The Conversation -- June 28, 2025
⭐Natasha Bertrand & Zachary Cohen of CNN, republished by AOL: "The US military did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran's largest nuclear sites last weekend because the site is so deep that the bombs likely would not have been effective, the US' top general told senators during a briefing on Thursday. The comment by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, which was described by three people who heard his remarks and a fourth who was briefed on them, is the first known explanation given for why the US military did not use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb against the Isfahan site in central Iran. US officials believe Isfahan's underground structures house nearly 60% of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, which Iran would need in order to ever produce a nuclear weapon. US B2 bombers dropped over a dozen bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites. But Isfahan was only struck by Tomahawk missiles launched from a US submarine." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Trump already had it in for Bertrand, writing Wednesday on his failing social media site that CNN should fire her "like a dog" for breaking the story that the Pentagon's Defense Intel Agency assessment of the U.S. strikes on Iran did not "completely obliterate" Iran's nuclear program as Trump has repeatedly asserted. (BTW, Cohen and another reporter also were part of the team, with Bertrand, who broke the original DIA assessment story. Yet Trump singled out Bertrand & leveled a string of insults against her.) What Bertrand & Cohen are reporting here is that Trump knew -- or should have known -- all along that the U.S. strikes could not have "completely obliterated" Iran's nuclear program because the U.S. attacks did not even try to "obliterate" one of the sites where the program is developed and operated. So Bertrand & Cohen just showed that Trump either knowingly lied to the public about -- or is ignorant of -- the mission he approved. Congress, of course, should investigate whether Trump deliberately lied or is too stupid to comprehend the nature and purpose of the military missions he authorizes.
Not surprisingly, Heather Cox Richardson's latest "letter" is a good shortcourse in the history of birthright citizenship in the U.S. "To reporters, [Donald Trump] claimed: 'If you look at the end of the Civil War -- the 1800s, it was a very turbulent time. If you take the end day -- was it 1869? Or whatever. But you take that exact day, that's when the case was filed. And the case ended shortly thereafter. This had to do with the babies of slaves, very obviously.' This is a great example of a politician rooting a current policy in a made-up history. There is nothing in Trump's statement that is true, except perhaps that the 1800s were a turbulent time. Every era is."
~~~~~~~~~~
Marie: Yesterday was an extraordinary day. What happened yesterday did not just speed up the United States' descent from democratic republic to dictatorship. Yesterday, the Senate and the Supreme Court made it official. The proofs are linked below. Senate Republicans (and John Fetterman [D-Pa.]) voted to cede to the dictator Congress's Constitutional prerogative to declare war. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has stripped all the lower courts of their right and responsibility to broadly estop the dictator and his administration from flagrantly violating the Constitution and the laws.
Ann Marimow of the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court on Friday backed ... Donald Trump's request to scale back nationwide orders that have for months blocked the administration's ban on automatic citizenship for the U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors, a signature piece of Trump's efforts to restrict immigration. The 6-3 decision, with the liberal justices dissenting, sends the cases back to the lower courts to determine the practical implications of the ruling and leaves open a path for challengers to try to continue to block the president's policy.... The justices were not directly addressing the constitutionality of the president's birthright citizenship order, which opponents say conflicts with the 14th Amendment, past court rulings and the nation's history.... Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said such universal injunctions likely exceed the power that Congress has granted to the federal courts.... Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a lengthy summary of her dissent from the bench to emphasize her strong disagreement with the opinion, which she called a 'travesty' and warned would 'cause chaos for the families of all affected children.'" (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Josh Gerstein of Politico: "The Supreme Court has handed ... Donald Trump a major victory by narrowing nationwide injunctions that blocked his executive order purporting to end the right to birthright citizenship. In doing so, the court sharply curtailed the power of individual district court judges to issue injunctions blocking federal government policies nationwide." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ The decision, concurrences and dissents are here, via the Supreme Court. (Also linked yesterday.)
