I guess it wasn’t “settled law” after all

[gregl]

We are clearly on the cusp of wildly different election rules and standards from state to state.

And this is why the Democrats have to get their s--t together, quit the infighting, and get out the vote. The only way to win will be through overwhelming majorities. If an election is close, the Republican state officials will find a way to reverse/recount/overturn the popular vote. The Democratic party hasn't been paying attention. They have to fight for every election from dog catcher on up. Lose at the local level today, lose at the national level tomorrow. I state this as a never-Trumper, traditional moderate Republican. Or whatever that makes me in this crazy era...

Greg

[GJsquare]

IMHO, I have a hard time seeing how folks from widely different states belong together any longer. Why should anyone living in NYC or LA be beholden to what a Southern evangelical thinks they should be allowed to do or not? Throw in the likely state legislature involvement on all future federal elections, we're fixing to reach a permanent impasse.

[72gmc]

IMHO, I have a hard time seeing how folks from widely different states belong together any longer. Why should anyone living in NYC or LA be beholden to what a Southern evangelical thinks they should be allowed to do or not? Throw in the likely state legislature involvement on all future federal elections, we're fixing to reach a permanent impasse.

Feels that way, doesn’t it? Like we’ve played out the sense of shared destiny inspired by WW2, and today’s existential crises do the opposite of uniting us in a common cause.

[beeatnik]

IMHO, I have a hard time seeing how folks from widely different states belong together any longer. Why should anyone living in NYC or LA be beholden to what a Southern evangelical thinks they should be allowed to do or not? Throw in the likely state legislature involvement on all future federal elections, we're fixing to reach a permanent impasse.

The political landscape in Southern and Central California would shift in an instant and for a generation if Republicans, opportunistically, (rhetorically) embraced immigration from Mexico and Latin America. A type of Compassionate Conservative Amnesty.

[johnmdesigner]

Speechless...


https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/...on/7788415001/

[jimcav]

10-year old! that is sickening. I hope in the near future common sense will prevail, the law will change so that a specific religious point of view won't force women (or children) to endure a condition they don't want.

[GJsquare]

The political landscape in Southern and Central California would shift in an instant and for a generation if Republicans, opportunistically, (rhetorically) embraced immigration from Mexico and Latin America. A type of Compassionate Conservative Amnesty.

Indeed, and the Dems could fill half the country with liberal europeans.

[beeatnik]

^^^Hahahhah. Nobody said anything about letting everyone in. Most Latinx don’t want that. They want a pathway to citizenship and humane treatment of the undocumented, ie, allowing the one’s “who get away with it” to stay.

[j44ke]

Indeed, and the Dems could fill half the country with liberal europeans.

Is this a joke? Few of my European friends even want to vacation here, let alone emigrate.

Or are you saying that's what Republicans are thinking and that's why their anti-immigration platform?

[beeatnik]

Is this a joke? Few of my European friends even want to vacation here, let alone emigrate.

Or are you saying that's what Republicans are thinking and that's why their anti-immigration platform?

For sure he was being sardonic and essentially dismissing the political reality of the largest ethnic group in the US. The bigger point is can the Democrats control coastal cities in the 2030s without Latinx voting reliably Democratic (80%) as Blacks.

I think Seattle and SF are safe.

[Marvinlungwitz]

We are clearly on the cusp of wildly different election rules and standards from state to state.

Could be very crazy.

I ain’t no lawyer, but it seems to me that state constitutions arose from a legislative process, and thus are congruent with the federal constitutional requirements.

But the SC has interpreted the constitution all sorts of ways (for example, what they’ve read into the one sentence 2nd amendment is astounding, imho), and I have a feeling they’ve only just begun.

[Matthew Strongin]

The political landscape in Southern and Central California would shift in an instant and for a generation if Republicans, opportunistically, (rhetorically) embraced immigration from Mexico and Latin America. A type of Compassionate Conservative Amnesty.

Thanks for posting this. The assessment of Miami is spot on. Beyond what they noted with the flipped house seats, the change is manifesting in state and local government shifts as well as my (very unscientific) observations about changing political affiliations of people I know. The primary issue for many, as stated in the video, is the fear of Socialism being established by the Democratic party. The irony of that fear relative to the actual changes to voting rights and expanded state/government control being enacted by their elected Republicans is absolutely lost on them. And now that they've made that shift, they're digging in on other issues as well. Miami used to be a moderately progressive bastion in a deep red state. That's no longer the case. I've lived here for 35 of my 44 years on this planet and it's never felt so foreign, and that's not a comment on shifting demographics. The next target of Republican organizers here will be the Haitian voting block, probably targeting the religious angle. Once that's done, Miami will become solidly red.

[beeatnik]

Thanks for posting this. The assessment of Miami is spot on. Beyond what they noted with the flipped house seats, the change is manifesting in state and local government shifts as well as my (very unscientific) observations about changing political affiliations of people I know. The primary issue for many, as stated in the video, is the fear of Socialism being established by the Democratic party. The irony of that fear relative to the actual changes to voting rights and expanded state/government control being enacted by their elected Republicans is absolutely lost on them. And now that they've made that shift, they're digging in on other issues as well. Miami used to be a moderately progressive bastion in a deep red state. That's no longer the case. I've lived here for 35 of my 44 years on this planet and it's never felt so foreign, and that's not a comment on shifting demographics. The next target of Republican organizers here will be the Haitian voting block, probably targeting the religious angle. Once that's done, Miami will become solidly red.

