be preparing our own lives.
I would like to suggest a name for the operational plan, which will notionally be carried out by breakaway Constitutional Forces (Military and impromptu militia) in the subsequent conflict, as “Operation Gallant Road.”
If those fascist pukes think they can just shitcan an election, and hold a coronation, they’re in for a big fuckin surprise.
P.S. Any ICE, or BP, or BP BORTAC scum that are bulwark members, can forget about asking for me to elaborate. Piss off! A tribunal, or drumhead military trial is in your future. I bet your mommas are real proud.
Ya I'm fairly certain the Republicans will just deny and swearing in, claim legal shenanigans, and push it out as much as possible. They'll do it under the pretense of "following the legal process" of course. Authoritarians need a veneer of legitimacy until the populace is fully cowed into autocracy.
"....but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
Am I reading this wrong, or does this state that the US Congress--currently under control of the GOP--may at any time alter the regulations for the "time and manner" portions of state-level elections--and one assumes "manner" could be used to imply whether or not mail-in votes are lawful--and basically force the states to abandon mail-in voting? Even if I'm reading this wrong there's no doubt in my mind that they're going to push that argument forward if/when they act on this interpretation and it winds up needing to be made in a federal court as states push back using the court system. My guess is that they use this interpretation to at least *attempt* to pass new laws through congress to ban mail-in voting across the states--or at the very least blue states who they will accuse of abusing such practices.
Of course they don’t want mail-in voting; an envelope in the mail can’t be intimidated. They want voters waiting in long lines, under the close observation of masked, armed federal agents from every entity of law enforcement, including the rogue ICE.
Trump will also demand hand counting of ballots with a midnight deadline.
The absurdity is the point.
I agree, Travis; that wording is ripe for twisting.
And how. I have been a poll clerk for several years now, but as a 70 year old lady, I do not feel physically equipped to handle what is coming. I will continue to offer vociferous moral support.
I honor your past work, and as a 73 year old lady myself, I completely understand your reluctance. There’s potential for a lot of unknowable risks. That’s why I appreciate Oregon’s early adoption of vote-by-mail, now more than ever.
Thank you. I remain stuck as a blue dot in a red state, where inexplicably, voters are belligerent about voter fraud. In my area of the state, there is 0% chance that the Rs will not sweep every race. We are rural, and there are many charms to the physical landscape, but I do not share views with my neighbors, I am sorry to say.
It would be in character for them to get rid of it, only to learn after the fact that it hurts them more than it hurts the Democrats. The MAGA crowd specializes in own goals.
They should—it’s great for seniors with limited mobility. I voted in the last special election on a library bond and a single city council seat. I would crawl over broken glass to vote in 2026, but fortunately WA lets me sit at my desk and vote in the privacy of my home.
They do extremely well in Utah in mail-in voting for the last 12 years and yet there is a MAGA/GOP movement in Utah to kill mail-in voting. I live in the most idiotic state (and I'm Mormon)
Putin told Trump that it allows Dems to cheat. Ridiculous of course but Trump believes it. As for whether other Rs will fall into line—thus far, they have.
I did consider that before responding. Abortion was a moral issue for them and worthy of overturning (in their minds)...but voting rights? I don't see them firing silver bullets for Trump on this one.
My man, they have been severely curtailing and repealing voter rights guarantees for years, overturning a 50 year old precedent that had been reaffirmed numerous times since to start chipping away at the VRA and its protections by declaring its biggest enforcement mechanism unconstitutional, permitting the imposition of poll taxes that had been simply recasted with a different name in violation of the 24th amendment, inventing new judicial canons and limitations on judicial power and enforcement activities out of thin air that just happened to avoid results that go against Republican preferences, and ignoring plain statutory language whenever it suits them. SCOTUS as currently constituted is absolutely lawless and not operating as a normal court of law. Democrats and their allies need to come to terms with that promptly so they can stop imagining there is some line that the late era Roberts Court wouldn't dare cross.
They gave the man immunity after running the play clock down on the J6 case. They have thrown out multiple SCOTUS rulings because they invented "complicating factors" or "confusion" about how to apply the rulings (confusion they created).
Jeff, under normal circumstances I would agree with you: There is too much precident for this to work. The thing I fear is appeals reaching this Supreme Court. Rulings in district and appeals courts around the country will eventually be appealed to the SC. This Court has demonstrated a propensity for ignoring precident and finding new ways of interpreting the Constitution. Too frequently those interpretations seem to support the regime. I fear chaos will ensue; just what Donald wants!
Precedent doesn't mean shit anymore. What SCOTUS interprets at any given point in time is what is the determinative factor here, not what us mere mortals think or what prior precedent has stood. The Chevron ruling overturned prior precedent. The Dobbs ruling overturned prior precedent. Here's a quick list of recent overturns of prior precedent to give you an idea of the state of play:
I guess my point is a bit more nuanced so let me put it this way... I think the justices do care about their legacy...and in this case...I just don't believe that they want to overturn precedence AGAIN for this particular fight.
Just because they can, did or might...doesn't mean they will.
I caveated my opinion once and will again...I could be totally wrong on this.
PS - I was totally wrong on Nikki Haley turning around and endorsing Trump after a couple of months of dissing him. Grrrr....that still pixxes me off...her complete brazenness in doing that.
"I think the justices do care about their legacy...and in this case...I just don't believe that they want to overturn precedence AGAIN for this particular fight."
Much of the Bulwark staff--JVL included I believe--believes that Roberts is holding onto his cards for the bigger fights and letting smaller fights slide Trump's way in order to not looking like they are crossing Trump at every turn to the point that he might pack the court. Maybe this issue rises to that level of "fights worth taking," maybe it doesn't. All I know is that that call is going to come down to the whims of 3 SCOTUS justices, some of whom are squishes and may be put under extreme pressure from both the admin and the MAGA base when pondering the orb on that particular case. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't bet the farm on these 3 squishy SCOTUS justices coming through on this one, especially if they see even bigger fights than this one on the horizon. "Shit in one hand, hope in the other, see which one fills up first."
Yep...I did consider that, but I just don't think this particular subject warrants them overturning precedence again. It doesn't buy them much....unlike abortion and Presidential immunity.
This will end up in SCOTUS' hands if action is taken on this, and we know Alito and Thomas are easy "yes" votes in Trump's pocket, so it will come down to Roberts--who *hates* confrontation between branches of gov and avoids them at all costs--and Kav/Barrett being the determining factor as to whether or not Trump gets a 5-4 ruling in his favor.
I get it, but for reasons other than "they could if they wanted to" I think they'll not support this one. Why risk further tarnishing their reputation for an outcome that doesn't necessary help them?
Just a reminder: The dudes who hammered out the constitutional compromise did not envision a Federal Government controlled by two national political parties run as corrupt trades unions--the higher-ups demanding loyalty from the rank-and-file in exchange for protecting the position and pay of even the shoddiest members.