No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.... That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.... The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully. -- Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissent, Trump v. CASA
I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the Executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the Court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends.... Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more. -- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissent, Trump v. CASA
Birthright citizenship was added to the Constitution at the end of the Civil War. It's a basic idea: When you're born in America, you're an American. That's what Trump is trying to take away. By failing to protect this basic constitutional right, the Supreme Court is declaring open season on all our rights. -- Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus ~~~
~~~ New York Times live updates are here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: BTW, Sotomayor, in her dissent, compares this decision to the most notorious case in the history of the Supreme Court: Dred Scott. ~~~
Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens. That has been the legal rule since the founding, and it was the English rule well before then. This Court once attempted to repudiate it, holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), that the children of enslaved black Americans were not citizens. To remedy that grievous error, the States passed in 1866 and Congress ratified in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which enshrined birthright citizenship in the Constitution. There it has remained, accepted and respected by Congress, by the Executive, and by this Court. Until today. -- Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissent, Trump v. CASA (Thanks to Blaise Malley of Salon for the heads-up.) ~~~
~~~ Chris Geidner, the Law Dork: The Three-Names-Supremes -- Amy Phony Barrett & Ketanji Brown Jackson -- brawl over what the real-world impact of the decision will be. ~~~
~~~ Jacob Knutson of Democracy Docket: "Not long after the ruling, Trump claimed that his administration was now free to move ahead in amassing power on a range of fronts.... In reacting to the ruling, Trump repeated his attacks on federal judges, calling them 'radical' and their rulings 'a grave threat to democracy.' The president jumped on the ruling as giving him complete freedom to plow ahead with many of the policies that have made up his unprecedented power grab and that had been blocked by the courts. He falsely said that the Supreme Court has allowed his administration to proceed with ending birthright citizenship. He also named ceasing funding for sanctuary cities, suspending refugee resettlement and cutting funding for transgender healthcare as areas where his administration can move ahead unfettered. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said. 'This is a decision that covers a tremendous amount of territory.'" ~~~
~~~ Wherein Trump Admits He's a Bigger Outlaw Than All 20th-Century Presidents Combined. Caleb Howe of Mediaite: "'... Trump's actions have been so extreme the courts have had to use that power to stop him more than any other president in modern history. Any other president,' [Jen] Psaki [of MSNBC said Friday]. 'And that's something that even Trump himself admits.' She then played Trump from his presser saying: 'We've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together. Think of it more than the entire twentieth century. Me.' 'Yes, you. The courts have had to stop you, Donald Trump, more than any other president,' Psaki responded. 'It's not the brag you think it is either, by the way.'" ~~~
~~~ Miriam Jordan of the New York Times tries to answer questions about what will and may happen next as a result of the decision. ~~~
~~~ Unequal Protection Under the Law. Mel Barclay of the 19th: "While challenges to the executive order move through the courts, the administration will only be blocked from enforcing its order against some immigrants. That will likely include people in the 22 Democrat-led states that directly challenged the order, along with the members of two immigrants' rights organizations and individually named plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to 'expeditiously' reexamine which plaintiffs will be covered by more narrow injunctions. Immigrant parents who expect to give birth soon in one of the 28 Republican-led states that didn't challenge the executive order are in a more 'tenuous' situation, said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell." ~~~
~~~ Jennifer Bendery of the Huffington Post: "Immigrants rights' advocates on Friday filed a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging ... Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, just hours after the Supreme Court partially blocked nationwide injunctions challenging Trump's order. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Legal Defense Fund and other groups, was brought on behalf of a class of babies subject to the executive order, along with their parents. It charges the Trump administration with flouting the Constitution, congressional intent, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent." ~~~
~~~ Laurence Tribe weighs in. Thanks to laura h. for the lead: ~~~
~~~ Marie: A number of the articles I've linked note that Pam Blondie said yesterday that the Supremes likely would resolve the issue of birthright citizenship in the fall, implying we shouldn't get all pissy about a few thousand kids falling into the chasm created by this ruling. But NYU law professor Melissa Murray pointed out on MSNBC that's not apt to be true. "Sotomayor ... wrote [in her dissent] that the administration didn't ask the Supreme Court to allow the birthright citizenship order to go fully into effect because proving that the policy is likely legal before the Supreme Court would be 'an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text.'" So let's assume that the plaintiffs -- that is, those advocating for birthright citizenship -- prevail in every case before the lower courts, as Sotomayor suggests was likely. That would leave only the government -- Blondie's tribe -- to appeal the decisions to the Supreme Court. And Blondie has zero incentive to appeal because as Sotomayor wrote, the government would lose. So the patchwork will remain in place. That is, as Mrs. Ken W. told Mr. Ken W. (see yesterday's Comments), a child born in Washington State will be a citizen, but one born in Idaho will not.
