Time for New York, Illinois, California and other blue states to start gerrymandering the hell out of their districts to fight off the Texas Disease now raging in Austin. Let's figure out legal ways to screw about 12 or more Republicans out of Congress outright.
I'm all for independent commissions to draw congressional boundaries, but only if ALL states take part ALL at once. Otherwise, it's screw you, Trump, and the MAGA hobbyhorse you rode in on, too.
Exactly!! I've said for years that, as much as we wish we could do this, Democrats must stop the "when they go low, we go high" strategy. That strategy has gotten the *majority* of Americans less than nothing. It's failed to stop Trump, McConnel, et. al., which has gotten us to the point where the United States is teetering on the edge of being a failed state for everyone but the 1%.
Yeah, I have come to the stage of reluctant agreement. Newt Gingrich poisoned the well with his Scorched Earth Politics. We may have to sit Mr. Nice Guy on the bench for a while.
Exactly. Your correct about old Newty. He tore down what once was a reasonable GOP. Time to storm the gates of the felon and his fascists and use whatever we can to do so.
I agree. We have plenty of good Democrats in Congress speaking out, but it continues to come to nothing. We need to call on them to bring out strategies that effectively block the Republican's agenda. I don't understand that while the less-than-brilliant Tommy Tuberville was able to block President Biden's appointments our qualified and competent Democrats have not been able to do the same.
Spot on! While I agree on the need for fair legislative maps and independent commissions to draw them, unilateral disarmament by blue states in the face of red states redrawing districts to prevent voters from voting republicans out of office is nonsensical. We need to fight fire with fire.
Partisan gerrymandering and the absence of term limits for members of Congress are at this point the biggest dangers to democracy. Term limits would reduce the role of money in our elections.
Term limits for federal judges and SCOTUS would help keep the law, equality, and public wellbeing sacred. We should consider some additional, minimal criteria for candidacy for public office and public servants, along with standards and checks on ethical behavior, too. It is increasingly vital to keep ambitious, lying, ignorant, mentally unfit, malevolent, criminal posers, fascists, and would-be oligarchs and dictators OUT of our government.
The next Democratic congress and administration MUST enact judicial branch reform including expanding the Supreme Court, mandating judicial term limits including for SCOTUS, and mandating financial and ethics reforms to include fines [docking of salaries] and mandatory recusals [enforced with fines.]
In Canada, federally appointed judges (as on the Supreme Court of Canada but also on all provincial superior trial courts and courts of appeal) must retire at 75. Most provincial judicial legislation sets 70 for retirement. When the 75-limit was enacted (in 1927), one member of the Supreme Court had to step down. He was 88. So not great-grandfathered...
I'm not sure I'd like to see the Supreme Court expanded. But it would be helpful to increase the number of circuit and district courts. And impose some procedural limits on who can bring emergency appeals, etc., to the Supreme Court. Right now we see some nonsensical cases consuming the attention of the Court, mostly thanks to you-know-who and his frivolous lawsuits.
I've gone back and forth on court expansion myself, but I've concluded it makes sense to raise the number of court seats to match the number of circuit court districts. At the same time, term limits should be put in place, and the use of the emergency appeals process [AKA the shadow docket] should be strictly limited or prohibited altogether.
Well said and totally correct. When are going to create qualifications for people who wish to run for office? All of us who applied for various work over the years has to meet the application requirements. It's appalling that those in office who are there to design and create laws effecting all of us only have to be a certain age. No wonder we keep getting the bottom rungs on the ladder.
When the Constitution was adopted there were few professions that had hard and fast requirements. The drafter thought that people would have the familiarity with local candidates to make wise choices. Times have changed, the population has grown exponentially, and we can't trust local lore for our information about qualifications. We need, at all levels, some meaningful eligibility rules for federal office. Starting with some ethics guidelines. And updated qualifications for presidential candidates.
I've done a 180 on Congressional term limits, and here are the biggest reasons why: The TPers, and the Freedumb Caucus.
The TPers and Freedumb Caucus members, and their staffs, were so new to Congress and Washington they didn't know how *anything* worked. Some of their staff members were such neophytes they didn't even know the technical aspects of filing legislation.
However, the biggest problem with them is that they didn't know, or care, that Congress has *always* been a place that requires compromise and consensus building. The Founders intended for Congress to run this way. Some of them eventually learned that the longer they stayed. There have bern some Democrats over the years who haven't understood this either, and were much less effective for their voters because of it.
