It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

Yes, Election Day was yesterday and we still don't know who is going to be president for the next four years. Trump, of course, has claimed victory, based on the voices in his head, but they're still counting votes -- millions of mail-in ballots. For some reason, only a few states allow absentee/mail-in ballots to be counted before election day. The thinking behind that eludes me.

This is going to wind up in the courts. It's already been there, and that's going to be a big problem, now that the GOP has stacked the Supreme Court with Republican hacks. Digby has a post quoting extensively from an article by Ian Millhiser examining the legal landscape -- or at least, part of it:

Two significant legal events occurred last week that could determine whether the winner of the 2020 election actually becomes president. They could also shape American elections for years to come if the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Republican majority remains in place. The first was the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which not only gave Republicans a supermajority on the Supreme Court, it also most likely made Justice Brett Kavanaugh the swing vote in election cases. While Kavanaugh’s approach to election law is extremely conservative, he’s staked out a position that is slightly more moderate than the views of his most conservative colleagues Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.

The second event is that, last Monday, just minutes before Barrett was confirmed, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that prevents ballots that arrive after Election Day in the state of Wisconsin from being counted. Kavanaugh joined that decision, and he also wrote a separate concurring opinion that endorsed a radical reading of the Constitution that would upend at least a century of established law.

Briefly, Kavanaugh signaled that he wants to give federal courts — and his Court in particular — an unprecedented new power to overrule state supreme courts and to potentially rewrite state election law. Some of the implications of this view are discussed below, but the upshot is it means that Kavanaugh appears ready to change longstanding rules that have governed elections for a very long time.

That's bad enough, but it gets worse:

There is, however, a crucial question that the Supreme Court has yet to resolve. If the courts change the rules governing an election after voters have already cast their ballots, are voters who did not comply with these new rules disenfranchised, even if they followed the rules that were in place when their ballot was cast?

Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, have all claimed that voters who followed the rules that were in place when their ballot was counted can have their ballots tossed out anyway if a court later changes the rules.

ANd how long, do you suppose, before we dispense with holding elections at all, and just let the courts decide who our elected officials are going to be? American democracy -- it was fun while it lasted.

The Liar-In-Chief Gets Fact-Checked

And doesn't like it at all. A couple of stories here. First, Twitter is fact-checking Trump, from WaPo via Joe.My.God. (WaPo's story is behind a paywall.)

Twitter on Tuesday slapped a fact-check label on President Trump’s tweets for the first time, a response to long-standing criticism that the company is too hands-off when it comes to policing misinformation and falsehoods from world leaders.

The move, which escalates tensions between Washington and Silicon Valley in an election year, was made in response to two Trump tweets over the past 24 hours.

The tweets falsely claimed that mail-in ballots are fraudulent. Twitter’s label says, “Get the facts about mail-in ballots,” and redirects users to news articles about Trump’s unsubstantiated claim.

Better late than never -- Twitter should have been doing this a decade ago.

And do I expect this to make any difference to Trump cultists? No, of course not.

Trump, however, is not happy, and his reaction is way over the top. Again, via Joe (Joe's post is quoting from Axios, but the link goes to Business Insider. I did find the Axios story, though.):

President Trump responded via tweets Tuesday evening to Twitter fact-checking him for the first time on his earlier unsubstantiated posts claiming mail-in ballots in November's election would be fraudulent.

What he's saying: "Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election.They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post," the president tweeted. "Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!"

Like I said, over the top -- fact-checking a habitual liar is now interfering in the election and "stifling" free speech. Like his followers, Trump has no clue as to what the Constitution actually guarantees in regard to freedom of speech -- which is simply that the government can't censor you. And as "conservatives" are so fond of pointing out, private entities are not bound by that.

And of course, the campaign weighs in:

We always knew that Silicon Valley would pull out all the stops to obstruct and interfere with President Trump getting his message through to voters. Partnering with the biased fake news media ‘fact checkers’ is only a smoke screen Twitter is using to try to lend their obvious political tactics some false credibility.