Justin Jouvenal & David Ovalle of the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a portion of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans to provide free preventive care such as screenings for cancer and HIV. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled against a Christian-owned business and individuals who objected to being forced to offer medications intended to prevent the spread of HIV among people at risk. The plaintiffs contend the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) treatment administered to prevent infections, 'encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior' in conflict with their religious beliefs.... Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.... Public health groups on Friday hailed the decision but also worried it may prove a double-edge sword under Trump administration health officials who have rejected long-standing public health guidance. The opinion paves the way for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist, and his successors to exert greater control over the panel's recommendations, said Jose Abrigo ... of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund...."
Justin Jouvenal & Will Oremus of the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court ruled Friday that an $8 billion fund that provides telephone and internet service in rural and low-income communities is constitutional, a break from a string of major rulings by the high court that have sharply curtailed the power of federal agencies. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices found Congress properly granted the Federal Communications Commission discretion to collect fees from telecommunications companies to pay for the Universal Service Fund, which helps ensure equal access to critical communication services. The ruling is a blow to conservatives who had hoped the high court would -- for the first time since 1935 -- find that Congress had violated a constitutional provision that bars it from delegating too much of its authority to other branches of the government, namely the executive and federal agencies." Gorsuch, Thomas & Alito dissented.
~~~ The decision, concurring opinions & dissent are here, via the Supreme Court.
Michael Schmidt & Michael Bender of the New York Times: "The University of Virginia's president, James E. Ryan, has told the board overseeing the school that he will resign in the face of demands by the Trump administration that he step aside to help resolve a Justice Department inquiry into the school's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, according to three people briefed on the matter. For the leader of one of the nation's most prominent public universities to take such an extraordinary step demonstrates ... [Donald] Trump's success in harnessing the investigative powers of the federal government to accomplish his administration's policy goals. The New York Times reported on Thursday evening that the Justice Department had demanded Mr. Ryan's resignation as a condition to settle a civil rights investigation into the school's diversity practices. In a letter sent on Thursday to the head of the board overseeing the university, Mr. Ryan said that he had planned to step down at the end of the next academic year but 'given the circumstances and today's conversations' he had decided, 'with deep sadness,' to tender his resignation now.... The school's board has accepted Mr. Ryan's resignation, according to two of the people briefed on the matter." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: This is a mistake. Whatever Ryan's personal plans may have been, he had a duty to the principles of the academy to tell the Trump administration to stick it. Same with the board, which should not have accepted his resignation. These people are not as bright as you would expect them to be if they don't understand that they do not have the freedom to knuckle under to a despot.
Tony Romm, et al., of the New York Times: Donald "Trump on Friday said that the United States would terminate all trade discussions with Canada, 'effective immediately,' over the country's plan to begin collecting digital services taxes from U.S. technology giants. Mr. Trump described those taxes as a 'blatant attack,' and promised on social media that he would inform Canada within the next seven days about the duties 'they will be paying to do business with the United States of America.'... 'We have all the cards. We have every single one,' Mr. Trump said in the Oval Office, adding that 'economically we have such power over Canada.'... Mr. Trump once again upended the increasingly fraught relationship between the United States and Canada, which has traditionally been one of America's closest allies and largest trading partners....