Madison, Jefferson, Gerry, et. al. envisioned a robust diversity of regional interests working out compromises. Nobody except the most hyperventilatory Anti-Federalists ever thought a bicameral majority of truckling partisans might make or alter by law such regulations on the thinnest of margins to please the chief executive.
Fair enough. I think the majority of the so-called "Founding Fathers" can be faulted for their idealism. The Anti-Federalists were pretty clear-eyed about the possible abuses of power that might stem from the new Federal Constitution.
But it's also hard for me, personally, to blame those gentlemen for not foreseeing our era when the Colonies and States of their own day were so jealous of their prerogatives. And the compromise governing structure they came up with really did work, more or less, for a good little while, at least.
Definitely don't think it's working as it's supposed to today, though. And that's not Madison's fault or Patrick Henry's fault. I think that's mostly our fault for not making the changes to the system necessary to preserve the checks and balances built into the constitutional system.
Its hard for me to accept this rationale when its not necessary for them to possess enough powers of imagination to foresee our era in order to foresee the dangers of party factionalism or how the system they created favored the creation of a two party, and only two party, political system. They were, of course, familiar with the concept of political parties, as those did exist in Parliament at the time, and the founders pretty much immediately broke into a two party system of two competing factions from the start, with the unity of Washington giving way to the two party system of Adams/Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson/Madison's Democratic Republicans and the dangers warned about by Washington in his farewell. They certainly new about the rise of two party factionalism by then, and should have anticipated it at the constitutional convention. Their mistake was thinking that the branches of government, particularly those populated by representatives from the two concurrently existing parties and from diverse areas of the country would personally identify with the branch they served in over their other factional or regional loyalties and thus share some collective branch wide ambition that could counter the abuses or ambition of any other branch of government.
That was always suspect, given the various other competing interests and ambitions that individual members of congress or senators likely possess, which may lead them to support the abuses of the other branches whenever it so suits them. That is precisely what has happened to us now. Trumps abuses are excused if not outright supported by congress and red state politicians simply because he is a Republican and supporting his abuse empowers them personally through the power wielded collectively by the party. They have effectively emasculated the political power of their branch of government and their ability to do anything through normal processes, yet they will continue to benefit from republican control of government so long as they stay loyal to the power abuser who keeps them in control. The founders mistake was in thinking the institutional branches of government themselves would elicit enough primary loyalty of its members over other considerations as to channel the collective ambition of a branch of government. In the case of Congress especially, that was a tremendously foolish error.
The road to hell is often paved with idealism--the kind of idealism that projects its own moral value system onto a broader populace that definitely doesn't hold those same values at heart.
It absolutely is their fault (in my opinion) because they projected their internal well-intentioned monologue onto a broader public that they failed to recognize was not like them at all. In the intelligence community that's called "mirroring" and often results in rational actors viewing irrational actors as being rational via projection. Then they find out that these supposed "rational actors" are not rational at all and their expectations are blown up by reality. This is also the problem of social bubbles in a nutshell. Spending too much time with people who think and act like you allows you to forget that there's a whole world full of people who don't. The founding fathers are just as guilty of being inside of a social bubble through status and station as their modern equivalents are.
Yeah, that struck me too. "This power belongs to Congress, not the President" is small comfort when Congress has resigned itself to being a tool of the Orange God Emperor.
Congress has the ability to regulate the manner in which congressional elections are run. In theory, they could outlaw mail-in ballots in general elections for congressional races. But obviously that would create logistical problems for down ballot state races over which Congress has no control. Not really worried about outlawing mail-in ballots. Republicans do very well with mail-in voting in many states, including Florida where it is HUGE advantage for the GOP. The GOP in those states don't want to get rid of it.
To quote the Morning Shots newsletter (and The Big Lebowski): "that's just like, your opinion man." What you or I think doesn't mean shit. What SCOTUS thinks is what is going to determine the outcome. Alls I know is that the language in the constitution is vague enough for them to work this action and it will be up to a corrupted SCOTUS to determine which interpretation is right. They also might selectively apply this action to blue states only, which they've done in the very recent past on a number of executive branch actions.
It has occurred to me that the ICE deployments will be used as tools of voter suppression. Place ICE at or near polling places in heavy immigrant areas and watch Hispanic and Latino voter turnout plummet. This is when we’ll see more ICE activity in Trump-friendlier places like Texas and Florida. He doesn’t have to touch the constitution or voting systems to line the streets outside polling places with heavily armed immigration police.
Exactly. ICE will arrest and detain people on "reasonable suspicion" - i.e., they "look like illegals" - and then, oh sorry, too bad, it's past election day now.
Agree. But I think they will try hardest to intimidate voters in blue areas; ICE is just a fig leaf whose intimidation will be applied indiscriminately soon, unrelated to citizenship status. Their mission is clearly expanding, and a huge part of it is basic intimidation.
Yes but only in certain jurisdictions. I doubt there will be a heavy ICE presence in the heavily Hispanic districts that were just gerrymandered in Texas. Here in Philly? Yes definitely.
Glenn’s apology to Zelenskyy is a perfect representation of MAGA.
Trump was respectful and “nice” to Zelenskyy yesterday so the MAGA media has to respond in kind. Glenn apologizes to Zelenskyy and he laughs with him.
Let’s pretend that Trump attacked Zelenskyy again yesterday, what would Glenn’s question have been then? Glenn would have criticized Zelenskyy for something, “you wore a different suit but you still won’t wear a tie. That’s disrespectful to the office” or whatever. I guarantee he would not have apologized.
This is a small critique but it just highlights how MAGA media completely follows Trump’s lead. They literally do not have any independent thought from Trump.
It's a small pleasure that, despite MAGA media's slavish devotion to Trump, the big guy still doesn't hesitate to kick them when he feels like it. He thought Zelensky's crack at Glenn was hilarious.
Putin says he wants to "eliminate the root causes" of the conflict in Ukraine. I agree. Since the primary "root cause" is Vladimir Putin.
Trump says he wants to "stop the killing". I agree with that too. But it is clear that Trump in fact does NOT. He doesn't care how many Ukrainians die. He doesn't care how many Russians die. He doesn't care how many Palestinians die. He doesn't care how many Americans die. He doesn't care how many people die as a result of cutting USAID. Or health care. Or environmental protections. Or public health and safety regulations. Or FEMA. Or the national suicide prevention hotline. He doesn't care how many people die as a result of health disinformation. He doesn't care how many people die as a result of the spreading of hate, lies and divisiveness. And so on. And so on. And so on.
Trump does not care. MAGA does not care. GOP does not care.
I agree with you 100% which is why I included the same kind of language in my email to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee asking them, as an American, NOT TO consider Trump for any Nobel Prize as his morals and values are the exact opposite of what we would expect from a Nobel winner. Send a copy of your post to: post@nobelpeacecenter.org
Trump is smart enough and stays awake enough to realize that he is failing in almost everything he is trying to do. He even has to call Putin to remember what he said the day before. Meanwhile his staff of white supremacy sadists are working as fast as they can to destroy the economy, the world order, and our democracy.
