As the Republicans continue to run toward a cliff, taking the rest of us with them, look for the other change makers. Do any of you know about this group: Partnership for a Democratic Government?
I"m amazed at the abundance of pro-community, pro-voting groups I have learned about, since 2016. I think about the unseen fungi that connect and feed the very visible trees. Below the layer of rot at the top, marvelous life is gathering and moving. I'm glad to be a part of it.
Robert, thank you, thank you and thank you again for leading with the Major Story. I was disgusted last night to see MSNBC go on and on and on (as I am today with my word repetition), about the Trump Org indictments. The SCOTUS decision is the big and very very sad news. The Washington Post is incorrect. Democracy does not die in darkness, it dies in Broad Daylight, and we must stand up and say enough is enough.
Seems to me that the Supreme Court’s decision cements the idea of Critical Race Theory into our system of voting. No wonder Republicans are so vehement in their opposition to UNDERSTANDING CRT.
The Supreme Court's latest atrocity is an extreme example of result-oriented jurisprudence, in which the judge or judges decide how the case should come out--almost always, how they want it to come out--and then figure out how to get there. The urge toward such decision-making can be very subtle but powerful, although it is by no means clear that that was so in this case, partiuclarly in light of Justice Kagan's powerful dissent.
Many will see racism in the decision, but that is not clear to me. Put it this way: If Black Americans voted heavily for Republican candidates (as they did from passage of the 15th Amendment to the New Deal), would the court have come out as it did? Or was the result desired not to empower the Republican oligarchy? Of course, answering that question would require circular reasoning, because it is almost impossible--at least for me--to imagine a Repubican oligarchy not based largely on race.
You have issued a clarion call to overturn the court's decision the only way that that can be done: At the ballot box. Let us go forward!
Nice column. I particularly liked: "McCarthy is depraved." A clear, declarative sentence supported by a description of his perfidy - sending out negotiators who make a deal and then are sold out.
Yes, McCarthy is depraved, and Roberts has sullied his record. Thank you for holding us all responsible nevertheless for our own fates and the future of our democracy. The mid terms loom ahead. Let’s get out the vote.
For the Robert's Court, the bottom line is it's ok to allow prima facie "neutral regulations" that result in "some disparity of impact" EXCEPT when it comes to religion (South Bay United Pentecostal v. Newsom).
As the Republicans continue to run toward a cliff, taking the rest of us with them, look for the other change makers. Do any of you know about this group: Partnership for a Democratic Government?
https://www.pfad.us/#about. I'd like to know if you have thoughts to share.
I"m amazed at the abundance of pro-community, pro-voting groups I have learned about, since 2016. I think about the unseen fungi that connect and feed the very visible trees. Below the layer of rot at the top, marvelous life is gathering and moving. I'm glad to be a part of it.
Robert, thank you, thank you and thank you again for leading with the Major Story. I was disgusted last night to see MSNBC go on and on and on (as I am today with my word repetition), about the Trump Org indictments. The SCOTUS decision is the big and very very sad news. The Washington Post is incorrect. Democracy does not die in darkness, it dies in Broad Daylight, and we must stand up and say enough is enough.
Seems to me that the Supreme Court’s decision cements the idea of Critical Race Theory into our system of voting. No wonder Republicans are so vehement in their opposition to UNDERSTANDING CRT.
The Supreme Court's latest atrocity is an extreme example of result-oriented jurisprudence, in which the judge or judges decide how the case should come out--almost always, how they want it to come out--and then figure out how to get there. The urge toward such decision-making can be very subtle but powerful, although it is by no means clear that that was so in this case, partiuclarly in light of Justice Kagan's powerful dissent.
Many will see racism in the decision, but that is not clear to me. Put it this way: If Black Americans voted heavily for Republican candidates (as they did from passage of the 15th Amendment to the New Deal), would the court have come out as it did? Or was the result desired not to empower the Republican oligarchy? Of course, answering that question would require circular reasoning, because it is almost impossible--at least for me--to imagine a Repubican oligarchy not based largely on race.
You have issued a clarion call to overturn the court's decision the only way that that can be done: At the ballot box. Let us go forward!
Nice column. I particularly liked: "McCarthy is depraved." A clear, declarative sentence supported by a description of his perfidy - sending out negotiators who make a deal and then are sold out.
Yes, McCarthy is depraved, and Roberts has sullied his record. Thank you for holding us all responsible nevertheless for our own fates and the future of our democracy. The mid terms loom ahead. Let’s get out the vote.
For the Robert's Court, the bottom line is it's ok to allow prima facie "neutral regulations" that result in "some disparity of impact" EXCEPT when it comes to religion (South Bay United Pentecostal v. Newsom).
Thank you, Robert.