Robert, I am both as angry and fired up as you are about the recent SCOTUS decisions and recent events. While I am a Strong Biden supporter and defender, even though he was not my first or even second choice in the 2020 Democratic primary, he does need to be more forthcoming in his remarks and actions. We have other potential examples from some Democrats of such remarks and actions.
Also I would like to comment on the thought that Trump declaring his candidacy or indeed even being a potential leader for the Republican nomination for President in 2024 affords him some form of immunity from prosecution for crimes he has committed. I am constantly critical that AG Garland is moving far too slowly on both investigating or prosecuting Trump and others for various federal crimes he has committed. Although not a lawyer I am quite the student of Constitutional and federal law as well as history and civics. I see no provisions in any of those providing Trump with a veil or shred of immunity by virtue of being a candidate for political office or even holding office. I frankly don’t care if they send white smoke up the Vatican Council of Cardinals chimney and declare him Pope … investigate and prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Show the same level of courage as Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis and go after him. He gets no pass from prosecution by declaring his candidacy.
I agree with you completely that trump's status as a 2024 candidate should afford him no new level of immunity from prosecution. However, I note that many readers caution that his status as a former president does so. I disagree strongly. I worry that some readers would caution extra deference if he becomes a presidential candidate again.
I understand the political concerns of prosecuting a former President but also believe there should equally be concerns about not prosecuting serious criminal actions. I also realize the risk of an unsuccessful prosecution. In fact I would assign greater risk to that if the DOJ believe the case may not be successful if brought.
The present Republican Party, it’s leadership, members, and supporters have placed our country at serious risk and I fear we are positioned in that proverbial space “between a rock and a hard spot.” There are always options, but perhaps few good ones. However, surely simply waiting for the rock to deliver a crushing blow is perhaps the worst of those options.
At least for my part, I don't think extra deference for a candidate is appropriate but, given the AG's hesitancy so far, I fear that it will be given. This community has been discussing that possibility for a long time and we're getting uncomfortably close to push joining shove vis a vis the election timetable.
I agree with you completely in respect of prosecuting the traitor Trump but we don't operate in the political world where he, Garland and Biden live. I hope that the AG is finally prepared to present indictments because it will, like it or not, be more difficult once a candidacy is declared.
Our representatives should represent us by not living in the political world where reelection is the ever present background concern, and basically the only reason for it to be more difficult after declaration of candidacy is the perception of it as being politically motivated or more accurately the accusation of it as being politically motivated. Given that accusation will and would be made no matter what the grounds or proof and that most people will see through it, I am completely over any hesitation based on actions the other side will take "if the Democrats" or some judicial or legislative body take an action to protect us. Saying "If we enlarge the SCOTUS they will do so later" and that type of cautionary foot dragging has been going on for far too long in far too many instances. Prosecute Trump and every last one of his co-conspirators and grifters ASAP and show that money and connections don't excuse criminal behavior in our country. Show that the political class is not immune.
I respectfully disagree. He's the head, or at least figurehead, and while locking up the supporting cast is also high on the list, cutting off the head (figuratively) is a pretty final ending as well as sending a much needed message that no one is exempt from the law.
I agree with you from a philosophical perspective but the reality is there are so many political obstacles to overcome to convict and ex president and if you lose the case it becomes a nightmare. For Trump make him a nobody with no power and he will for from a 1000 cuts die a slow death
As long as Trump is out of jail with his reputation unbesmirched there is no way he'll become a "nobody". His essential MO has long been blaming adverse events on someone else and taking credit for anything that goes well; as long as he has access to the public through social and legacy media, he'll have an impact and that will only go away if he's publicly convicted and locked up. I won't argue that it's easy and jury selection will be a flat-out b**** but Garland wasn't hired just to do easy stuff and, since the essence of the treason was executed live on national television, conviction by a jury of reasonable people ought not be out of reach.
Please let's make it clear that abortion is not only a woman's issue. A pregnancy and birth will (or should) cost the father child support, the parents of both the new mother and father will become grandparents and will likely need to and want to help out, the other children in the family will have a sibling, and society will have the numerous expenses of providing for the care of the new person. It will interrupt the life (education, career, etc.) of both new parents. When the debate over abortion isn't when life begins and the sanctity of the embryo, it ought to take into account every person impacted, not only the woman.