"Canada's 3 percent digital services tax has been in place since last year, but the first payments are only due beginning on Monday. Because the tax is retroactive, American companies were preparing to turn over roughly $2.7 billion to the Canadian government, according to a trade group for large American tech companies.... On Friday, Mr. Trump singled out Europe, where several countries have imposed versions of the tax, describing them as 'very nasty.' But he did not suggest that he planned to halt ongoing trade negotiations with the European Union. MB: Trump's stupid and embarrassing "We have all the cards" power play is, of course, simple an attack on American consumers of Canadian products.
Colby Smith of the New York Times: Donald "Trump continued his assault on the chair of the Federal Reserve on Friday, saying he would like Jerome H. Powell to resign. The president, who has berated Mr. Powell for weeks, called the chair a 'stubborn mule' who has 'Trump derangement syndrome' for his refusal to immediately lower borrowing costs. 'I'd love for him to resign if he wanted to,' the president told reporters in the Oval Office.... Mr. Trump recently said that he was choosing among three or four people to replace Mr. Powell, whose term ends in May, and that an announcement would be coming soon.... Mr. Trump ... has repeatedly toyed with removing Mr. Powell as chair before his term expires. The Supreme Court recently signaled that the president was not authorized to do that, however. Mr. Powell's term as a governor does not expire until 2032, meaning he could technically stay on even after stepping down as chair."
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times: "Though Trump likes to hug the flag -- and just raised two huge ones on the White House North and South Lawns -- he ignores a basic tenet of patriotism: It is patriotic to tell the public the truth on life-or-death matters, and for the press to challenge power. It is unpatriotic to mislead the public in order to control it and suppress dissent, or as a way of puffing up your own ego."
Dan Diamond & Hannah Natanson of the Washington Post: "The U.S. DOGE Service has lost the power to control the government's process for awarding billions of dollars in federal funds, the latest sign of the team's declining influence following Elon Musk's high-profile exit from Washington.... Three months ago, DOGE employees wrested control of a key federal grants website, grants.gov, which serves as a clearinghouse for more than $500 billion in annual awards, The Post reported.... But on Thursday, federal officials were instructed to stop routing the grant-making process through DOGE.... The decision follows fears that months of DOGE-linked delays would lead to what critics allege would be the illegal impoundment of federal funds.... Contacted for comment Friday, the White House sent a statement attributed to an unnamed senior administration official saying DOGE will continue to 'facilitate the review of grants, working alongside agency secretaries to determine which grants should continue, which should be terminated, and which require further scrutiny.'"
Christine Hauser of the New York Times: "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Friday that the U.S. Navy was renaming the U.S.N.S. Harvey Milk, a fleet replenishment ship that had been named for a Navy veteran and one of the country's first openly gay elected officials. He said that the vessel would be renamed for Oscar V. Peterson, a chief petty officer who posthumously received the Medal of Honor for valor during World War II. 'We are taking the politics out of ship naming,' Mr. Hegseth said in a statement released on social media. The announcement -- which came during Pride Month -- was not unexpected. Earlier this month, Mr. Hegseth said he had ordered a review of Navy vessels named after prominent civil rights leaders, and the ship named after Mr. Milk was seen as a possible candidate for a change. The review was in keeping with the Trump administration's drive to expunge diversity, equity and inclusion efforts from the federal government, a senior defense official familiar with the decision said at the time.... In 2009, Mr. Milk was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's top civilian medal, by President Obama." ~~~
~~~ Marie: You will notice that Drunk Pete has caught onto authoritarian opposite-speak, wherein dictators and their minions make pronouncements that are in direct opposition to the facts. So when Pete sez, "We are taking the politics out of ship naming," what he means is, "We are putting politics into ship-naming." What he does not address is that he is doing so in the most shameful possible way, stripping from an American hero an honor well-earned, and only because that hero was gay. (This is not to say that Mr. Peterson's heroism does not deserve similar recognition; rather, it should not be awarded at the expense of another deserving person.)