If we stay on guard, keep telling the truth, demanding our elected officials to do their jobs, and threatening them when they don't. Remember call your reps, write to your news sources. Talk to your friends. Join any of the organizations that are helping to keep America awake. Be polite but be concerned.
"Trump is smart enough..." I'm sorry, you lost me when you started your comment when that phrase. Okay, Trump is smarter than my socks, I think. But not by much. He's easily the dumbest man to ever be President.
Hope no one minds if I share “Karen” Stefanik getting booed at a photo op. Elise doesn’t do town halls. She’s above that. It was at a ceremony for a better civil servant than she’ll ever be. She likely didn’t even know him.
I'm sure you can't wait to be rid of her, since she's your "rep". I was so grateful for redistricting to be out of Andy Bigg's district. Greg Stanton, the former mayor of Phoenix is now my rep.
Stefaniak is running for Governor of heavily blue state in what obviously will be a Democratic year. Yeah, good luck with that one. I'm happy she's doing so. Maybe this will get rid of her.
I’m 120 miles south of Plattsburgh but I’d have driven up to shout for her to go back to Albany if I’d known. Lee Zeldin lost to Kathy Hochul by almost 7 and he’s not nearly as divisive as little miss sunshine.
Related comment on his trying to make voting harder: “It’s also just one in a broad spectrum of attacks Republicans have launched against your right to vote, with the SAVE Act — which will prevent women from voting if their birth certificate and drivers’ license have different names on them and they’ve never had an official change-of-name in the courts … .”
I have just spent more than $200 and 8 hours of my time, not counting another half-dozen hours driving all over the eastern part of the state, to obtain a little gold star on my driver’s license, the so-called “RealID,’ which had these very requirements to fly or … enter a government building. I’m retired so I had the time; the money was a stretch; the aggro related to not being able to get Social Security info or a 75-year-old birth certificate or a 53-yr-old marriage certificate from my college town or a certified copy of an out-of-state 40-yr-old divorce decree in a storage facility that probably makes the last scene of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” look nifty, not so mucking fuch.
This is clearly a dry run for the SAVE act, and I’ll bet nobody ever thinks the feds are involved when dealing with everybody’s favorite state agency, the RMV. Ironically, or maybe not, the most helpful people were at the local county probate court who processed my official name change from my nearly 40-yr-old marriage because a marriage certificate isn’t good enough anymore (legal name change requires the involvement of the court). JFC.
Your experience is not unusual. Those that seem to think it's easy to get a birth certificate or marriage certificate have probably never had to get one. And the older those records are, the harder it is to get them.
Wow. That’s overwhelming. I hope a passport is ironclad voter ID for women with married names. Here in Oregon we’ve had vote-by-mail for over 20 years, but now . . . Who knows? And who has local authority to decide what is now authentic? Do they have the expertise to examine a birth certificate from 75 years ago?
About 15 years ago when I renewed my driver’s license I made an attempt to restore my “maiden name”. They wanted the social security numbers of my deceased parents! I gave up.
Well, it might take awhile to torch the 19th amendment, so I guess this will just have to do to keep an appreciable number of women from voting for now.
The administration is doubtless going to try everything it can to suppress and intimidate Democratic voters. The vendetta against mail in ballots will hit hardest places where there are too many people and not enough polling stations. We're seeing the fascist playbook once again.
Voters made the mistake of electing fascists and fascist enablers on November 5. One thing about fascism is, in order for it to take root, it requires a democracy, then like a virus, it sickens and ultimately kills its host. There will be attempts at voter suppression, but much like with these military police forces, which are being deployed contrary to the Constitution while no courts or congress stops it, all of the efforts at suppression will target Democratic localities. Republican voters, aka "Real Americans," will be spared all indignities and affronts.
Once you elect the fascists, the opposition really cannot do much to stop them. Don't count on Democrats to be able to stop them. Don't even really expect democratic elections to stop them. The only thing that can stop this authoritarian takeover is Republicans, either by using their actual Constitutional powers or by ceasing to lie to the American people about who Donald Trump is and who Democrats are. But they should have stopped this ten years ago, so it's a lot to expect them to stop it now.
I think a national strike is in our future. Partly as political protest, and partly the result of fear - people too afraid to leave the (presumed) safety of their homes. The economy will be tipped over the edge.
California allowed people to vote by mail if they filled out a form to request it long before Covid. And some registered as permanent vote by mail voters. People use vote by mail because it is convenient. People live in one area and work in a different area making it hard to get to the polling place near their homes, so vote by mail enables them to cast their votes without having to rearrange their day in order to go vote in person.
The point is to encourage voting, not discourage it by acting as if we are still in the horse and buggy days when there was no accurate and quick way to determine if someone is registered to vote. It was fine to have voting on a Tuesday because people had time to finish the agriculture related work on Monday that hadn't been done on Sunday's day of rest. Also when a lot of people weren't allowed to vote...females, anyone of Chinese descent, most black people...there were just fewer voters then.
Is there any doubt that Trump talked with Putin about how to hold an election that looks legitimate and has a guaranteed outcome? He's laying the groundwork now to undermine 2026. In 2020 he started raising doubts about mail-in ballots months before November, knowing that Covid would make mail-ins more likely in more states. I know there's a lot of talk about his dementia, but either he or his team are planning way ahead this time. Marc Elias may be our only hope.
Yes, Trump and his team are beyond a doubt plotting and scheming to "win" the midterms for the Republicans, keeping the House and Senate. In that scenario, we are beyond fortunate to have powerhouse Marc Elias and his team on the side of voting rights and democracy--they will be our heroes. Marc Elias has the courage of his convictions and is tne top lawyer in his field. Trump can keep Pam Bondi and Kash Patel and the rest of them--Marc Elias will prevail over them any day of the week--in court-- with the law and the Constitution. It wiill be a fight--I , for one, am very glad Marc Elias is fighting on our side-- for democracy and voting rights.
"Republicans and Democrats alike are dropping all pretense of highhandedness and rushing to crank out the most screamingly lopsided gerrymanders their population maps can sustain."
Let's not "both sides" this thing.
As a democratic voter, I've been very open and supportive of "good government" style reforms.
Trumpy Republicans imagine that they're fighting to preserve the laws of God and nature, which transcend all human-made rules. The election of Trump in the first place was predicated on the idea that America was in such dire peril that it could only be saved by a norm-busting rule-breaker. Trump and his allies argued that he couldn't take the "bold" action necessary if he had to be much concerned about staying within the law.
The rule of line drawing in some states expressly say political affiliation was not to be considered...that is removing the weapon, not disarming. And the concern is about representation of people in the local district, not balance of political parties on a national level.
But the outcome, for left leaning voters has been a reduction in representation. Sure, California republicans in Fresno get represented nationally. In a sense, that is good. That is what I previously supported!