He's panicking.

This is Probably a Must-Read

An interesting article on the future of LGBT rights -- and perhaps civil rights in general -- under the Trump Court;

There’s no denying it: efforts to protect LGBT+ persons through the federal courts suffered a substantial—perhaps devastating—setback when Justice Anthony M. Kennedy retired on June 27, 2018. The author of Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), United States v. Windsor (2013), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Kennedy had long played a key role in the U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidation of laws that discriminate against gay men and lesbians. His most recent decisions in that vein (Windsor and Obergefell) were written for a five-justice majority, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito in dissent. Kennedy’s retirement augured the emergence of a solid conservative majority, now including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whose members are very likely opposed to meaningful constitutional protection for LGBT+ persons as a class. As we assess the implications of that development, here are some key questions to consider.

It's a little dense, but worth reading. Especially striking was this section:

Will the Court Undermine Antidiscrimination Laws in the Name of the First Amendment?

A holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination against LGBT people would mean a lot less if the Court subsequently held that the First Amendment immunizes anybody who describes acts of discrimination as expression or religious practice. However, in recent years, the right-leaning justices have taken worrisome steps toward imposing novel constitutional limits on antidiscrimination law.

I can't help but wonder, though, whether the Court giving carte blanche to religiously inspired bigots might also be held as establishment of religion.

We'll see how it all turns out. I'm not optimistic, unless the House grows a spine and starts impeachment proceedings against, say, "I like beer" Kavanaugh, who probably lied during his confirmation hearings.

From the Wingnut Wurlitzer, Or 1984 Redux

Up is down, black is white:

As thousands of immigrants face getting caught up in ICE raids this weekend, Fox News hosts are shilling for these Gestapo-like raids by trying to criminalize those advising immigrants of their Constitutional rights.

Fox & Friends seems to have taken the lead this morning in smearing those who want to abide by our Constitution - while posing as patriots. Cohost Griff Jenkins, once again moonlighting from his day job as a supposedly objective reporter, said, “the Democrats are putting themselves in a unique position of running against the rule of law.”

Actually, it’s Fox News running against the rule of law since Democrats have merely been publicizing rights under the U.S. Constitution. Despite all the insinuation, I have yet to see a Fox host actually dispute the rights' existence.

Not surprisingly, immigrant-hating Katie Pavlich took the dishonest insinuation a step further on Outnumbered today. She accused Democrats of “advocating for [immigrants] to continue breaking the law by not answering the door when ICE agents show up.”

In fact, disallowing an ICE agent to enter without a judicial warrant is abiding by the law. But Trump lickspittle and cohost Harris Faulkner endorsed the falsehood. “It’s what Katie said,” Faulkner said. “They’re here illegally,” as if she’s too ignorant to know that even the worst criminals have rights under our Constitution.

And a footnote to that last statement by Faulkner: Under U.S. law, an immigrant on U.S. soil has the right to apply for asylum, no matter how they got here. The Trump regime is violating the law by deporting them without due process.

And of course the trumpanzees will swallow this bullshit whole.

Tweet du Jour

Here is the text of the #WeThePeopleAmendment introduced today by @RepJayapal. The amendment will overrule SCOTUS and make clear constitutional rights are for people, NOT corporations! https://t.co/VND2xxDgVB pic.twitter.com/r42lUIaPgS

— Move To Amend (@MoveToAmend) February 25, 2019

I remember reading the Court's majority opinion in Citizens United. As I recall, the "reasoning", if you want to call it that, was so tortured as to be embarrassing. If you want to wade through it, the decision is here. There's also a good, if somewhat dense, discussion at Wikipedia.

To say that this was one of the most controversial decisions in recent history is putting it mildly. It was also one of the most unpopular. (It's worth noting that a Google search for "Citizens United decision" turns up lots and lots of commentary, but I had to refine my search to "Citizens United decision text" to get the actual decision.)