Lastly, don't think for a second that the Founders didn't intend for the United States to essentially have a "ruling class" that occupied Congress and the presidency. They most certainly did. The Founders were quite open about the fact they didn't believe the vast majority of Americans had the ability to govern our country. If for no other reason than the vast majority of Americans weren't educated enough, and didn't have the leisure time available to become educated. The 99% were far too busy working and just trying to make a living.
If having term limits meant that all members or even most member would come into government with no experience, you'd be correct. However we already have staggered Congressional elections, which means there will always be those with experience to mentor the incoming members. Also, we're not saying that members of Congress need to be limited to one or two or even three terms. (Although three terms for a Senator translates into an eighteen0year tenure, plenty long enough.) Some long-serving senators become legendary for their brilliant negotiating or arm-twisting, etc. Others become untouchable womanizing drunks. Or commonplace hacks known for bringing the pork back to their district lobbyists year after yea rather than for the quality of their public service. No one is indispensable; no on is so great that the Republic would fall if they could only serve twelve years. I'd be willing to sacrifice a few Congressional titans every decade, to reduce the need for the outsized lobbying we now have.
And for sure I wouldn't want the intentions of the Founding Father to rule every decision. Weapons, life expectancy, national demographics, finance and economics systems: these are all vastly different from those at the time in which the Constitution was drafted.
The sad part is many uneducated morons found their way into Congress. Take just two examples, Bobert and MTG. Between the two, they could not comb their hair and walk at the same time.
the Squad are never stupid. They are pretty impressive and consistently on the side of the humane and public spirited rather than cruelty and pettiness like MTG and Bobert.
"Lastly, don't think for a second that the Founders didn't intend for the United States to essentially have a "ruling class" that occupied Congress and the presidency."
I think the Founders were more interested in elected officials who were of good moral character. The federal government was not designed to be the "central power" that we have now. A "ruling class" would eventually turn the direction of the country in a different direction than intended.
Exactly. Term limits are a nice idea in a normal world but experience matters in times like these. Honest Brokers understand compromise is how progress happens.
Maybe it's time for those of us who live in blue states to start withholding federal taxes. I, for one, am tired of having my hard-earned money go to low-tax red states. They never have the money to provide well for those who reside there. They depend mightily on our blue state funding. My blue state is always net-negative; we never get from the feds what we pay in. We certainly never get more. We're always at a deficit. Red states, in contrast, are always net-positive; they always get much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Hey, red states, I and my blue state compatriots earned that money! At the very least, I expect my state to be appreciated and left alone by this administration. How about a great big thanks from the red states for blue state contributions to their treasuries? How about a little respect for how much better we manage our economies and, although we pay more in taxes to our states' coffers, we get much more from our state governments and are so much better off. There's a reason why so much poverty exists in red states. So, a tax revolt???
I just thought of something that, if Dr. Richardson's reading, might make a worthwhile future project. (And if anyone knows of any good books/articles on this, I'd love to know about them!)
IMHO, the "when they go low, we go high" strategy as advocated by former First Lady Michelle Obama may be a viewpoint that, if not entitely unique to the Democratic party, is something Democratic politicians seem to advocate more than Republican politicians.
In addition to Obama, we can also look back at President Woodrow Wilson's idealistic attempt to keep the US out of World War I, and his even more idealistic 14 points. The only Republican politician I can think of who might be "accused" of seeing the world as he would have liked it to be rather than the way it was is Lincoln in 1865.
Sometimes it "feels" like one of the "advantages" Republican politicians use to get/maintain power is they acknowledge that the world is a nasty, brutish, cold place. Basically, they're willing to admit Machiavelli was right. While Democrats often see the world, and people, as we would like them to be, rather than as they are.
This may be true, Chris Martin, but I don't EVER want a government that "goes low" as a general policy. We've had quite enough of that. I would suggest that we "go Smarter, work harder, educate the public to a high standard, rationalize the distribution of wealth and public services, regulate the excesses and sins of capitalism and give people a few dozen good and obvious reasons why Democratic government is BETTER for all of us - and make that stick.
Excellent points! Thank you. We do need to Go Smarter!