Their voices plus those of highly republican states has the net effect of over representation for the average republican and under representation, in aggregate, for left leaning voters. That is literally the point.
Is political affiliation the only thing that should matter at the national level? If a district needs federal help with flood control...isn't the need held by anyone who lives there, regardless of political party affiliation? Grouping people together in districts because they share a community need, rather than because of political affiliation forces Congress to look beyond the party to the need.
The problem is really the limited number of House seats. It restricts the ability to draw rational lines. A state is allotted only a certain number of seats.
Upton Sinclair was right - when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross. Our country as I see it now is screwed. I wanted to cry last night when I saw the Texas Democratic member of the legislature locked in the meeting chamber. And learned that Dems had to sign away their freedom to go to the grocery store, drop their kids off at school, take them shopping without their "minder" in tow. And here's another fear. With Agent Orange's war on mail-in voting and voting machines, how many red states do you think will follow his "executive order" and dump both? Are those EOs really worth the paper they are written on? He is meddling in private businesses also. Is there nothing this wanna-be dictator won't stoop to. To those who voted to return this menace to the White House, a pox on yours!
Thank you for mentioning what's going on on the floor of the Texas House. For those of you skipped down to the Cheap Shot, the Texas government has locked a Democratic member of the Texas House on the floor of the House until Wednesday. She cannot leave, because she refused to sign a document giving state troopers permission to follow her everywhere she goes and arrest her any time they want.
Fascism is here, folks, and Texas is leading the way.
As I just wrote on Fanone’s Substack on this topic, I thought I had misunderstood this story at first. This can’t be happening. I wish the dam would just break already; the tension is too high.
Yeah, they mentioned it, but in an absurdly milquetoasty way. Possibly legal? Are you kidding me? Read the damn constitution. This is pure police state stuff and ought to be leading every news report, particularly those partial to the "opposition." And where's the loud and public support for Nicole Collier?
It's being covered by the local news here in Houston.
I'm sure they can legally tail them, if they suspect they will do something illegal - like abandon their seats and leave the state to deny quorum. It's like an undercover security agent following a shopper around if they suspect they might shoplift. You don't wait until they are out of the store and three blocks away to start pursuing them.
All the Texas GOP did here was make them sign a release, "consenting" to being tailed, so they can't sue for it later. Tomorrow night, this will all be over, anyway.
Can you identify what section of the Texas criminal code makes it illegal for a state representative to leave the state during a special legislative session? Its not illegal to leave the state and deny the legislature a quorum because you feel like its unfair and should be illegal, or because Ken Paxton or Gregg Abbott say so. There needs to be an actual law being broken.
I didn't say it was illegal to leave the state. I just said it is illegal (or perhaps that is not the right word) to not report to the Capitol for legislative sessions - or at least the government has the authority by the constitution to compel you to attend. They aren't going to let these Democrats escape again. There will be a quorum today. Sort the rest out in court afterward.
Silly me, and here I assumed you understood that cops can’t just detain someone without suspecting them of a crime. Agents of the state can’t just detain Americans and hold them against their will locked in a building bc they feel like it, and don’t want to “let them escape again.” And a state constitution that empowers its police to do exactly is not a defense of those actions. It’s a grotesque tyranny, but shame on the Democrats for not getting this and deciding to come back. They should have stayed out of the state until next year if need be.
Well, I don't think the government is as sure as you are. Why else would they think they need written consent to avoid being sued?
"Tomorrow night, this will all be over" is rather cavalier when it comes to detaining someone without cause or warrant. I'm sure Ms. Collier thinks it's a pretty long time. To say nothing about there being no time requirement before illegal and/or constitutional violations become actionable, nor imho should there be. I think this suggestion is pretty outrageous.
Your analogy to an undercover security agent following a shopper around is imho inapposite for a number of reasons including the distinction between private and public spaces, the distinction between private individuals and elected officials acting in their official capacity, the different standards of reasonableness and limits on conduct applicable to privately employed security agents versus police and more.
Nobody will leave you alone with diamonds on the counter in a jewelry store. That doesn't mean they suspect you will steal them. It just means they aren't going to give you the chance. These Democrats will be in the House when the Speaker gavels it into session today, one way or another.
Also, nobody said she couldn't go home. They just said she had to consent to being monitored, because she was suspected of potential bad behavior - due to her previously documented bad behavior.
Also, leaving the state to deny quorum is not an official duty in her job description.
A jewelry store employee is not an agent of the state, observation is not state detention, and no jewelry store has ever locked its doors to keep me from leaving against my will or sent people to tail me home after I left the store… for any reason, never mind because she’s suspected of “potential bad behavior” based on her “previously documented bad behavior” whatever the hell that means.
Helluva liberty standard for justifying state detention and police power you’ve adopted there. “Suspected of potential bad behavior” is surely a valid standard for determining if locking someone up bc you don’t like the way they exercise political power satisfies the reasonable seizure test under the 4th amendment
Agree but unless you are being sarcastic, I think you left out a "not" between "surely" and "a valid" in the 2nd paragraph.
Leaving the state to deny quorum is not illegal.
No, but being in the state and not reporting to the Capitol apparently is - or at least it is legal to compel your attendance, by surveillance and force if necessary. In this new era, the GOP will not be "gotcha-ed" by these obstruction tactics. I hate Donald Trump with the heat of a hundred suns, but I also have no patience for these tactics to delay legislation after elections have been won. I'm still a Republican, after all. There will be a world after Donald Trump.
Please. They didn't break quorum to prevent a special session vote on flood relief measures or emergency funding. This is not normal legislative activity with the purpose of enacting policies that Republicans ran and won on in the last election. If that were the case and the Democrats left the state to break quorum you might have a point about unwarranted obstruction. But its not and you don't. This is anti-democratic election rigging to consolidate engrained Republican power in the structure of government so that the next election results won't even matter.
There is no rationale, no purpose to this special session to redistrict the State of Texas in 2025 other than that, and no one is even trying to engage in plausible deniability here as Trump boasts that the goal of this powerplay is to gerrymander so hard that Texas can eliminate 5 more Democratic members of Congress, which will increase his margin for error when he attempts to keep the Republicans in power in 2027 no matter what happens in the 2026. That is the only gotcha tactic being employed here and your refusal to see something so transparently clear speaks volumes.
Meidas covered this early and extensively last night and this morning. https://www.meidasplus.com/p/texas-dem-state-rep-locked-in-capitol Coverage includes the fact that demonstrators went to the state capitol building to protest Nicole Collier's being held hostage by the Texas Republicans. And predictably, some demonstrators were arrested. https://www.meidasplus.com/p/arrests-were-made-but-you-put-it Yes, fascism is here.
It always does.
WTAF?
I think Texas has always been leading the way down this road. At least since the advent of the Southern Strategy.
Hate to tell you, but the Texas constitution permits the governor (or state House, or somebody) to forcibly detain and transport legislators to the chambers to conduct business, if they refuse to do so voluntarily. They couldn't do that while these people were hold-up out of state, but within state lines, their constitution and law enforcement rules.