Adam Taylor, et al., of the Washington Post: ?The Trump administration's plan for mass layoffs at the State Department has left much of the workforce exasperated and embittered, tanking morale as extra demands were made to assist U.S. citizens seeking to flee the Middle East amid Israel's war with Iran, employees say. At the direction of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department informed Congress in May that it planned to reduce its U.S. workforce by more than 15 percent -- almost 2,000 people -- as part of a sweeping reorganization intended to streamline what he has called a 'bloated bureaucracy that stifles innovation and misallocates scarce resources.' Separately, he has accused certain bureaus within the department of pursuing a 'radical political ideology.' Rubio had set a July 1 timeline for the dismissals, but execution of the plan is contingent on a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, which is evaluating ... Donald Trump's sweeping attempt to fire federal workers across numerous government agencies. It's unclear when the court could act." ~~~
~~~ Edward Wong & Michael Crowley of the New York Times: "Sixty Democratic lawmakers told Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday to refrain from moving ahead with mass layoffs of State Department employees and to lift a hiring freeze at a time of widening global crises. In a letter to Mr. Rubio, the lawmakers said they were concerned about reported plans to fire about 700 career diplomats, known as Foreign Service officers, based mainly on the fact that those employees are currently posted in the United States rather than overseas. Diplomats spend much of their career abroad but rotate through Washington and other U.S. posts such as the United Nations, so firing people who happen to be currently on assignment in the country is seen as arbitrary and unfair by many State Department employees, as well as by the lawmakers.... [The State Department] sent a memo to Congress with ... details [of its reorganization plan], including plans to fire about 2,000 people. The State Department says it aims to do the overhaul by July 1." MB: You might think that Little Marco doesn't know how the diplomatic rotation works. And/or you might think Marco is an arbitrary and capricious junior dictator who doesn't give a flying fig.
Marie: A tragedy, in the Greek sense, is a story in which the main character comes to an unhappy ending through some fault -- or character flaw -- of his own. We may not be talking "Oedipus Rex" here, but perhaps a more homely, Arthur Miller-type tragedy: Robyn Pennacchia of Wonkette on the death of Canadian immigrant Johnny Noviello, a small-time drug dealer and Trump fan who died in ICE custody. Pennacchia concludes, "I couldn't tell you what made a non-citizen with a history of drug offenses think that Donald Trump was his guy. Maybe he thought because he was white, because he was Canadian and not Mexican, that he was conservative, that he'd get a pass. He cheered for Donald Trump because he thought it would be other people getting hauled away to these detention centers and not him. Clearly, he was wrong." More on Noviello's death linked yesterday. (Also linked yesterday.)"
Robert Jimison of the New York Times: "The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic resolution that would have forced ... [Donald] Trump to go to Congress for approval of further military action against Iran, dealing a blow to efforts to rein in his war powers. The 53-to-47 vote against bringing up the resolution, mostly along party lines, came nearly a week after the president unilaterally ordered strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities without consulting the House and Senate. It also followed a searing debate on the Senate floor over the role of Congress in authorizing the use of military force. The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, invoked the War Powers Act, a 1973 law aimed at limiting a president's power to enter an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and seek the approval of both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take further military action against Iran."
Zach Montague of the New York Times: "A federal judge in Washington ruled on Friday that an executive order ... [Donald] Trump signed imposing penalties against the law firm Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional, permanently barring the government from enforcing its terms. The decision by Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia effectively ended, at least for now, the president's campaign to subjugate several of the nation's top law firms. It also completed a perfect record among those firms that risked fighting the administration in court, notching four decisive rulings from four separate judges, none of which the Trump administration has, so far, tried to appeal." A pdf of the decision, linked in the text, is provided by the courts.... In April, Mr. Trump went after Susman Godfrey with an order claiming the firm 'spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections' -- an apparent reference to its work representing Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine manufacturer, in a major defamation case against Fox News." A CBS News story is here.