We can't really win by using underhanded tactics. If we do we can destroy ourselves as the means becomes the end - as in the saying that "the end justifies the means." This is false and by using illegal and/or immoral means, we end up corrupting ourselves and the results..
The 14 points were good. But Woodrow Wilson was an abject racist. Prior to his tenure, Black people were finally inside the government with decent jobs. Wilson canned them all. He chose segregation and set back the ability of Black people to get ahead.
"Time for New York, Illinois, California and other blue states to start gerrymandering..."
It's likely that those states have just about "maxed out" on their ability to gerrymander.
"...the Texas Disease now raging in Austin."
This can be a two-edged sword for Texas. First, the idea is to take solid red districts and make them less secure in order to gain possible Republican seats. The Repubs may also believe that because of Covid, the 2020 census may not have been as accurate, especially with Hispanic voters who turned more towards to the right in the last couple of election cycles. But if the economy turns sour or if there is some monumental scandal in the Trump administration, it is possible that the new "less secure" districts may go blue. Be careful what you wish for.
"Ironically (for a party that once fetishized states’ rights), Trump’s MAGA GOP consistently seeks to obliterate federalism and force states—generally blue ones—to do his bidding."
That's a big gripe of mine and why I think a turn-over in 2026 and again in 2028 is so critical to our country. Trump (Vought/Blondi/Miller et al) have figured out the core truth: if you pick on and then subjugate blue states, then you've got all 50 under your thumb. Every single outrageous action (universities, immigrant raids, etc) is designed to weaken blue states, especially California and it's huge congressional delegation. It's something that I think previous presidents, even Reagan, would have felt was unpatriotic in the extreme.
I still wish to know if there is a way I can prevent the Federal tax monies I pay, as required by law, from being used by the Federal government for illegal purposes.
Tax revolt? Most Americans, I'd guess, would not risk it. But a general strike might get the attention of American business, and stimulate their appetite for peace and real prosperity, instead of oppressive rule by incompetent, larcenous, and predatory would-be oligarchs over deteriorating resources, a ruined environment, wars, insecurity, and hostile civilians.
We need desperately to kick the corporate sector out of bed with our government. As Dr. Mary Wynn-Ashford ("Enough Blood Shed"), observed, our democracy only works well if civil society, the economic sector, and government are in a sort of dynamic equilibrium, and no two sectors are permitted to gang up to disempower the third. If business is allowed to buy the "favor" of elected officials, we are in big trouble. SCOTUS betrayed the American People and our Constitution with their appalling, even traitorous, "Citizens United" ruling.
Government and business only exist to serve civil society. If or when they fail to do that, the PEOPLE must reset the balance of power (and therefore the re-distribution of wealth and its power among the civil society that enables and creates it), in order for that society to persist and fluorish. The grotesque wealth concentration, hoarding, and obscene privilege we have seen in recent years is a direct result of corporate greed, inattention, complacency and outright grift. We have lost more than most of us realize. It will take an epic focus and effort of ALL THE PEOPLE to climb out of this home-grown, transmogrifying horror.
Outside of withholding payment of federal income tax, which will draw the interest of the IRS, there doesn't seem to be any way to do this. At this point, hounding your legislators not to support illegality is about all that can be done until the midterm election.
Judge Jenkins did us a favor by upholding States Rights (something that the GOP used to strongly endorse) though this issue is far from settled. No doubt it will be dragged before the Supine Court before all is said and done. Our state and local police have enough to do supporting their respective law enforcement duties. It is not their job to take on federal enforcement activities.
"It is worth noting that courts have consistently rejected the government’s interpretation, yet the Trump team has not stopped using the same discredited interpretation."
Based on this, the next time Trump tries to use this interpretation elsewhere, the judge should immediately slap the presenting lawyer with contempt for knowingly pushing a discredited approach. And sentencing this lawyer to as many days in prison as this tactic was tried.
That pesky 10th Amendment! Trump hates America and its Constitution as it is preventing him from taking total control of the nation. And by Republicans not pushing back, are complicit.
Bravo for Judge Jenkins and the state of Illinois for standing up for the state’s rights, and for the Contrarian for excellent reporting of this crucial case!
No, I think bbb is just stating that this is another example of FAFO for these MAGAts - the face-eating leopard wasn't supposed to eat THEIR faces....🤪
You are correct. The western counties in Maryland, Garrett and Allegheny, tend to be more politically conservative than Montgomery Prince George’s and Baltimore. That's also true of
Maryland 's Eastern Shore.