At any rate, it's nice to know that someone is working on overturning one of the most damaging Supreme Court decisions ever. And it's sobering to realized that we can expect much worse now that the Republicans have managed to stack the Court with a "conservative" majority.

Thanks to commenter Max_1 at Joe.My.God.

The Rule of Law, Trump Version

Have you noticed how often Trump and the Republicans are invoking the "rule of law" lately? Remember that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III claimed to have "restored" it in his craven resignation letter. They make a lot of noise about it, but this is what it means to them -- to the Trump wing of the party, at least, which is pretty much the whole thing. This story is from a couple of weeks ago:

After Wednesday, elected officials in the Republican Party should have no doubt that Donald Trump will force them to choose in coming days, weeks, and months between loyalty to him and loyalty to the rule of law, between the public’s right to the truth and Trump’s efforts to hide it.

The president began the day with an extraordinary threat on Twitter: “If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level,” he wrote, “then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!”

(Side note: So all those hearings on Benghazi!!1! and Her E-Mails!1!! were a game in Trump's eyes.)

There's been token resistance (Can you say "Jeff Flake"?), but they've pretty much fallen into line, from the illegal detention of migrant children while not allowing their parents to request asylum (which is a direct violation of American law, not to mention international treaties) on down the line.

And now we have another couple of examples. It's been obvious for a while that Trump considers the Dempartment of Justice, which has historically been a quasi-independent branch of the executive, to be his personal enforcers, but this takes it up a notch:

The New York Times reports:

President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

No investigation, no evidence, just prosecute. Sound like a couple of twentieth-century dictators we could name?

Here's another little tidbit:

Trump administration officials have privately discussed the possibility that in the future census information could be shared with law enforcement, according to documents filed in a legal challenge over plans for a new citizenship question on the 2020 survey.

The subject came up after a Democratic lawmaker asked whether responses to the survey could ever be shared with law enforcement agencies, something that has been strictly illegal according to federal law governing the census.

After a congressional hearing in May about the citizenship question, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) submitted a written query about whether the Justice Department agreed with a memo it had issued in 2010 saying the USA Patriot Act could not override the confidentiality of the census.

In a June 12 email, department officials discussed among themselves how to answer Gomez’s question in a way that left the answer open. Justice Department attorney Ben Aguinaga suggested to acting assistant attorney general John Gore that they not say “too much” in response to Gomez’s question, in case the issue were to “come up later for renewed debate.”

The confidentiality of census responses is not up for debate -- it's a matter of law.

Of course, Trump and the Republicans (sounds like a garage band, doesn't it?) think that "rule of law" means that the law is what they say it is. Well, no:

The ACLU and others had filed suit to stop the Trump administration from implementing rules that would prevent the migrant caravan from entering the United States and filing claims for asylum.

CNN:

In an order laced with language accusing President Donald Trump of attempting to rewrite immigration laws, a federal judge based in San Francisco temporarily blocked the government late Monday night from denying asylum to those crossing over the southern border between ports of entry.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said that a policy announced November 9 barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside a legal check point '"irreconcilably conflicts" with immigration law and the "expressed intent of Congress."

"Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be put at "increased risk of violence and other harms at the border" if the administration's rule is allowed to go into effect.

He really wants to rule by proclamation.

And lest you think I'm unfairly tarring the GOP because of Trump, read this post from Digby. It's not just Trump -- it's a Republican thing.

Thanks to commenter JCF at Joe.My.God., here is, I think, the image that perfectly captures what Trump and the GOP think of the rule of law:

Constitution? What Constitution? (Update)

From His Wannabe Majesty, Donald the First:

Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.

When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)

"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."

"They're saying" again. He must mean the voices in his head.

And joining the chorus, first Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Ol' Dixie):

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday said that he will introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship after President Trump suggested he wanted to do so through an executive order.

"Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform — and at the same time — the elimination of birthright citizenship," Graham said in a string of tweets.