This piece echoes the WSJ analysis:

https://theliberalpatriot.substack.c...m_source=email

Both neglect to comment on voting trends in CA (and by proxy New Mexico) although the WSJ analysis alludes to urban Latinx. Although the following is a useful point of departure:

2. Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly working class, around three-quarters in the States of Change data—higher than among blacks and much higher than among Asians. The working class character of Hispanic voters is even higher in key states like Nevada and Arizona.

This is particularly true in CA. And this is where the well-known Mexican-Cuban Socio-Political Binary continues to be instructive. While Mexicans and Cubans in the US can be considered a single ethnic group, sharing many cultural traits, in socio-economic, political/historic or class (race) terms they are nearly distinct groups. The initial wave(s) of Cuban immigrants were more urban, educated (professional class participation), whiter (Spanish non indigenous) and politically active than Mexican immigrants from under-developed Mexican regions, essentially peasants. This has been reflected for a few generations in the educational, professional advancement of Cubans over Mexicans. In CA, Mexican-Americans have nearly no representation in the most prestigious industries: tech, entertainment, finance and academia. Politically, Mexicans don't have experience embracing or rejecting socialist movements. Ironically, since the Revolution, Mexico, through its one party rule was the most stable political entity in Latin America. So, if Mexican-Americans are not Cubans, what are they? They're socially mobile, small scale entrepreneurs, consumers of good social programs (state universities) and faithful Democrats still enamored with the Bobby Kennedy party of the 60s and under the spell of the Democratic machine. And yet while all Mexicans in CA are not poor or working class, almost ALL poor and working class are Mexican. While that is a massive underclass which will continue to mirror Black voting patterns, I wonder if the Trump Signature Effect can change this. That is, will this group, as Mexican-Americans in Texas, begin to place personal, economic concerns ahead of social ideals. And will they continue to gain social mobility outside of professional channels. The Inland Empire in Southern California is full of upwardly mobile Mexican Americans without college degrees, many whom are members of large Evangelical congregations.

[Jorge L Guerra]

Some thoughts on SCOTUS…

Heller is Justice Scalia’s catastrophic decision finding that the Second Amendment afforded a private right to own “guns” independent of anything having to do with “militias.” These so-called “Originalist” judges demand justification that any unenumerated right be “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” But the judges are ill-suited to be playing historians, as evidenced from this overlooked excerpt from Justice Sotomayor’s recent dissent in Bruen (the case that threw out New York’s 100-year old gun permitting law):

I do not intend to relitigate Heller here. I accept its holding as a matter of stare decisis. I refer to its historical analysis only to show the difficulties inherent in answering historical questions and to suggest that judges do not have the expertise needed to answer those questions accurately.

For example, the Heller majority relied heavily on its interpretation of the English Bill of Rights. Citing Blackstone, the majority claimed that the English Bill of Rights protected a “ ‘right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.’ ” Id., at 594, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (quoting 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 140 (1765)). The majority interpreted that language to mean a private right to bear arms for self-defense, “having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia.” 554 U.S. at 593, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Two years later, however, 21 English and early American historians (including experts at top universities) told us in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010), that the Heller Court had gotten the history wrong: The English Bill of Rights “did not ... protect an individual's right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars.” Brief for English/Early American Historians as Amici Curiae in McDonald v. Chicago, O. T. 2009, No. 081521, p. 2. Rather, these amici historians explained, the English right to “have arms” ensured that the Crown could not deny Parliament (which represented the people) the power to arm the landed gentry and raise a militia—or the right of the people to possess arms to take part in that militia—“should the sovereign usurp the laws, liberties, estates, and Protestant religion of the nation.” Id., at 2–3. Thus, the English right did protect a right of “self-preservation and defence,” as Blackstone said, but that right “was to be exercised not by individuals acting privately or independently, but as a militia organized by their elected representatives,” i.e., Parliament. Id., at 7–8. The Court, not an expert in history, had misread Blackstone and other sources explaining the English Bill of Rights.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 20-843, 2022 WL 2251305, at *51–52 (U.S. June 23, 2022) (J. Sotomayor, dissenting).

It’s unclear to me when “the nation’s history and tradition” begins to count, and the judges themselves don’t agree (At the time the Constitution was adopted or 14th Amendment?) but many present-day rights were never historically recognized or protected. I suspect we’ll eventually come to learn from the historians that Dobbs is similarly wrong on the history. That leaves us with this “implicit[ness] in the concept of ordered liberty.” The phrase “ordered liberty” appears 20 times in Dobbs, but I don’t know that anyone truly knows what it means.

A very disappointing state of affairs. They’ve destroyed the Court.

[cash]

Thank you for that. Could you explain “ordered liberty”? I have no idea what the concept is supposed to mean.

[Jorge L Guerra]

Thank you for that. Could you explain “ordered liberty”? I have no idea what the concept is supposed to mean.

This term of art and their selective reading of history are the tools the "Originalists" are using to re-frame (and narrow) "substantive due process," but beyond that I can't really tell you what the term means without really studying it. My hunch is that, even then, we won't find much clarity. If I do look into it I'll circle back and post something or send you a PM.

[echappist]

And now we are told that the source of the leak cannot be determined. Full article here

I don't quite buy the conclusions

[Peter Polack]

And now we are told that the source of the leak cannot be determined. Full article here

I don't quite buy the conclusions

Congratulations to the successful leaker; may they keep the secret to their deathbed, ala "Deep Throat"/Mark Felt.

[j44ke]

Alito

[robin3mj]

Alito

The report seems to have been very, ahem, carefully worded, to be sure…

See also the Hobby Lobby leak that caused zero furor as well.