Laurel Rosenhall of the New York Times: "Gov. Gavin Newsom of California sued Fox News on Friday, accusing the network of defaming him in its coverage of a phone call he had with ... [Donald] Trump this month. The suit, filed in Delaware, where Fox News is incorporated, seeks damage of at least $787 million and a court order prohibiting Fox from broadcasting or posting segments that mistakenly say Mr. Newsom lied about his call with Mr. Trump.... Mr. Newsom's lawyers also sent Fox News a letter demanding a formal retraction and an on-air apology from Jesse Watters, a host who said on his show that Mr. Newsom had lied about the call with the president. If those conditions are met, the letter states, Mr. Newsom will dismiss the lawsuit. The punitive damages sought by Mr. Newsom mirror the amount that Fox News agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems that accused the network of publicizing false election conspiracies that damaged the company. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences -- just like it did in the Dominion case,' Mr. Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.' Fox News responded by questioning the sincerity of Mr. Newsom's lawsuit." Montague explains the background that led to the suit.
Ashley Wu, et al., of the New York Times chart how key provisions of the House & Senate versions of Trump's Big Bad Bill differ. They note that the "page will be updated to reflect the final version of the Senate bill when it's available."
Maxine Joselow, now of the New York Times: Some right-wing outdoorsmen are denouncing "a plan by Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, to sell millions of acres of federal lands as part of ... [Donald] Trump's sprawling tax and spending bill.... Mr. Lee's proposal would require the Bureau of Land Management to sell as much as 1.225 million acres of public property across the American West. Proponents have said the region has a severe shortage of affordable housing and that developers could build new homes on these tracts.... Opponents include Representative Ryan Zinke, a Republican of Montana, who led the Interior Department during Mr. Trump's first term. On Thursday, Mr. Zinke said he would vote against the bill if it included the provision.... Five House Republicans -- including Mr. Zinke -- said on Thursday that the land sale was a 'poison pill' that would cost their votes for the package." MB: By "the bill" and "the package," it appears Joselow means the Big Bad Bill, though she doesn't make that entirely clear.
~~~~~~~~~~
Minnesota. New York Times: "Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. joined thousands of mourners who streamed through the Minnesota State Capitol on Friday to pay their respects to State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. The couple were killed at their home this month in suburban Minneapolis, in what officials have described as a broader plan to assassinate Democratic officials. The procession past their caskets under the ornate dome of the State Capitol began shortly after the man accused of the fatal shooting appeared briefly in a federal courthouse about a mile away. The suspect's detention hearing was delayed until next week after his lawyer told the judge that he had been placed on suicide watch and had been unable to sleep in jail. At the Capitol, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota and his wife were the first to pay respects to the Hortmans just after noon local time. President Biden made a surprise visit about four hours later. He knelt briefly and crossed himself in front of the caskets, which flanked an urn containing the remains of the family's dog, Gilbert, who was also killed in the attack." This is part of the pinned item in a liveblog.
Nebraska. Annie Karni of the New York Times: "Representative Don Bacon, the five-term Nebraska Republican who represents a centrist district in a deeply red state, will not seek re-election, according to a person familiar with his plans, handing Democrats a prime opportunity to pick up a seat in the closely divided House. Mr. Bacon's official announcement is expected on Monday, and his departure is not unexpected. His willingness to publicly disagree with ... [Donald] Trump has made him an anomaly in the tribal House Republican Conference, where members tend to fall in line behind the president's agenda and rarely criticize him in the open." --52--
Share Article
Reader Comments (14)
So it’s official.
We are no longer the United States of America. We are no longer a nation of laws. We actually haven’t been either since January, but now it’s official. And boy, Howdy, watch the fat little dictator and his minions go to town now.
It’s gonna make Project 2025 look like a nice little gesture. One by one—no, make that three, four, five at a time—what we thought were inalienable rights will be tossed aside like Big Mac wrappers.
Free speech, free assembly, marriage equality, birthright citizenship, religious freedom (that’s pretty much dead right now), the vote…election rigging, gerrymandering, honest vote counts? Gone. Miranda? Who knows? You can bet the evil PoT elves are beside themselves with glee. Lower courts are now a joke. The only court that matters is run by traitors.
It’s entirely possible that Trump will make himsejf President for life.
We are officially a ridiculous, but very dangerous, banana republic.
It was nice while it lasted.
Adios, America. We hardly knew ye.