I hate the idea of mid-decade redistricting, but I also hate these sleezy "lets run away and break quorum") tactics to avoid the hard reality that elections have consequences. Win them if you want a say.
As for Abbott and the Texas GOP, what did you expect them to do? Those Democrats are not going to be permitted to get away again. That would just be stupid. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After Wednesday, my guess is they can go anywhere they like.
It’s not the state constitution. The legislature has a “call of the House/Senate provision” which essentially locks the doors, but it would apply to everyone, not individuals.
My prediction is even Dems do well in the midterms, their new members will not be sworn in. The NC Supreme Court race last year will be replayed in almost every close race. Congress will basically be nuked and Trump will issue executive order after executive order to consolidate power. Whether the people will stand idle when that happens is the question.
Seems plausible. I suspect MAGA will employ a variety of tactics to steal the election. “Flood the zone”. That’s when a national strike should take place, in my opinion. We should all be preparing our own lives.
I would like to suggest a name for the operational plan, which will notionally be carried out by breakaway Constitutional Forces (Military and impromptu militia) in the subsequent conflict, as “Operation Gallant Road.”
If those fascist pukes think they can just shitcan an election, and hold a coronation, they’re in for a big fuckin surprise.
P.S. Any ICE, or BP, or BP BORTAC scum that are bulwark members, can forget about asking for me to elaborate. Piss off! A tribunal, or drumhead military trial is in your future. I bet your mommas are real proud.
I think you are 100% correct. What we went thru here in NC is just one of the tactics they'll use.
The Republicans did eventually cave on the NC Supreme Court race. The Democratic candidate was sworn in as a justice.
Ya I'm fairly certain the Republicans will just deny and swearing in, claim legal shenanigans, and push it out as much as possible. They'll do it under the pretense of "following the legal process" of course. Authoritarians need a veneer of legitimacy until the populace is fully cowed into autocracy.
"....but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
Am I reading this wrong, or does this state that the US Congress--currently under control of the GOP--may at any time alter the regulations for the "time and manner" portions of state-level elections--and one assumes "manner" could be used to imply whether or not mail-in votes are lawful--and basically force the states to abandon mail-in voting? Even if I'm reading this wrong there's no doubt in my mind that they're going to push that argument forward if/when they act on this interpretation and it winds up needing to be made in a federal court as states push back using the court system. My guess is that they use this interpretation to at least *attempt* to pass new laws through congress to ban mail-in voting across the states--or at the very least blue states who they will accuse of abusing such practices.
Of course they don’t want mail-in voting; an envelope in the mail can’t be intimidated. They want voters waiting in long lines, under the close observation of masked, armed federal agents from every entity of law enforcement, including the rogue ICE.
Trump will also demand hand counting of ballots with a midnight deadline.
The absurdity is the point.
I agree, Travis; that wording is ripe for twisting.
Trump wants to win an election. He doesn't want to have one.
Yes, he does. He just wants only MAGAs to vote.
Which is an internal contradiction. But that’s the essence of Trumpism.
A fine but crucial distinction.
Even better, they want the same polling facilities in urban precincts as rural precincts.
The possibilities are endless. Buckle up. Stock up on essentials.
Fewest in urban precincts of course.
5 poll workers works differently in 500 voter precincts versus 5000 voter precincts
Time for the people to make their voices heard.
Which now is starting to require more bravery than we are accustomed to.
And how. I have been a poll clerk for several years now, but as a 70 year old lady, I do not feel physically equipped to handle what is coming. I will continue to offer vociferous moral support.
I honor your past work, and as a 73 year old lady myself, I completely understand your reluctance. There’s potential for a lot of unknowable risks. That’s why I appreciate Oregon’s early adoption of vote-by-mail, now more than ever.
Thank you. I remain stuck as a blue dot in a red state, where inexplicably, voters are belligerent about voter fraud. In my area of the state, there is 0% chance that the Rs will not sweep every race. We are rural, and there are many charms to the physical landscape, but I do not share views with my neighbors, I am sorry to say.
Actually, Republican do very well in mail-in voting in a lot of states. They are not going to get rid of it.
It would be in character for them to get rid of it, only to learn after the fact that it hurts them more than it hurts the Democrats. The MAGA crowd specializes in own goals.
They should—it’s great for seniors with limited mobility. I voted in the last special election on a library bond and a single city council seat. I would crawl over broken glass to vote in 2026, but fortunately WA lets me sit at my desk and vote in the privacy of my home.
They do extremely well in Utah in mail-in voting for the last 12 years and yet there is a MAGA/GOP movement in Utah to kill mail-in voting. I live in the most idiotic state (and I'm Mormon)
You have my sympathy!
Putin told Trump that it allows Dems to cheat. Ridiculous of course but Trump believes it. As for whether other Rs will fall into line—thus far, they have.
I don't know if you're reading it right, but there's just too much damn precedence for this to succeed.
I just don't think this particular dog hunts.
All that being said...with Trump and MAGA...I've been wrong before.
Precedence has never stopped this Supreme Court.
I did consider that before responding. Abortion was a moral issue for them and worthy of overturning (in their minds)...but voting rights? I don't see them firing silver bullets for Trump on this one.
My man, they have been severely curtailing and repealing voter rights guarantees for years, overturning a 50 year old precedent that had been reaffirmed numerous times since to start chipping away at the VRA and its protections by declaring its biggest enforcement mechanism unconstitutional, permitting the imposition of poll taxes that had been simply recasted with a different name in violation of the 24th amendment, inventing new judicial canons and limitations on judicial power and enforcement activities out of thin air that just happened to avoid results that go against Republican preferences, and ignoring plain statutory language whenever it suits them. SCOTUS as currently constituted is absolutely lawless and not operating as a normal court of law. Democrats and their allies need to come to terms with that promptly so they can stop imagining there is some line that the late era Roberts Court wouldn't dare cross.
I agree with you Jeff.
They gave the man immunity after running the play clock down on the J6 case. They have thrown out multiple SCOTUS rulings because they invented "complicating factors" or "confusion" about how to apply the rulings (confusion they created).
Jeff, under normal circumstances I would agree with you: There is too much precident for this to work. The thing I fear is appeals reaching this Supreme Court. Rulings in district and appeals courts around the country will eventually be appealed to the SC. This Court has demonstrated a propensity for ignoring precident and finding new ways of interpreting the Constitution. Too frequently those interpretations seem to support the regime. I fear chaos will ensue; just what Donald wants!
Precedent doesn't mean shit anymore. What SCOTUS interprets at any given point in time is what is the determinative factor here, not what us mere mortals think or what prior precedent has stood. The Chevron ruling overturned prior precedent. The Dobbs ruling overturned prior precedent. Here's a quick list of recent overturns of prior precedent to give you an idea of the state of play:
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/
Travis, that's exactly the pointI was trying to make: Our Constitutional branches are not trustworthy and are not doing their jobs.