Thr western Maryland communities coukd use federal assistance, and under Biden they likely would have received such assistance.
Maryland has a Democratic governor and primarily Democratic congressional delegation. My assumption is that Yrump and his handlers are sticking it to Maryland because of that.
CBS $16 million to Trump’s future presidential library. I recall hearing in the news, “to be used as he sees fit.” The Columbia University settlement goes to the government. Not sure how it’s earmarked.
Jen, thank you for the great information you provide. I recall Trump saying that the blue cities will not be allowed to vote. This was at the summit with the Canadian PM. I'm in California, and I love the fact that Gavin Newsom fights back against the Orange bully. We must fight back; the midterms are of great importance to preserve our democracy. Let's kick his big butt!
The attack on Blue America is core to the Republican strategy. Although this was not always true, there was a change in the 1990s--the decade when the Party was transformed by new founding fathers (Limbaugh, Gingrich, Buchanan, Koch). Now, the entire raison d'etre of the Party is to transform the country into a post-democracy: to do that, they are primed to destroy competitors, rivals and dissenters so that there will never again be any challenge to Republican power.
This partywide dementia cannot be overstated. Republicans, with few exceptions, have come to believe they are entitled to rule absolutely, by a kind of divine right.
Those who are not Christian nationalist fanatics are political ideologues and zealots: those who are not political ideologues and zealots are money-hungry, power-hungry tyrants.
Their totalitarian impulse has been reinforced by the Silicon Valley set: the tech bros, the billionaire madmen, the deranged philosophers like Thiel and Yarvin---men who believe that they themselves are gods, and that the human species is disposable.
Their beliefs have fused into those of the Republicans: above all, the belief that power should by right repose in the hands of a very few, who have, moreover, the right to sustain their dominance through acts of immense brutality and lethal violence.
These are not just dirty little party operatives looking for the main chance. These are the most dangerous form of humanity: True Believers, as much as the Nazis and Stalinists ever were.
The problem in California is that Newsom hasn't been a good governor, and hasn't solved a lot of our state's problems, or even tried. He is definitely supported by corporate money. He is way more effective at speaking against Trump than accomplishing anything.
And, most people believe that Karen Bass hasn't been a good mayor. She said she would change things so people who were affected by the fires could rebuild, but it isn't happening. And, she never seems like she's in charge. So, unless opinions change, it's even possible that people here would vote for a Republican with a track record.
Great article in 'The Atlantic' by Timothy Rybeck that correlates the German central Bank under Hitler to our last pillar still standing, The Fed. Thank you,Jerome Powell. And thanks to trump's ignorance thinking Powell is in charge of all the decisions made by The Fed. They vote.
Soon going out to protest the actions of our state’s last sheriff cooperating with ICE. This switcheroo—of women’s bodies under state control and everything else under Trump’s imprimatur—amounts to hypocrisy on steroids. The Democratic Party must bulk up on its own steroids and get its act together.
As John Oliver once said of the Confederacy, they're in favor of states' rights, as long as they're the RIGHT states' rights. Otherwise, they're states' WRONGS.
Time for New York, Illinois, California and other blue states to start gerrymandering the hell out of their districts to fight off the Texas Disease now raging in Austin. Let's figure out legal ways to screw about 12 or more Republicans out of Congress outright.
I'm all for independent commissions to draw congressional boundaries, but only if ALL states take part ALL at once. Otherwise, it's screw you, Trump, and the MAGA hobbyhorse you rode in on, too.
Exactly!! I've said for years that, as much as we wish we could do this, Democrats must stop the "when they go low, we go high" strategy. That strategy has gotten the *majority* of Americans less than nothing. It's failed to stop Trump, McConnel, et. al., which has gotten us to the point where the United States is teetering on the edge of being a failed state for everyone but the 1%.
Yeah, I have come to the stage of reluctant agreement. Newt Gingrich poisoned the well with his Scorched Earth Politics. We may have to sit Mr. Nice Guy on the bench for a while.
Exactly. Your correct about old Newty. He tore down what once was a reasonable GOP. Time to storm the gates of the felon and his fascists and use whatever we can to do so.