I am a man who has been very relieved that "accidents" and stupidity have not led to children. As a father of sons and daughters I am glad that I live in a state where my kids' mistakes won't make me a grandfather and upend their lives. I am surprised that there isn't a Men For Choice movement.
I totally concur AND since a “fetus becomes a person at conception” in the eyes of the GOP, they need to start paying child support, health insurance, hospital bills, etc (for those ‘oops”) those unborn!
We are in a WAR to save American democracy. In the July 4 issue of the New Yorker Marantz "The Illiberal Order" maps out the battle by CPAC and the Republican party to complete a transformation of America into an Orban dictatorship. Pres.Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi must put forth legiislation that bans weapons of war, legislation that protects women and the right to abortion. Let's answer the Rick Scott's 11 point Republican plan to destroy the Federal government's power. Make the Republicans go on record opposing this legislative package and then destroy them by getting out the vote. Let Dem candidates have a clear consistent statement to get behind.
Had an interesting conversation with the man who pumped out my septic system yesterday. He grew up in Uvalde and went to Robb Elementary school where the shooting took place. One of his classmates was the Chief of the school police. He is a gun owner and while conservative doesn't think much of our politicians including Republicans. He was for raising the age to own a gun to 21, background checks and requiring certification of training on gun safety. I gather one can't buy a pistol until 21 here in Texas so he felt 18 to 21 year olds shouldn't be able to buy an AR15. He also explained to me that true automatic weapons -- one pull of the trigger for multiple shots - requires a class 3 license including an extensive background check. He said you could extended magazines in most all guns. He felt the problem is with awkward young men whose only life is on the social media adulating violence while being ignored by everyone else. So, they get the attention they are craving by doing a violent act of a mass shooting. He makes a good argument for more mental health resources and for regulation of social media including flagging these violence loving groups and banning the use of algorithms that reinforce hate. He talked about the police at Uvalde and how much they lied and covered up. He was angry about their cowardice. He also felt despite being Catholic that the anti-abortion laws did take away women's rights and there should at least be exceptions for risk of death for the mother, incest and rape. He did feel government had no business in the woman's decision on abortion. It was great to have such an informative and respectful conversation. I shook his hand and thanked him for it. We can talk to each other. And, don't put baby wipes in your septic system.
Thank you, Cathy. I'd like permission to copy your comments in its entirety and send to the DNC and all of my Democratic representatives, as well as selevted media. I suggest that all of us do this , with your permission. This is so incredibly powerful.
One other thing he told me that I hear from almost everyone I talk to people of any politician persuasion is the need to have term limits for Members of Congress.
Karen, You have my permission and generally for any comments I contribute here to our discussion. Two other things I forgot to mention is he is opposed to Red Flag laws because he feels they can be abused and have guns taken away from people without sufficient due process (my paraphrase). He felt strongly that politicians, all of them, are lying to us a small example is AR in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle but for the original manufacturer ArmaLite rifle.
Great newsletter tonight Robert!!! Great for firing us up! Thank you! Onward! I saw that some people asked after my comment about postcards to be in touch and I will be! I had a crazy day today! Coming soon. Thank you again!
Excellent newsletter today. I particularly liked reading about Newsom & Pritzer’s bold approach to calling on people to recognize those who have failed us by not taking appropriate actions re: gun violence and going for DeSantis in his own state. We need many more like this. I’d add Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan for her leadership speaking out on abortion rights.
As soon as the midterms are over, Biden must bow out of running again. The time for mister nice guy is over. Yes, there are strong Democratic people with the ability to rise to the occasion and not use platitudes to fight this war. It is a war. I am fighting for my grandchildren. We cannot lose!
At one point in my career, I was on the executive committee of a 1,200 lawyer law firm. We hired a business consultant. At our first meeting, he told us our most important job was to train our replacements. Truer words were never spoken. I hope Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer are listening. Hanging onto power because it is possible to do so is a selfish act. And I speak these words from a place of great respect. I believe that Joe Biden saved our nation and Nancy Pelosi has been the greatest speaker in the history of the House.
Some great take aways from today’s Edition. We are stuck with the SCOTUS until we expanded it or one of the justices dies. We can’t fix laws regarding abortion, gun safety, voter integrity and climate issues until we have a majority in both houses and by a majority I mean at least 52 Senators. Our energies must be to get that majority. Our best opportunity in 2022 is the Senate and that has to be a focus. Newsom and Pritzker represent the “ pushback” and aggressiveness we are all looking for and their public exposure bodes well,for,2024. The first thing we all need to do is to believe we can change the direction of our country. If we believe it we can achieve it.