I guess my point is a bit more nuanced so let me put it this way... I think the justices do care about their legacy...and in this case...I just don't believe that they want to overturn precedence AGAIN for this particular fight.
Just because they can, did or might...doesn't mean they will.
I caveated my opinion once and will again...I could be totally wrong on this.
PS - I was totally wrong on Nikki Haley turning around and endorsing Trump after a couple of months of dissing him. Grrrr....that still pixxes me off...her complete brazenness in doing that.
"I think the justices do care about their legacy...and in this case...I just don't believe that they want to overturn precedence AGAIN for this particular fight."
Much of the Bulwark staff--JVL included I believe--believes that Roberts is holding onto his cards for the bigger fights and letting smaller fights slide Trump's way in order to not looking like they are crossing Trump at every turn to the point that he might pack the court. Maybe this issue rises to that level of "fights worth taking," maybe it doesn't. All I know is that that call is going to come down to the whims of 3 SCOTUS justices, some of whom are squishes and may be put under extreme pressure from both the admin and the MAGA base when pondering the orb on that particular case. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't bet the farm on these 3 squishy SCOTUS justices coming through on this one, especially if they see even bigger fights than this one on the horizon. "Shit in one hand, hope in the other, see which one fills up first."
Yep...I did consider that, but I just don't think this particular subject warrants them overturning precedence again. It doesn't buy them much....unlike abortion and Presidential immunity.
This will end up in SCOTUS' hands if action is taken on this, and we know Alito and Thomas are easy "yes" votes in Trump's pocket, so it will come down to Roberts--who *hates* confrontation between branches of gov and avoids them at all costs--and Kav/Barrett being the determining factor as to whether or not Trump gets a 5-4 ruling in his favor.
Does Roberts hate confrontation, or does he just have fascism in his DNA? He gets no benefit of the doubt from me. I agree with your overall scenario.
That was the “before times”. Normal precedent is no longer operational.
I get it, but for reasons other than "they could if they wanted to" I think they'll not support this one. Why risk further tarnishing their reputation for an outcome that doesn't necessary help them?
We are all about to find out.
They for sure will try anything. When Hakeem Jeffries said to Tim more is more, the GOP has done it at least since 1994.
Just a reminder: The dudes who hammered out the constitutional compromise did not envision a Federal Government controlled by two national political parties run as corrupt trades unions--the higher-ups demanding loyalty from the rank-and-file in exchange for protecting the position and pay of even the shoddiest members.
Madison, Jefferson, Gerry, et. al. envisioned a robust diversity of regional interests working out compromises. Nobody except the most hyperventilatory Anti-Federalists ever thought a bicameral majority of truckling partisans might make or alter by law such regulations on the thinnest of margins to please the chief executive.
I'd call that a serious failure of imagination on the part of the founding fathers
Fair enough. I think the majority of the so-called "Founding Fathers" can be faulted for their idealism. The Anti-Federalists were pretty clear-eyed about the possible abuses of power that might stem from the new Federal Constitution.
But it's also hard for me, personally, to blame those gentlemen for not foreseeing our era when the Colonies and States of their own day were so jealous of their prerogatives. And the compromise governing structure they came up with really did work, more or less, for a good little while, at least.
Definitely don't think it's working as it's supposed to today, though. And that's not Madison's fault or Patrick Henry's fault. I think that's mostly our fault for not making the changes to the system necessary to preserve the checks and balances built into the constitutional system.
Its hard for me to accept this rationale when its not necessary for them to possess enough powers of imagination to foresee our era in order to foresee the dangers of party factionalism or how the system they created favored the creation of a two party, and only two party, political system. They were, of course, familiar with the concept of political parties, as those did exist in Parliament at the time, and the founders pretty much immediately broke into a two party system of two competing factions from the start, with the unity of Washington giving way to the two party system of Adams/Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson/Madison's Democratic Republicans and the dangers warned about by Washington in his farewell. They certainly new about the rise of two party factionalism by then, and should have anticipated it at the constitutional convention. Their mistake was thinking that the branches of government, particularly those populated by representatives from the two concurrently existing parties and from diverse areas of the country would personally identify with the branch they served in over their other factional or regional loyalties and thus share some collective branch wide ambition that could counter the abuses or ambition of any other branch of government.
That was always suspect, given the various other competing interests and ambitions that individual members of congress or senators likely possess, which may lead them to support the abuses of the other branches whenever it so suits them. That is precisely what has happened to us now. Trumps abuses are excused if not outright supported by congress and red state politicians simply because he is a Republican and supporting his abuse empowers them personally through the power wielded collectively by the party. They have effectively emasculated the political power of their branch of government and their ability to do anything through normal processes, yet they will continue to benefit from republican control of government so long as they stay loyal to the power abuser who keeps them in control. The founders mistake was in thinking the institutional branches of government themselves would elicit enough primary loyalty of its members over other considerations as to channel the collective ambition of a branch of government. In the case of Congress especially, that was a tremendously foolish error.
The road to hell is often paved with idealism--the kind of idealism that projects its own moral value system onto a broader populace that definitely doesn't hold those same values at heart.
It absolutely is their fault (in my opinion) because they projected their internal well-intentioned monologue onto a broader public that they failed to recognize was not like them at all. In the intelligence community that's called "mirroring" and often results in rational actors viewing irrational actors as being rational via projection. Then they find out that these supposed "rational actors" are not rational at all and their expectations are blown up by reality. This is also the problem of social bubbles in a nutshell. Spending too much time with people who think and act like you allows you to forget that there's a whole world full of people who don't. The founding fathers are just as guilty of being inside of a social bubble through status and station as their modern equivalents are.
That was exactly my reaction when I read Heather CR's letter this morning.
Yeah, that struck me too. "This power belongs to Congress, not the President" is small comfort when Congress has resigned itself to being a tool of the Orange God Emperor.
Congress has the ability to regulate the manner in which congressional elections are run. In theory, they could outlaw mail-in ballots in general elections for congressional races. But obviously that would create logistical problems for down ballot state races over which Congress has no control. Not really worried about outlawing mail-in ballots. Republicans do very well with mail-in voting in many states, including Florida where it is HUGE advantage for the GOP. The GOP in those states don't want to get rid of it.
To quote the Morning Shots newsletter (and The Big Lebowski): "that's just like, your opinion man." What you or I think doesn't mean shit. What SCOTUS thinks is what is going to determine the outcome. Alls I know is that the language in the constitution is vague enough for them to work this action and it will be up to a corrupted SCOTUS to determine which interpretation is right. They also might selectively apply this action to blue states only, which they've done in the very recent past on a number of executive branch actions.
It has occurred to me that the ICE deployments will be used as tools of voter suppression. Place ICE at or near polling places in heavy immigrant areas and watch Hispanic and Latino voter turnout plummet. This is when we’ll see more ICE activity in Trump-friendlier places like Texas and Florida. He doesn’t have to touch the constitution or voting systems to line the streets outside polling places with heavily armed immigration police.