Again, can't comprehend what those conservative justices have in mind. What exactly are they trying to conserve? Certainly not democracy, certainly not order, and not as I noted yesterday, one nation, indivisible, under God or not.
Since the Supremes are the are only body that can dispense constitutional clarification or interpretation for the entire land, and since many issues arise that the Supremes are too lazy, timid or buzy to handle, other federal judges have filled they void by restraining across the nation some behaviors that raise questions of law, allowing time for courts to sort them out before too much damage to the constitutional order is done.
I read the current ruling to mean a guarantee that there will be more damage done. The dictator will be allowed to break more things in more places, making it less likely that even if the courts eventually determine the dictator acted illegally no one will be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
How hard would it have been for the Supremes to just decide on the underlying issue of birthright. citizenship and put an end to the chaos? Instead they chose to add to it.
Doesn't seem all that conservative to me. It's revolutionary.
Lawrence Tribe discusses the ruling on msnbc (link to Bluesky):
Not just an imperial Executive, but an imperial Supreme Court’
Nuts
50 Micronations
The purges continue
"At least three federal prosecutors who worked on cases against Jan. 6 rioters were fired Friday by the Justice Department, according to more than half a dozen current and former officials familiar with the dismissals.
A copy of one of the dismissal letters seen by NBC News was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, notifying the recipient that they were “removed from federal service effective immediately.” No reason for the removal was stated in the letter."
"the data loss will blow a substantial hole in the hurricane forecasting capabilities of scientists.
US Department of Defense will stop sending critical hurricane satellite data
No replacement in the wings for info streamed from past their prime rigs, 'termination will be permanent'"
'I just needed to put my rage somewhere'
"Service dog training organization flooded with donations following fatal shooting of Rep. Melissa Hortman"
It seems that for the religion-uber-alles Supremes, our Constitution can be divided into Old Testament, the text written before Appomattox, and New, that written subsequent to a bloodbath fought over the right for one human being to own another. Clearly, the disagreement was serious.
Today, just as so many American Christians appear to value the Ten Commandments over the Beatitudes, the paleo-Christian members of government appear to want to roll back any inclusion of, say, non-whites or women, and Originalists on the SC like Thomas and Alito seem eager to eighty-six any evolution of the Constitution that protected ancestors of people like Thomas and Alito.
The 14th Amendment can truly be described as at cross purposes with an original Constitution created to protect the property of white men. So, what we need to confront today is not the fatuous but deadly product of such logic but our acceptance of its very basis. Those who favor tradition are almost always given far too much credit (we can see it in places like Iran but not as clearly in Tennessee), and right now, our failure to demand morality from public servants who claim religious exemption from it is threatening to end our flawed experiment in which people who believe in an arbitrary Creator can agree to abide by science and the will of the majority.
@Jack Mahoney: Okay, Jack, I was with you until that last part of your final sentence, which I'm having trouble understanding: "... right now, our failure to demand morality from public servants who claim religious exemption from it is threatening to end our flawed experiment in which people who believe in an arbitrary Creator can agree to abide by science and the will of the majority."
I assume that the "it" is the 14th Amendment. So, if I'm right in reading the entire sentence (and I very well may not be), what you're saying is that our little experiment in representative democracy is failing because we are letting immoral people make rules -- rules which they base on a Creator God mythology -- when they should be making rules based on science and the will of the majority.
Please correct me if I've misinterpreted you. There is one flaw I see in your theory: that is that "science" and "the will of the majority" are themselves sometimes at odds. Where we may partially disagree though -- and here again I'm assuming what I think you meant, not necessarily what you did mean -- I don't think either "science" or "the will of the majority" should necessarily be determinative. To me, the underlying issue is morality, and morality, you acknowledge, is a slippery thing. It's my belief that judges and justices should be "better than" or "more moral than" the majority. In 1970, for instance, when Ruth Baden Ginsberg became prominent in equal rights advocacy, not even a majority of American women favored equal rights for women. But that changed at lightning speed (by judicial standards) when the Supreme Court started ruling in favor of women's rights. As for the science re: whether or not women are equal to men, well, I would say physically -- on a bell curve -- we are not. Accommodations can be made!