I agree. We have plenty of good Democrats in Congress speaking out, but it continues to come to nothing. We need to call on them to bring out strategies that effectively block the Republican's agenda. I don't understand that while the less-than-brilliant Tommy Tuberville was able to block President Biden's appointments our qualified and competent Democrats have not been able to do the same.
Perfectly stated Chris. Yeah, play nice is over.
For the time being.
Spot on! While I agree on the need for fair legislative maps and independent commissions to draw them, unilateral disarmament by blue states in the face of red states redrawing districts to prevent voters from voting republicans out of office is nonsensical. We need to fight fire with fire.
Partisan gerrymandering and the absence of term limits for members of Congress are at this point the biggest dangers to democracy. Term limits would reduce the role of money in our elections.
Term limits for federal judges and SCOTUS would help keep the law, equality, and public wellbeing sacred. We should consider some additional, minimal criteria for candidacy for public office and public servants, along with standards and checks on ethical behavior, too. It is increasingly vital to keep ambitious, lying, ignorant, mentally unfit, malevolent, criminal posers, fascists, and would-be oligarchs and dictators OUT of our government.
The next Democratic congress and administration MUST enact judicial branch reform including expanding the Supreme Court, mandating judicial term limits including for SCOTUS, and mandating financial and ethics reforms to include fines [docking of salaries] and mandatory recusals [enforced with fines.]
Agree except in expanding the SCOTUS. Implement term limits for them and make it retroactive.
In Canada, federally appointed judges (as on the Supreme Court of Canada but also on all provincial superior trial courts and courts of appeal) must retire at 75. Most provincial judicial legislation sets 70 for retirement. When the 75-limit was enacted (in 1927), one member of the Supreme Court had to step down. He was 88. So not great-grandfathered...
I'm not sure I'd like to see the Supreme Court expanded. But it would be helpful to increase the number of circuit and district courts. And impose some procedural limits on who can bring emergency appeals, etc., to the Supreme Court. Right now we see some nonsensical cases consuming the attention of the Court, mostly thanks to you-know-who and his frivolous lawsuits.
I've gone back and forth on court expansion myself, but I've concluded it makes sense to raise the number of court seats to match the number of circuit court districts. At the same time, term limits should be put in place, and the use of the emergency appeals process [AKA the shadow docket] should be strictly limited or prohibited altogether.
Well said and totally correct. When are going to create qualifications for people who wish to run for office? All of us who applied for various work over the years has to meet the application requirements. It's appalling that those in office who are there to design and create laws effecting all of us only have to be a certain age. No wonder we keep getting the bottom rungs on the ladder.
When the Constitution was adopted there were few professions that had hard and fast requirements. The drafter thought that people would have the familiarity with local candidates to make wise choices. Times have changed, the population has grown exponentially, and we can't trust local lore for our information about qualifications. We need, at all levels, some meaningful eligibility rules for federal office. Starting with some ethics guidelines. And updated qualifications for presidential candidates.
"Term limits for federal judges and SCOTUS would help keep the law, equality, and public wellbeing sacred."
If we're going to have term limits, I want Congress to go first.
I would be all in for that, Hal. But SCOTUS, for sure!
I've done a 180 on Congressional term limits, and here are the biggest reasons why: The TPers, and the Freedumb Caucus.
The TPers and Freedumb Caucus members, and their staffs, were so new to Congress and Washington they didn't know how *anything* worked. Some of their staff members were such neophytes they didn't even know the technical aspects of filing legislation.
However, the biggest problem with them is that they didn't know, or care, that Congress has *always* been a place that requires compromise and consensus building. The Founders intended for Congress to run this way. Some of them eventually learned that the longer they stayed. There have bern some Democrats over the years who haven't understood this either, and were much less effective for their voters because of it.
Lastly, don't think for a second that the Founders didn't intend for the United States to essentially have a "ruling class" that occupied Congress and the presidency. They most certainly did. The Founders were quite open about the fact they didn't believe the vast majority of Americans had the ability to govern our country. If for no other reason than the vast majority of Americans weren't educated enough, and didn't have the leisure time available to become educated. The 99% were far too busy working and just trying to make a living.