Excellent analysis and thank you for the list of organizations where we can donate. One point I'd like to make is that Liz Cheney voted with Trump 93% of the time. She voted against the Voting Rights Act, she is anti-choice, her politics are deplorable. I am exceedingly grateful for her role on the J6 committee but I wouldn't want to live in a country where she is president.
Well, my answer would be based on how to ensure the Democrat won. If Trump running meant the Dem would win then, in theory, I'd want him to be the candidate. But what I really want is for him to go directly to jail and take his entourage, enablers, and progeny with him.
Good! And thank you - that would be so helpful! I am going to a large family gathering this weekend in which 2 people have already tested positive for Covid - many have been traveling. I'm nervous.
Liz Cheney is currently viewed as a "hero" for standing up for the rule of law. She believes in truth and the peaceful transfer of power. Good for her. But I would suggest that her thoughts on those ideas be considered just plain normal. The fact that she has achieved "hero" status speaks more to the corruption and collapse of her party as a legitimate organ of democracy. Thanks. Liz. But...
I would vote for Liz Cheney for President the day Hell freezes over. Her political philosophy is the very antithesis of fairness and human rights. She is a tool of the Oligarchs. And the fact that she could still have dinner with her murderous dad tells me all I need to know.
I might change party registrations to vote for Cheney in the GOP primary, then vote against her in the general election. of course, that depends on what is happening in the Democratic primary in California.
"Hope is not a strategy." That one goes in my back pocket Mr. Hubbell, along with "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," another classic line that highlights the virtues of developing real-world strategies and effective actions (tactics) for change that your newsletter consistently advocates. Hope without strategy, like "tactics without strategy," as Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War said, "is the noise before defeat."
I highly recommend the following two podcasts of The Ezra Klein Show in the New York Times for your readers interested in an understanding of the “originalist” Supreme Court of the past 20 years, how politicians have viewed constitutional interpretation for most of American history, the rise and embrace of the doctrine of judicial supremacy, the remedies available to us today, and what a renewed, progressive vision of the Constitution could look like:
Klein’s Friday, July 1 podcast interview with legal scholar Kate Shaw on the Friday, July 1, in which they discuss “case after case showing how conservative Supreme Court majorities have lurched this country’s laws to the right on guns, voting, gerrymandering, regulatory authority, unions, campaign finance and more in the past 20 years. And if the Dobbs majority is any indication, this rightward shift is just getting started. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-kate-shaw.html?action=click&module=audio-series-bar®ion=header&pgtype=Article
This should be followed by Klein’s interview yesterday with Larry Kramer, legal scholar, and former dean of Stanford Law School, as Kramer discusses how liberals have forgotten that “[f]or most of American history, politicians, from Jefferson to Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt, believed that constitutional interpretation was inextricable from politics. And they put forward distinct visions of what the Constitution meant and the kind of country it was written to build,” and have, therefore, “lost anything that would animate a positive theory of what the Constitution should be.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-larry-kramer.html)
As Klein writes in his introduction, “this is a conversation about the collapse of liberal constitutional politics: why it happened, what we can learn from it and what a renewed, progressive vision of the Constitution could look like. We also discuss why the founders weren’t actually originalists at all, whether liberal constitutional thinking has been captured by the legal profession, what a liberal alternative to originalism could consist of, why changing the size of the court (despite its controversies) has been an important tool for staving off constitutional crisis, the case for an “anti-oligarchy Constitution,” the merits of imposing supermajority requirements on court decisions and nominations, why Kramer views Roosevelt’s infamous court-packing effort as a major success and more.”
Mitch McConnell said yesterday that the shooting in Highland Park is another example of what the problem is. He said the problem is "mental health and the young men who seemed to be inspired to commit these atrocities." McConnell said he thinks the bill Congress passed targeted the problem. I agree that the problem is mental health. The mental health of Republicans willing to volunteer other people's lives for their own power. How damaged is the mental health of a man or woman who can watch innocent children and their families butchered weekly by weapons of war, knowing they can stop this bloodbath if they cared enough, yet who year after year do nothing but quietly wait for the outcry to die down once again? How damaged is the mental health of Mitch McConnell, Republicans in Congress, Republicans on the Supreme Court and all the Republican politicians and donors who back them on the protection of guns over the protection of people in the United States?