He added that he plans "to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order" from Trump. Congress is out of session until Nov. 13.

And of course, VP Mike Pence has to jump in:

But Vice President Pence said "we all cherish" the 14th Amendment but appeared to suggest that the administration had an opening if Trump issues an executive order.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th Amendment subject to the jurisdiction thereof applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally,” Pence said at a Politico event on Tuesday.

Pence is, as usual, playiing word games. while he's correct that the Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on the issue of children born to residents who are not legally in the country, the Court ruled quite definitely on the issue of birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which doesn't really leave much wiggle room. (It's also interesting to note how much that decision made use of English Common Law and the Napoleonic Code,, for those who get all worked up about our courts even acknowledging foreign law.) The wording of the Amendment itself is quite plain, and the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is quite thoroughly explored in Wong Kim Ark.

In the final analysis, this is going nowhere, but, like most observers, I think it's pretty obvious that this is another of Trump's attempts to get the deplorables to the polls.

Update: Via Digby, this analysis by Ian Milhauser goes into more depth:

Donald Trump, in an interview with Axios, said that he plans to sign an executive order stripping many Americans of their citizenship. Though it is unclear how far Trump wants to go, or whether he would attempt to retroactively strip many existing citizens of their citizenship, Trump apparently wants to target the children of undocumented immigrants.

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump falsely claimed. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

Trump’s plan is unconstitutional. It’s not even arguably constitutional. It is so obviously unconstitutional that it was rejected by a notoriously racist Supreme Court more than a century ago. The few scholars who think that Trump can actually do this are considered radicals even within conservative legal circles.

By the way, that bull-pucky about being the only country in the world with birthright citizenship is, as might be expected, just that: bull-pucky. There are at least 30 other countries who recognize that right.

Idiot du Jour, Trump Family Edition

Looks like Eric is making a strong bid for dumbest Trump:

It is a very scary day for America when the House Minority Leader threatens to weaponize the legal system against political rivals using “Subpoena Power”. This is what they do in third world countries. Disgusting concept and a slippery slope that America wants no part of. https://t.co/XmsOxf6Zte

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) October 22, 2018

Anyone who passed a civic class in high school knows what a load that one is.

And as for McDaniel's tweet, I have one word: "Benghazi".

Some of the responses are hysterical. Click through to read them all.

Well, Kiss America Good-Bye

He couldn't have waited six months?

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring, giving President Trump and Senate Republicans an opportunity to create a solidly conservative court that could last for decades. Kennedy’s long-rumored decision to step down July 31 will touch off a titanic battle between conservatives and liberals in the nation’s capital, on the airwaves, and in states represented by key senators whose votes will be needed to confirm his successor.

Mitch McConnell, who has no integrity at all, will try to rush through a neo-fascist nominee as quickly as possible, whining about "obstructionist Democrats" if anyone objects.

All the anti-American "Christians" are licking their chops at the prospect of overturning Roe and Obergefell.

It was a nice country while it lasted.

Image du Jour

From the comment thread to this post at Joe.My.God.

With thanks to commenter Bluto.

Oh, and about the post: My own comment was simply "They (Republicans) really hate the Establishment Clause, don't they?"

Idiot du Jour

And a Congressman, no less:

“The Constitution of the United States, and the First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Nor will they abridge the freedom of speech, of the press’. I’ve got a copy of the Constitution I want to give you — at the end of this hearing.” – South Carolina GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan, accusing Mark Zuckerberg of violating Christians’ freedom of speech on Facebook and once again demonstrating that many right wingers are utterly incapable of comprehending the very document they literally, in this case, are waving in your face.

OK, it's ignorance. The stupidity comes in from not realizing the dept of his ignorance and proudly trotting it out in a Congressional hearing.

Via Joe.My.God.

Today's Must-Read: Repeal the Damned Thing, Already!