If having term limits meant that all members or even most member would come into government with no experience, you'd be correct. However we already have staggered Congressional elections, which means there will always be those with experience to mentor the incoming members. Also, we're not saying that members of Congress need to be limited to one or two or even three terms. (Although three terms for a Senator translates into an eighteen0year tenure, plenty long enough.) Some long-serving senators become legendary for their brilliant negotiating or arm-twisting, etc. Others become untouchable womanizing drunks. Or commonplace hacks known for bringing the pork back to their district lobbyists year after yea rather than for the quality of their public service. No one is indispensable; no on is so great that the Republic would fall if they could only serve twelve years. I'd be willing to sacrifice a few Congressional titans every decade, to reduce the need for the outsized lobbying we now have.
And for sure I wouldn't want the intentions of the Founding Father to rule every decision. Weapons, life expectancy, national demographics, finance and economics systems: these are all vastly different from those at the time in which the Constitution was drafted.
The sad part is many uneducated morons found their way into Congress. Take just two examples, Bobert and MTG. Between the two, they could not comb their hair and walk at the same time.
If I recall correctly, no one else ran for those offices in their election.
"The sad part is many uneducated morons found their way into Congress. Take just two examples, Bobert and MTG."
Agreed, but then we also have the Squad...not exactly what one would call high-IQ material.
the Squad are never stupid. They are pretty impressive and consistently on the side of the humane and public spirited rather than cruelty and pettiness like MTG and Bobert.
You may continue to believe such.
"Lastly, don't think for a second that the Founders didn't intend for the United States to essentially have a "ruling class" that occupied Congress and the presidency."
I think the Founders were more interested in elected officials who were of good moral character. The federal government was not designed to be the "central power" that we have now. A "ruling class" would eventually turn the direction of the country in a different direction than intended.
Exactly. Term limits are a nice idea in a normal world but experience matters in times like these. Honest Brokers understand compromise is how progress happens.
That, and the fairness doctrine-and unlimited money funding candidates-it has to stop
Excellent advice
Maybe it's time for those of us who live in blue states to start withholding federal taxes. I, for one, am tired of having my hard-earned money go to low-tax red states. They never have the money to provide well for those who reside there. They depend mightily on our blue state funding. My blue state is always net-negative; we never get from the feds what we pay in. We certainly never get more. We're always at a deficit. Red states, in contrast, are always net-positive; they always get much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Hey, red states, I and my blue state compatriots earned that money! At the very least, I expect my state to be appreciated and left alone by this administration. How about a great big thanks from the red states for blue state contributions to their treasuries? How about a little respect for how much better we manage our economies and, although we pay more in taxes to our states' coffers, we get much more from our state governments and are so much better off. There's a reason why so much poverty exists in red states. So, a tax revolt???
I just thought of something that, if Dr. Richardson's reading, might make a worthwhile future project. (And if anyone knows of any good books/articles on this, I'd love to know about them!)
IMHO, the "when they go low, we go high" strategy as advocated by former First Lady Michelle Obama may be a viewpoint that, if not entitely unique to the Democratic party, is something Democratic politicians seem to advocate more than Republican politicians.
In addition to Obama, we can also look back at President Woodrow Wilson's idealistic attempt to keep the US out of World War I, and his even more idealistic 14 points. The only Republican politician I can think of who might be "accused" of seeing the world as he would have liked it to be rather than the way it was is Lincoln in 1865.
Sometimes it "feels" like one of the "advantages" Republican politicians use to get/maintain power is they acknowledge that the world is a nasty, brutish, cold place. Basically, they're willing to admit Machiavelli was right. While Democrats often see the world, and people, as we would like them to be, rather than as they are.
This may be true, Chris Martin, but I don't EVER want a government that "goes low" as a general policy. We've had quite enough of that. I would suggest that we "go Smarter, work harder, educate the public to a high standard, rationalize the distribution of wealth and public services, regulate the excesses and sins of capitalism and give people a few dozen good and obvious reasons why Democratic government is BETTER for all of us - and make that stick.
Excellent points! Thank you. We do need to Go Smarter!
We can't really win by using underhanded tactics. If we do we can destroy ourselves as the means becomes the end - as in the saying that "the end justifies the means." This is false and by using illegal and/or immoral means, we end up corrupting ourselves and the results..
The 14 points were good. But Woodrow Wilson was an abject racist. Prior to his tenure, Black people were finally inside the government with decent jobs. Wilson canned them all. He chose segregation and set back the ability of Black people to get ahead.
It's complicated. See, Sam Wang of Princeton's work on the Texas gerrymander.
https://samwang.substack.com/p/the-texas-jigsaw-massacre
Thanks for the excellent reference.