Time has long passed for gentility. I am so disgusted and scared. My DIL and 2 grandchildren were at the parade in HP. The oldest is 7 and entering second grade this year. This is too much to bear. We have a back up plan to leave this country but what do we do if the kids don’t come with us? US is becoming more and more a fascist country and when I look at the “patriots” in their blue shirts and white masks I see the brown shirts of nazi Germany. My heart is broken.
Leila, I am sorry to hear that your daughter in law and grandchildren were at the Highland Park parade when the shooting occurred. I hope that they are receiving all of the support and services appropriate after having witnessed such a tragedy.
Ah, as far as I can tell these all appear to be Patriot Front. Interesting they chose a blue shirt. Also interesting how a plain dark blue tee, yellowish khaki pants, and a regular old white bandana or mask, all of which look so unidentifiable on people in singles suddenly becomes a uniform when they mass. It would be a useful feature for controlling identifiability among other things.
Robert, I am both as angry and fired up as you are about the recent SCOTUS decisions and recent events. While I am a Strong Biden supporter and defender, even though he was not my first or even second choice in the 2020 Democratic primary, he does need to be more forthcoming in his remarks and actions. We have other potential examples from some Democrats of such remarks and actions.
Also I would like to comment on the thought that Trump declaring his candidacy or indeed even being a potential leader for the Republican nomination for President in 2024 affords him some form of immunity from prosecution for crimes he has committed. I am constantly critical that AG Garland is moving far too slowly on both investigating or prosecuting Trump and others for various federal crimes he has committed. Although not a lawyer I am quite the student of Constitutional and federal law as well as history and civics. I see no provisions in any of those providing Trump with a veil or shred of immunity by virtue of being a candidate for political office or even holding office. I frankly don’t care if they send white smoke up the Vatican Council of Cardinals chimney and declare him Pope … investigate and prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Show the same level of courage as Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis and go after him. He gets no pass from prosecution by declaring his candidacy.
I agree with you completely that trump's status as a 2024 candidate should afford him no new level of immunity from prosecution. However, I note that many readers caution that his status as a former president does so. I disagree strongly. I worry that some readers would caution extra deference if he becomes a presidential candidate again.
I understand the political concerns of prosecuting a former President but also believe there should equally be concerns about not prosecuting serious criminal actions. I also realize the risk of an unsuccessful prosecution. In fact I would assign greater risk to that if the DOJ believe the case may not be successful if brought.
The present Republican Party, it’s leadership, members, and supporters have placed our country at serious risk and I fear we are positioned in that proverbial space “between a rock and a hard spot.” There are always options, but perhaps few good ones. However, surely simply waiting for the rock to deliver a crushing blow is perhaps the worst of those options.
At least for my part, I don't think extra deference for a candidate is appropriate but, given the AG's hesitancy so far, I fear that it will be given. This community has been discussing that possibility for a long time and we're getting uncomfortably close to push joining shove vis a vis the election timetable.
I agree with you completely in respect of prosecuting the traitor Trump but we don't operate in the political world where he, Garland and Biden live. I hope that the AG is finally prepared to present indictments because it will, like it or not, be more difficult once a candidacy is declared.
Our representatives should represent us by not living in the political world where reelection is the ever present background concern, and basically the only reason for it to be more difficult after declaration of candidacy is the perception of it as being politically motivated or more accurately the accusation of it as being politically motivated. Given that accusation will and would be made no matter what the grounds or proof and that most people will see through it, I am completely over any hesitation based on actions the other side will take "if the Democrats" or some judicial or legislative body take an action to protect us. Saying "If we enlarge the SCOTUS they will do so later" and that type of cautionary foot dragging has been going on for far too long in far too many instances. Prosecute Trump and every last one of his co-conspirators and grifters ASAP and show that money and connections don't excuse criminal behavior in our country. Show that the political class is not immune.
Agree: Given that accusation will and would be made no matter what the grounds
Exactly.
We all want Justice for Trump but convicting his accomplices and taking away his power and influence would be a better and more achievable goal.
I respectfully disagree. He's the head, or at least figurehead, and while locking up the supporting cast is also high on the list, cutting off the head (figuratively) is a pretty final ending as well as sending a much needed message that no one is exempt from the law.