Exactly. ICE will arrest and detain people on "reasonable suspicion" - i.e., they "look like illegals" - and then, oh sorry, too bad, it's past election day now.
Agree. But I think they will try hardest to intimidate voters in blue areas; ICE is just a fig leaf whose intimidation will be applied indiscriminately soon, unrelated to citizenship status. Their mission is clearly expanding, and a huge part of it is basic intimidation.
Good point.
Yes but only in certain jurisdictions. I doubt there will be a heavy ICE presence in the heavily Hispanic districts that were just gerrymandered in Texas. Here in Philly? Yes definitely.
Glenn’s apology to Zelenskyy is a perfect representation of MAGA.
Trump was respectful and “nice” to Zelenskyy yesterday so the MAGA media has to respond in kind. Glenn apologizes to Zelenskyy and he laughs with him.
Let’s pretend that Trump attacked Zelenskyy again yesterday, what would Glenn’s question have been then? Glenn would have criticized Zelenskyy for something, “you wore a different suit but you still won’t wear a tie. That’s disrespectful to the office” or whatever. I guarantee he would not have apologized.
This is a small critique but it just highlights how MAGA media completely follows Trump’s lead. They literally do not have any independent thought from Trump.
It's a small pleasure that, despite MAGA media's slavish devotion to Trump, the big guy still doesn't hesitate to kick them when he feels like it. He thought Zelensky's crack at Glenn was hilarious.
It showed great wit and comedic timing by Zelenskyy. He may be out of practice but he still has those comedic skills.
Don't know about the Nobel but Zelenskyy deserves an Oscar
As to sartorial messages, I loved Zelensky’s all black mourning attire.
As a Raiders fan, I thought he looked very sharp
Me too! The Johnny Cash vibe works for me.
Appropriate when reasoning with Trump
Actually, he dresses like that a lot of time. That's his formal attire.
But it matters that he didn’t capitulate by adopting “normal”, for this particular audience.
Putin says he wants to "eliminate the root causes" of the conflict in Ukraine. I agree. Since the primary "root cause" is Vladimir Putin.
Trump says he wants to "stop the killing". I agree with that too. But it is clear that Trump in fact does NOT. He doesn't care how many Ukrainians die. He doesn't care how many Russians die. He doesn't care how many Palestinians die. He doesn't care how many Americans die. He doesn't care how many people die as a result of cutting USAID. Or health care. Or environmental protections. Or public health and safety regulations. Or FEMA. Or the national suicide prevention hotline. He doesn't care how many people die as a result of health disinformation. He doesn't care how many people die as a result of the spreading of hate, lies and divisiveness. And so on. And so on. And so on.
Trump does not care. MAGA does not care. GOP does not care.
#StopTheTraitors #StopTheLies #StopTheHoax #StopTheFraud #StopTheCon #RestoreAmerica #DethroneTrump #EraseMAGA #RecallGOP #NeverFraudsters #NeverDeniers #NeverConMen #NeverMobsters #NeverDictators #NeverTraitors #ProtectThePublicInterest #PreserveTheRuleOfLaw #PromoteTheGeneralWelfare #LibertyAndJusticeForAll
I agree with you 100% which is why I included the same kind of language in my email to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee asking them, as an American, NOT TO consider Trump for any Nobel Prize as his morals and values are the exact opposite of what we would expect from a Nobel winner. Send a copy of your post to: post@nobelpeacecenter.org
Trump does care. He cares that he finally wins a damn Nobel Prize, and he’s willing to save lives to do it if he has to. Principle of double effect.
1500% tariff for Norway until he gets the effing prize.
Or zero on Norway until he doesn't win. Afterwards.....
Nihilism. That’s their true basis for everything.
Everything standing on nothing is a bit scared-making.
Trump is smart enough and stays awake enough to realize that he is failing in almost everything he is trying to do. He even has to call Putin to remember what he said the day before. Meanwhile his staff of white supremacy sadists are working as fast as they can to destroy the economy, the world order, and our democracy.
If we stay on guard, keep telling the truth, demanding our elected officials to do their jobs, and threatening them when they don't. Remember call your reps, write to your news sources. Talk to your friends. Join any of the organizations that are helping to keep America awake. Be polite but be concerned.
"Trump is smart enough..." I'm sorry, you lost me when you started your comment when that phrase. Okay, Trump is smarter than my socks, I think. But not by much. He's easily the dumbest man to ever be President.
Suffering from dementia too.
If this was a movie, we would know Trump was calling his handler. It’s a “B” grade movie, with an improbable plot.
Yes and he couldn’t call Putin “in front of” the other world leaders, because respect. Ha.
Yeah - respect for Putin! What a gag.
That MAKES you gag.......
Hope no one minds if I share “Karen” Stefanik getting booed at a photo op. Elise doesn’t do town halls. She’s above that. It was at a ceremony for a better civil servant than she’ll ever be. She likely didn’t even know him.
https://www.mynbc5.com/article/elise-stefanik-plattsburgh-protesters/65808523
Tim did a short Bulwark Takes on it. Delicious!
Thanks. I gotta look for that.
https://youtu.be/wk-aRhUwTAQ?si=vTzxxZAy9s9Z-QAu
I'm sure you can't wait to be rid of her, since she's your "rep". I was so grateful for redistricting to be out of Andy Bigg's district. Greg Stanton, the former mayor of Phoenix is now my rep.
Congrats. Gotta be a great feeling.
Stefaniak is running for Governor of heavily blue state in what obviously will be a Democratic year. Yeah, good luck with that one. I'm happy she's doing so. Maybe this will get rid of her.
Amen to that. I live in upstate NY.
I saw it earlier. Brutal! And she wants to be governor. What the hell is she smoking?
I’m 120 miles south of Plattsburgh but I’d have driven up to shout for her to go back to Albany if I’d known. Lee Zeldin lost to Kathy Hochul by almost 7 and he’s not nearly as divisive as little miss sunshine.
Related comment on his trying to make voting harder: “It’s also just one in a broad spectrum of attacks Republicans have launched against your right to vote, with the SAVE Act — which will prevent women from voting if their birth certificate and drivers’ license have different names on them and they’ve never had an official change-of-name in the courts … .”
I have just spent more than $200 and 8 hours of my time, not counting another half-dozen hours driving all over the eastern part of the state, to obtain a little gold star on my driver’s license, the so-called “RealID,’ which had these very requirements to fly or … enter a government building. I’m retired so I had the time; the money was a stretch; the aggro related to not being able to get Social Security info or a 75-year-old birth certificate or a 53-yr-old marriage certificate from my college town or a certified copy of an out-of-state 40-yr-old divorce decree in a storage facility that probably makes the last scene of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” look nifty, not so mucking fuch.