"Time for New York, Illinois, California and other blue states to start gerrymandering..."
It's likely that those states have just about "maxed out" on their ability to gerrymander.
"...the Texas Disease now raging in Austin."
This can be a two-edged sword for Texas. First, the idea is to take solid red districts and make them less secure in order to gain possible Republican seats. The Repubs may also believe that because of Covid, the 2020 census may not have been as accurate, especially with Hispanic voters who turned more towards to the right in the last couple of election cycles. But if the economy turns sour or if there is some monumental scandal in the Trump administration, it is possible that the new "less secure" districts may go blue. Be careful what you wish for.
Damn, you sure as hell hit it. We have to fight fire with a bigger fire.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
"Ironically (for a party that once fetishized states’ rights), Trump’s MAGA GOP consistently seeks to obliterate federalism and force states—generally blue ones—to do his bidding."
That's a big gripe of mine and why I think a turn-over in 2026 and again in 2028 is so critical to our country. Trump (Vought/Blondi/Miller et al) have figured out the core truth: if you pick on and then subjugate blue states, then you've got all 50 under your thumb. Every single outrageous action (universities, immigrant raids, etc) is designed to weaken blue states, especially California and it's huge congressional delegation. It's something that I think previous presidents, even Reagan, would have felt was unpatriotic in the extreme.
Still waiting for blue states to seek justice. E.G. Did Trjump admit Musk stole Pennsylvania?
Bob Casey(D) and John Heinz(R). Two of the grown-ups from Pennsylavania. We are worse off for their absence.
I still wish to know if there is a way I can prevent the Federal tax monies I pay, as required by law, from being used by the Federal government for illegal purposes.
Tax revolt? Most Americans, I'd guess, would not risk it. But a general strike might get the attention of American business, and stimulate their appetite for peace and real prosperity, instead of oppressive rule by incompetent, larcenous, and predatory would-be oligarchs over deteriorating resources, a ruined environment, wars, insecurity, and hostile civilians.
We need desperately to kick the corporate sector out of bed with our government. As Dr. Mary Wynn-Ashford ("Enough Blood Shed"), observed, our democracy only works well if civil society, the economic sector, and government are in a sort of dynamic equilibrium, and no two sectors are permitted to gang up to disempower the third. If business is allowed to buy the "favor" of elected officials, we are in big trouble. SCOTUS betrayed the American People and our Constitution with their appalling, even traitorous, "Citizens United" ruling.
Government and business only exist to serve civil society. If or when they fail to do that, the PEOPLE must reset the balance of power (and therefore the re-distribution of wealth and its power among the civil society that enables and creates it), in order for that society to persist and fluorish. The grotesque wealth concentration, hoarding, and obscene privilege we have seen in recent years is a direct result of corporate greed, inattention, complacency and outright grift. We have lost more than most of us realize. It will take an epic focus and effort of ALL THE PEOPLE to climb out of this home-grown, transmogrifying horror.
Outside of withholding payment of federal income tax, which will draw the interest of the IRS, there doesn't seem to be any way to do this. At this point, hounding your legislators not to support illegality is about all that can be done until the midterm election.
Get a lawyer.
Judge Jenkins did us a favor by upholding States Rights (something that the GOP used to strongly endorse) though this issue is far from settled. No doubt it will be dragged before the Supine Court before all is said and done. Our state and local police have enough to do supporting their respective law enforcement duties. It is not their job to take on federal enforcement activities.
Supine Court! Great moniker.
"It is worth noting that courts have consistently rejected the government’s interpretation, yet the Trump team has not stopped using the same discredited interpretation."
Based on this, the next time Trump tries to use this interpretation elsewhere, the judge should immediately slap the presenting lawyer with contempt for knowingly pushing a discredited approach. And sentencing this lawyer to as many days in prison as this tactic was tried.
That pesky 10th Amendment! Trump hates America and its Constitution as it is preventing him from taking total control of the nation. And by Republicans not pushing back, are complicit.
Yes!! 🙌 Fight the good fight! Yes 🙌
Bravo for Judge Jenkins and the state of Illinois for standing up for the state’s rights, and for the Contrarian for excellent reporting of this crucial case!
Yeah. This was a fantastic explanation for what’s happening on this level and the why’s—both why they want it and why they can’t have it.