I agree with you from a philosophical perspective but the reality is there are so many political obstacles to overcome to convict and ex president and if you lose the case it becomes a nightmare. For Trump make him a nobody with no power and he will for from a 1000 cuts die a slow death
As long as Trump is out of jail with his reputation unbesmirched there is no way he'll become a "nobody". His essential MO has long been blaming adverse events on someone else and taking credit for anything that goes well; as long as he has access to the public through social and legacy media, he'll have an impact and that will only go away if he's publicly convicted and locked up. I won't argue that it's easy and jury selection will be a flat-out b**** but Garland wasn't hired just to do easy stuff and, since the essence of the treason was executed live on national television, conviction by a jury of reasonable people ought not be out of reach.
I think the main reason Trump wants to declare early is that he will be able to fundraise bigly.
Apparently there are few if any mechanisms to hold him accountable for the way in which PAC funds are used or distributed.
Please let's make it clear that abortion is not only a woman's issue. A pregnancy and birth will (or should) cost the father child support, the parents of both the new mother and father will become grandparents and will likely need to and want to help out, the other children in the family will have a sibling, and society will have the numerous expenses of providing for the care of the new person. It will interrupt the life (education, career, etc.) of both new parents. When the debate over abortion isn't when life begins and the sanctity of the embryo, it ought to take into account every person impacted, not only the woman.
I am a man who has been very relieved that "accidents" and stupidity have not led to children. As a father of sons and daughters I am glad that I live in a state where my kids' mistakes won't make me a grandfather and upend their lives. I am surprised that there isn't a Men For Choice movement.
You make a very good point and I will attempt to include that sentiment in future newsletters. Thank you.
Thank you!!
I totally concur AND since a “fetus becomes a person at conception” in the eyes of the GOP, they need to start paying child support, health insurance, hospital bills, etc (for those ‘oops”) those unborn!
We are in a WAR to save American democracy. In the July 4 issue of the New Yorker Marantz "The Illiberal Order" maps out the battle by CPAC and the Republican party to complete a transformation of America into an Orban dictatorship. Pres.Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi must put forth legiislation that bans weapons of war, legislation that protects women and the right to abortion. Let's answer the Rick Scott's 11 point Republican plan to destroy the Federal government's power. Make the Republicans go on record opposing this legislative package and then destroy them by getting out the vote. Let Dem candidates have a clear consistent statement to get behind.
Yes! "Pres.Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi must put forth legiislation that bans weapons of war, legislation that protects women and the right to abortion.
"
Had an interesting conversation with the man who pumped out my septic system yesterday. He grew up in Uvalde and went to Robb Elementary school where the shooting took place. One of his classmates was the Chief of the school police. He is a gun owner and while conservative doesn't think much of our politicians including Republicans. He was for raising the age to own a gun to 21, background checks and requiring certification of training on gun safety. I gather one can't buy a pistol until 21 here in Texas so he felt 18 to 21 year olds shouldn't be able to buy an AR15. He also explained to me that true automatic weapons -- one pull of the trigger for multiple shots - requires a class 3 license including an extensive background check. He said you could extended magazines in most all guns. He felt the problem is with awkward young men whose only life is on the social media adulating violence while being ignored by everyone else. So, they get the attention they are craving by doing a violent act of a mass shooting. He makes a good argument for more mental health resources and for regulation of social media including flagging these violence loving groups and banning the use of algorithms that reinforce hate. He talked about the police at Uvalde and how much they lied and covered up. He was angry about their cowardice. He also felt despite being Catholic that the anti-abortion laws did take away women's rights and there should at least be exceptions for risk of death for the mother, incest and rape. He did feel government had no business in the woman's decision on abortion. It was great to have such an informative and respectful conversation. I shook his hand and thanked him for it. We can talk to each other. And, don't put baby wipes in your septic system.
Thank you, Cathy. I'd like permission to copy your comments in its entirety and send to the DNC and all of my Democratic representatives, as well as selevted media. I suggest that all of us do this , with your permission. This is so incredibly powerful.
One other thing he told me that I hear from almost everyone I talk to people of any politician persuasion is the need to have term limits for Members of Congress.
Karen, You have my permission and generally for any comments I contribute here to our discussion. Two other things I forgot to mention is he is opposed to Red Flag laws because he feels they can be abused and have guns taken away from people without sufficient due process (my paraphrase). He felt strongly that politicians, all of them, are lying to us a small example is AR in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle but for the original manufacturer ArmaLite rifle.
Many thanks, Carol.
Did you mean Cathy...