This is clearly a dry run for the SAVE act, and I’ll bet nobody ever thinks the feds are involved when dealing with everybody’s favorite state agency, the RMV. Ironically, or maybe not, the most helpful people were at the local county probate court who processed my official name change from my nearly 40-yr-old marriage because a marriage certificate isn’t good enough anymore (legal name change requires the involvement of the court). JFC.
Your experience is not unusual. Those that seem to think it's easy to get a birth certificate or marriage certificate have probably never had to get one. And the older those records are, the harder it is to get them.
Wow. That’s overwhelming. I hope a passport is ironclad voter ID for women with married names. Here in Oregon we’ve had vote-by-mail for over 20 years, but now . . . Who knows? And who has local authority to decide what is now authentic? Do they have the expertise to examine a birth certificate from 75 years ago?
Unfortunately, mine was expired, and it didn’t meet the requirements of *accounting for every name change* between birth certificate and now.
About 15 years ago when I renewed my driver’s license I made an attempt to restore my “maiden name”. They wanted the social security numbers of my deceased parents! I gave up.
One wonders how the multi-named JD Vance will maintain voting status with the SAVE Act.
Well, it might take awhile to torch the 19th amendment, so I guess this will just have to do to keep an appreciable number of women from voting for now.
The administration is doubtless going to try everything it can to suppress and intimidate Democratic voters. The vendetta against mail in ballots will hit hardest places where there are too many people and not enough polling stations. We're seeing the fascist playbook once again.
Voters made the mistake of electing fascists and fascist enablers on November 5. One thing about fascism is, in order for it to take root, it requires a democracy, then like a virus, it sickens and ultimately kills its host. There will be attempts at voter suppression, but much like with these military police forces, which are being deployed contrary to the Constitution while no courts or congress stops it, all of the efforts at suppression will target Democratic localities. Republican voters, aka "Real Americans," will be spared all indignities and affronts.
Once you elect the fascists, the opposition really cannot do much to stop them. Don't count on Democrats to be able to stop them. Don't even really expect democratic elections to stop them. The only thing that can stop this authoritarian takeover is Republicans, either by using their actual Constitutional powers or by ceasing to lie to the American people about who Donald Trump is and who Democrats are. But they should have stopped this ten years ago, so it's a lot to expect them to stop it now.
I think a national strike is in our future. Partly as political protest, and partly the result of fear - people too afraid to leave the (presumed) safety of their homes. The economy will be tipped over the edge.
California allowed people to vote by mail if they filled out a form to request it long before Covid. And some registered as permanent vote by mail voters. People use vote by mail because it is convenient. People live in one area and work in a different area making it hard to get to the polling place near their homes, so vote by mail enables them to cast their votes without having to rearrange their day in order to go vote in person.
The point is to encourage voting, not discourage it by acting as if we are still in the horse and buggy days when there was no accurate and quick way to determine if someone is registered to vote. It was fine to have voting on a Tuesday because people had time to finish the agriculture related work on Monday that hadn't been done on Sunday's day of rest. Also when a lot of people weren't allowed to vote...females, anyone of Chinese descent, most black people...there were just fewer voters then.
Is there any doubt that Trump talked with Putin about how to hold an election that looks legitimate and has a guaranteed outcome? He's laying the groundwork now to undermine 2026. In 2020 he started raising doubts about mail-in ballots months before November, knowing that Covid would make mail-ins more likely in more states. I know there's a lot of talk about his dementia, but either he or his team are planning way ahead this time. Marc Elias may be our only hope.
This whole scene is like hiring an undertaker to perform your heart surgery.
Marc Elias is fighting relentlessly. Worth your donation to Democracy Docket to help him out if you can.
Yes, Trump and his team are beyond a doubt plotting and scheming to "win" the midterms for the Republicans, keeping the House and Senate. In that scenario, we are beyond fortunate to have powerhouse Marc Elias and his team on the side of voting rights and democracy--they will be our heroes. Marc Elias has the courage of his convictions and is tne top lawyer in his field. Trump can keep Pam Bondi and Kash Patel and the rest of them--Marc Elias will prevail over them any day of the week--in court-- with the law and the Constitution. It wiill be a fight--I , for one, am very glad Marc Elias is fighting on our side-- for democracy and voting rights.
"Republicans and Democrats alike are dropping all pretense of highhandedness and rushing to crank out the most screamingly lopsided gerrymanders their population maps can sustain."
Let's not "both sides" this thing.
As a democratic voter, I've been very open and supportive of "good government" style reforms.
Ya know who hasn't? Republican voters.
Unilateral disarmament.
Trumpy Republicans imagine that they're fighting to preserve the laws of God and nature, which transcend all human-made rules. The election of Trump in the first place was predicated on the idea that America was in such dire peril that it could only be saved by a norm-busting rule-breaker. Trump and his allies argued that he couldn't take the "bold" action necessary if he had to be much concerned about staying within the law.
Republicans do it for the good of their party. Democrats do it for the good of the country.
The rule of line drawing in some states expressly say political affiliation was not to be considered...that is removing the weapon, not disarming. And the concern is about representation of people in the local district, not balance of political parties on a national level.
But the outcome, for left leaning voters has been a reduction in representation. Sure, California republicans in Fresno get represented nationally. In a sense, that is good. That is what I previously supported!
Their voices plus those of highly republican states has the net effect of over representation for the average republican and under representation, in aggregate, for left leaning voters. That is literally the point.
Is political affiliation the only thing that should matter at the national level? If a district needs federal help with flood control...isn't the need held by anyone who lives there, regardless of political party affiliation? Grouping people together in districts because they share a community need, rather than because of political affiliation forces Congress to look beyond the party to the need.
The problem is really the limited number of House seats. It restricts the ability to draw rational lines. A state is allotted only a certain number of seats.
It’s obvious that political affiliation is not the only thing that should matter.
It’s equally obvious that Republicans are over represented nationally.
House seats have roughly proportional populations so while some states get more reps than others, in aggregate that’s not the issue here.
It takes off the pressure to focus on party affiliation because there are more seats.
Ben Franklin: "A republic if you can keep it."
Where we are now: "The Constitution doesn’t carry its own guns. But the National Guardsmen do."
Upton Sinclair was right - when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross. Our country as I see it now is screwed. I wanted to cry last night when I saw the Texas Democratic member of the legislature locked in the meeting chamber. And learned that Dems had to sign away their freedom to go to the grocery store, drop their kids off at school, take them shopping without their "minder" in tow. And here's another fear. With Agent Orange's war on mail-in voting and voting machines, how many red states do you think will follow his "executive order" and dump both? Are those EOs really worth the paper they are written on? He is meddling in private businesses also. Is there nothing this wanna-be dictator won't stoop to. To those who voted to return this menace to the White House, a pox on yours!
"these rants are utterly divorced from fact and law." FWIW, I appreciate the Bulwarks ability to speak clearly and forcefully.
Trying this again: The Constitution doesn’t have arms, but at least it used to have backup. Now, by a vote of 6 to 3, it has nothing.