Marie, thanks for responding. I often wish I were able to express myself as lucidly as you and so many who post here. Increasingly, though, I find myself more rather than less upset by how tilted the American playing field is toward those who claim religious exemption from pretty much everything, including natural law. And I'm not really as angry with them as much as I am with people with whom you and I associate who know that those little god fantasies are just that but still give them undue credit when they use those fantasies as evidence. Again, I wish I could be clearer, but every time I start to write about this dilemma I get even more worked up.
Jack and Marie: I know how Jack feels-- Although I have been angry about the traitor ruling the land since 2016, since Jan 6 in 2021 I have been frothing at the mouth every day. I keep trying to find something to hang onto, but there is nothing. We are slipping incredibly fast into the abyss. I am not a Christian, probably more of an atheist, and I see red every time someone proudly bases some nitwit theory on bible readings or a "personal relationship" with Jesus. None of it can be trusted.
I just wrote my last letter to Fetterman. Our hospital saved his ass after the stroke he had in our town. He has been busily betraying people ever since. His latest vote giving the ability to declare war (although constantly abused--) to Fat Hitler is the last straw. There is something deeply changed and radically wrong in that monstrous head. It's the cherry on top of yesterday when we officially became a banana republic run by a demented raging piece of trash.
Thanks for trying to work around some of these outrages, but it's impossible. It's hard to know whom to hate first: Dumpie Pants, his junk drawer of ninnies and screaming monsters, the idiots in the land who voted for their own demise, the secret police arresting nursing mothers, the worst hellhole of a high court that does not value itself except as a giddy fan base of the Head Stinkpot, the stupid networks and MSM papers, the billionnaires, or the Heritage weasels.
I'd like to thank you all for your long-awaited "victory." (s/) As people start dying, I hope that they will acknowledge their own part in providing this debacle, or that WE can let them go gratefully. I don't see the dick-tator leaving or elections happening. Stephen Miller, the ghoul from the grave, is winning it all. The great brain drain of a former award-winner of a nation continues apace. Even the flag seems tainted. Yes, folks, the civil war has re-reared its ugly head.
Destroying America one raid at a time.
"Immigration agents launched a pre-dawn raid today on a Huntington Park home, detonating an explosive to force entry as a woman and her two young children huddled inside."
If Democrats get back in power ICE must be disbanded. And every one of these thugs should lose their 2nd Amendment rights and be banned from all law enforcement for life. And prosecuted where there is evidence of their criminal behavior and excessive force.
There was another incident where a 6-year-old boy with leukemia was detained with his mother and sibling. He has missed a doctor's appointment and one of the officers flashed his gun at the kid terrorizing him and making him wet himself. No conscience, no humanity.
And yes, seeing all the barrage of capitulation and active encouragement of authoritarianism from the Right and others is incredibly disheartening. Trying to find a teaspoon of optimism is difficult these days.
Reading the UVa president's letter of him trying to have in both ways. He would fight, but the collateral would just be too high. Ignoring the fact that most of what has been threatened by FH's administration is what they are doing every where and plan on doing regardless of his bowing down to them. It is just one more in a long line of people in positions of power deciding that fighting back is not worth it. That they aren't the one to stand up. That the privilege they have been living with for so long does not come with any real duties to those beneath them. And by knuckling under once again it emboldens the fascists to take more and demand more and push more. Without the people in positions to pushback doing so it means the slide towards authoritarianism is that much swifter and complete. But I'm glad to know that if he thought it was really important that the UVa president would have stood up.
Marie wrote (correctly):
“Congress, of course, should investigate whether Trump deliberately lied or is too stupid to comprehend the nature and purpose of the military missions he authorizes.”
Quite. BUT! of course, they won’t. Not if the Fat Hitler’s PoT testicle lickers have anything to do with it.
They all know Fatty is stupid, but saying so in public will never happen for hid sycophants and fascist supporters in the neutered, impotent, and insignificant body known as the R controlled Congress.