I did! I am soooo sorry. I'd blame it on spell check, but think I'll go with Rick Perry's traditional "oops"!
Great newsletter tonight Robert!!! Great for firing us up! Thank you! Onward! I saw that some people asked after my comment about postcards to be in touch and I will be! I had a crazy day today! Coming soon. Thank you again!
Robert, I concur with Sarah. You have been cogently, lucidly on fire this past week! May this fire have no correlation with Covid!
Fellow readers, channel your fire into postcarding to register Democrats and Get Out The Vote!
Excellent newsletter today. I particularly liked reading about Newsom & Pritzer’s bold approach to calling on people to recognize those who have failed us by not taking appropriate actions re: gun violence and going for DeSantis in his own state. We need many more like this. I’d add Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan for her leadership speaking out on abortion rights.
Gretchen Whitmer added to my list!
Yeah! Now we must really get behind these folks and their states’ Attorney General & Secretary of State. 👍
As soon as the midterms are over, Biden must bow out of running again. The time for mister nice guy is over. Yes, there are strong Democratic people with the ability to rise to the occasion and not use platitudes to fight this war. It is a war. I am fighting for my grandchildren. We cannot lose!
Ban assaults weapons now!!!!!
Expand the Supreme Court!!
Outlaw fossil fuels!!!
At one point in my career, I was on the executive committee of a 1,200 lawyer law firm. We hired a business consultant. At our first meeting, he told us our most important job was to train our replacements. Truer words were never spoken. I hope Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer are listening. Hanging onto power because it is possible to do so is a selfish act. And I speak these words from a place of great respect. I believe that Joe Biden saved our nation and Nancy Pelosi has been the greatest speaker in the history of the House.
Some great take aways from today’s Edition. We are stuck with the SCOTUS until we expanded it or one of the justices dies. We can’t fix laws regarding abortion, gun safety, voter integrity and climate issues until we have a majority in both houses and by a majority I mean at least 52 Senators. Our energies must be to get that majority. Our best opportunity in 2022 is the Senate and that has to be a focus. Newsom and Pritzker represent the “ pushback” and aggressiveness we are all looking for and their public exposure bodes well,for,2024. The first thing we all need to do is to believe we can change the direction of our country. If we believe it we can achieve it.
52 without Manchin and Senima.
Excellent analysis and thank you for the list of organizations where we can donate. One point I'd like to make is that Liz Cheney voted with Trump 93% of the time. She voted against the Voting Rights Act, she is anti-choice, her politics are deplorable. I am exceedingly grateful for her role on the J6 committee but I wouldn't want to live in a country where she is president.
Agree completely. But if the choice were Cheney or Trump . . . . ?
Well, my answer would be based on how to ensure the Democrat won. If Trump running meant the Dem would win then, in theory, I'd want him to be the candidate. But what I really want is for him to go directly to jail and take his entourage, enablers, and progeny with him.
They thought he would be the easiest to run against in 2016. I would never underestimate him.
So true.
Robert, I hope you are fully recovered .
And - GO NEWSOM & PRITZKER!!!!!
I expect to test negative for COVID today. I will write a short piece about my experience to help others in the coming BA.4 and BA.5 waves.
Good! And thank you - that would be so helpful! I am going to a large family gathering this weekend in which 2 people have already tested positive for Covid - many have been traveling. I'm nervous.
Liz Cheney is currently viewed as a "hero" for standing up for the rule of law. She believes in truth and the peaceful transfer of power. Good for her. But I would suggest that her thoughts on those ideas be considered just plain normal. The fact that she has achieved "hero" status speaks more to the corruption and collapse of her party as a legitimate organ of democracy. Thanks. Liz. But...
I would vote for Liz Cheney for President the day Hell freezes over. Her political philosophy is the very antithesis of fairness and human rights. She is a tool of the Oligarchs. And the fact that she could still have dinner with her murderous dad tells me all I need to know.
I might change party registrations to vote for Cheney in the GOP primary, then vote against her in the general election. of course, that depends on what is happening in the Democratic primary in California.
"Hope is not a strategy." That one goes in my back pocket Mr. Hubbell, along with "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," another classic line that highlights the virtues of developing real-world strategies and effective actions (tactics) for change that your newsletter consistently advocates. Hope without strategy, like "tactics without strategy," as Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War said, "is the noise before defeat."
And I am adding "Tactics without strategy . . . " to my back pocket.