Trump's war against blue states also includes denial of disaster funds.
In my state, Maryland, communities in the western part of the state experienced serious flooding in May.
They applied for FEMA funds and were denied. Mind you, the communities affected are ones that went for Trump in the 2024 election.
Well, he counts on suckers who believe the lying drivel. Use and discard, that's his MO.
He thinks all of MD is like MoCo
Are you accepting his process and suggesting that one County is at fault because they did not vote for him?
No, I think bbb is just stating that this is another example of FAFO for these MAGAts - the face-eating leopard wasn't supposed to eat THEIR faces....🤪
You are correct. The western counties in Maryland, Garrett and Allegheny, tend to be more politically conservative than Montgomery Prince George’s and Baltimore. That's also true of
Maryland 's Eastern Shore.
Thr western Maryland communities coukd use federal assistance, and under Biden they likely would have received such assistance.
Maryland has a Democratic governor and primarily Democratic congressional delegation. My assumption is that Yrump and his handlers are sticking it to Maryland because of that.
Where does the money come from to wage a lawsuit against a state? And where did the money go from the CBS lawsuit, Columbia lawsuit, etc?????
CBS $16 million to Trump’s future presidential library. I recall hearing in the news, “to be used as he sees fit.” The Columbia University settlement goes to the government. Not sure how it’s earmarked.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Jen, thank you for the great information you provide. I recall Trump saying that the blue cities will not be allowed to vote. This was at the summit with the Canadian PM. I'm in California, and I love the fact that Gavin Newsom fights back against the Orange bully. We must fight back; the midterms are of great importance to preserve our democracy. Let's kick his big butt!
“it is one more critical battleground in the fight to block Trump’s quest for dictatorial power.”
And……
It is a travesty how this Supreme Court is destroying our Constitutional authority. SHAME on these TRAITORS!
The attack on Blue America is core to the Republican strategy. Although this was not always true, there was a change in the 1990s--the decade when the Party was transformed by new founding fathers (Limbaugh, Gingrich, Buchanan, Koch). Now, the entire raison d'etre of the Party is to transform the country into a post-democracy: to do that, they are primed to destroy competitors, rivals and dissenters so that there will never again be any challenge to Republican power.
This partywide dementia cannot be overstated. Republicans, with few exceptions, have come to believe they are entitled to rule absolutely, by a kind of divine right.
Those who are not Christian nationalist fanatics are political ideologues and zealots: those who are not political ideologues and zealots are money-hungry, power-hungry tyrants.
Their totalitarian impulse has been reinforced by the Silicon Valley set: the tech bros, the billionaire madmen, the deranged philosophers like Thiel and Yarvin---men who believe that they themselves are gods, and that the human species is disposable.
Their beliefs have fused into those of the Republicans: above all, the belief that power should by right repose in the hands of a very few, who have, moreover, the right to sustain their dominance through acts of immense brutality and lethal violence.
These are not just dirty little party operatives looking for the main chance. These are the most dangerous form of humanity: True Believers, as much as the Nazis and Stalinists ever were.
The problem in California is that Newsom hasn't been a good governor, and hasn't solved a lot of our state's problems, or even tried. He is definitely supported by corporate money. He is way more effective at speaking against Trump than accomplishing anything.
And, most people believe that Karen Bass hasn't been a good mayor. She said she would change things so people who were affected by the fires could rebuild, but it isn't happening. And, she never seems like she's in charge. So, unless opinions change, it's even possible that people here would vote for a Republican with a track record.
Great article in 'The Atlantic' by Timothy Rybeck that correlates the German central Bank under Hitler to our last pillar still standing, The Fed. Thank you,Jerome Powell. And thanks to trump's ignorance thinking Powell is in charge of all the decisions made by The Fed. They vote.
Soon going out to protest the actions of our state’s last sheriff cooperating with ICE. This switcheroo—of women’s bodies under state control and everything else under Trump’s imprimatur—amounts to hypocrisy on steroids. The Democratic Party must bulk up on its own steroids and get its act together.
Yes, the fight is anything but arcane—it strikes at the very heart of our raison d’être and way of life! Thank you for maintaining the focus, Jen.
As John Oliver once said of the Confederacy, they're in favor of states' rights, as long as they're the RIGHT states' rights. Otherwise, they're states' WRONGS.