Robert,
I highly recommend the following two podcasts of The Ezra Klein Show in the New York Times for your readers interested in an understanding of the “originalist” Supreme Court of the past 20 years, how politicians have viewed constitutional interpretation for most of American history, the rise and embrace of the doctrine of judicial supremacy, the remedies available to us today, and what a renewed, progressive vision of the Constitution could look like:
Klein’s Friday, July 1 podcast interview with legal scholar Kate Shaw on the Friday, July 1, in which they discuss “case after case showing how conservative Supreme Court majorities have lurched this country’s laws to the right on guns, voting, gerrymandering, regulatory authority, unions, campaign finance and more in the past 20 years. And if the Dobbs majority is any indication, this rightward shift is just getting started. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-kate-shaw.html?action=click&module=audio-series-bar®ion=header&pgtype=Article
This should be followed by Klein’s interview yesterday with Larry Kramer, legal scholar, and former dean of Stanford Law School, as Kramer discusses how liberals have forgotten that “[f]or most of American history, politicians, from Jefferson to Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt, believed that constitutional interpretation was inextricable from politics. And they put forward distinct visions of what the Constitution meant and the kind of country it was written to build,” and have, therefore, “lost anything that would animate a positive theory of what the Constitution should be.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-larry-kramer.html)
As Klein writes in his introduction, “this is a conversation about the collapse of liberal constitutional politics: why it happened, what we can learn from it and what a renewed, progressive vision of the Constitution could look like. We also discuss why the founders weren’t actually originalists at all, whether liberal constitutional thinking has been captured by the legal profession, what a liberal alternative to originalism could consist of, why changing the size of the court (despite its controversies) has been an important tool for staving off constitutional crisis, the case for an “anti-oligarchy Constitution,” the merits of imposing supermajority requirements on court decisions and nominations, why Kramer views Roosevelt’s infamous court-packing effort as a major success and more.”
Thanks, i will check it out.
I concur with Sarah, Ellie, Robert & Mark. Triple down.
Mitch McConnell said yesterday that the shooting in Highland Park is another example of what the problem is. He said the problem is "mental health and the young men who seemed to be inspired to commit these atrocities." McConnell said he thinks the bill Congress passed targeted the problem. I agree that the problem is mental health. The mental health of Republicans willing to volunteer other people's lives for their own power. How damaged is the mental health of a man or woman who can watch innocent children and their families butchered weekly by weapons of war, knowing they can stop this bloodbath if they cared enough, yet who year after year do nothing but quietly wait for the outcry to die down once again? How damaged is the mental health of Mitch McConnell, Republicans in Congress, Republicans on the Supreme Court and all the Republican politicians and donors who back them on the protection of guns over the protection of people in the United States?
!!!
Time has long passed for gentility. I am so disgusted and scared. My DIL and 2 grandchildren were at the parade in HP. The oldest is 7 and entering second grade this year. This is too much to bear. We have a back up plan to leave this country but what do we do if the kids don’t come with us? US is becoming more and more a fascist country and when I look at the “patriots” in their blue shirts and white masks I see the brown shirts of nazi Germany. My heart is broken.
Leila, I am sorry to hear that your daughter in law and grandchildren were at the Highland Park parade when the shooting occurred. I hope that they are receiving all of the support and services appropriate after having witnessed such a tragedy.
Thank you! I am honored that you wrote back, being as busy as you are. I love reading your thoughts!
Leila, I’m so sorry…
Wait. I'm out of the loop on this one. Is the blue shirt and white mask a "Thin Blue Line" statement? Or another? Please inform me.
It appears to be the uniform of choice for marches and disruption:
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_full_width_image_730/public/2022-01/PF-march-resized.jpg?itok=Ped9G1m3
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/06/12/01-idaho-8178-ju_custom-8efdbd414e8dc7b23142edfc92f19bb001e40edb-s1600-c85.webp
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/13/idaho-pride-riot-texas/
https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/sites/www.middlebury.edu.institute/files/2022-05/PF%20banner.png?fv=I9U01wqC
Just a few examples😢
Ah, as far as I can tell these all appear to be Patriot Front. Interesting they chose a blue shirt. Also interesting how a plain dark blue tee, yellowish khaki pants, and a regular old white bandana or mask, all of which look so unidentifiable on people in singles suddenly becomes a uniform when they mass. It would be a useful feature for controlling identifiability among other things.