Very good, thorough examination by Digby of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, then and now:

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a NYT op-ed suggesting that since the high court decided back in 2008 to define the 2nd Amendment as an individual right maybe the best way to deal with guns is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Taking that absurd argument away from the gun proliferation zealots so the nation can have some common sense regulations  would be a good first step.

She goes on from there, including this disgusting statement from Joe the Plumber, another one who was a has-been before he ever was:

"Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights."

Words fail me.

Read the whole thing, of course.

They Just Don't Get It

Conservatives don't seem to understand that the First Amendment doesn't apply to non-government entities:

In a decision late Monday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said a nonprofit run by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager failed to show that YouTube infringed its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.

The plaintiff, Prager University, said YouTube’s “animus” toward its “political identity and viewpoint” led it to curb access to videos, including through its “Restricted Mode” setting, on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism, despite its stated promise of neutrality.

But the judge said Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O), did not qualify as “state actors” subject to the First Amendment by creating a “public forum” for speech.

Apparently, being a "conservative" means you get to say whatever you want whenever you want with no restrictions and no consequences.

I guess that's one of the results of home-schooling.

Via Joe.My.God.

Today's Must-Read: Remember Josef Stalin? (Update)

A couple of posts from Digby this morning, on Trump and "his" Justice Department. First, the attack on Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein:

They are setting up the firing of Rosenstein as part of their "purge." They will probably get away with it. The question will be if the people they replace them with are Trump gangsters or honest citizens.

A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.

The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent. But the reference to Mr. Rosenstein’s actions in the memo — a much-disputed document that paints the investigation into Russian election meddling as tainted from the start — indicates that Republicans may be moving to seize on his role as they seek to undermine the inquiry.

The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Democrats who have read the document say Republicans have cherry-picked facts to create a misleading and dangerous narrative. But in their efforts to discredit the inquiry, Republicans could potentially use Mr. Rosenstein’s decision to approve the renewal to suggest that he failed to properly vet a highly sensitive application for a warrant to spy on Mr. Page, who served as a Trump foreign policy adviser until September 2016.

In this context, it's worth remembering that the Justice Department is supposed to be a quasi-independent agency. Yes, the Attorney General is appointed by the president, but is not supposed to be partisan. To see how far the Republican Party under Trump has sunk, take note of this comment by former Speaker Newt Gingrich:

Of course the president ought to be able to expect loyalty. He is the chosen president of the United States by the American people, and he is the chief executive. If they’re not loyal to him, who the hell are they supposed to be loyal to?

As Digby points out:

Every American used to know that the answer to that was "the Constitution and the rule of law."

(This is from another post that gives some good backround on the erosion of our democratic norms since the Reagan years.)

And last but not least, another example of the White House's attempts to politicize the Justice Department:

Trump met with Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray at the White House last Monday to discuss missing text messages sent between two FBI agents who had expressed anti-Trump views. One of the agents later left his investigation and Mueller removed the other after learning of the texts.

Kelly held separate meetings or phone calls with senior Justice Department officials last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to convey Trump’s displeasure and lecture them on the White House’s expectations, according to the people. Kelly has taken to ending such conversations with a disclaimer that the White House isn’t expecting officials to do anything illegal or unethical.

(Emphasis added.)

That last bit just busted my irony meter all to hell.

This is what happens when we elect a wannabe dictator as president. And don't expect any pushback from Congress -- as Digby points out, they're a big part of the problem and they're not going to intefere.

Update: If you doubt Congressional Republicans' collusion in dismantling an autonomous Justice Department, there's this on the "secret memo" that they've been hyping:

House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee Monday evening voted to release a secret memo containing classified information and details of a current and ongoing investigation while also voting to block the release of a Democratic response. The memo, penned by Chairman Devin Nunes, who supposedly had recused himself from Russia investigations, reportedly is a direct attack on the FBI, and current and former FBI and Justice Dept. officials.

And there's more:

Rep. Schiff "also revealed that the committee’s Republicans had formally opened an inquiry into the FBI and Justice Department—despite the panel having initially focused on Russia’s election interference and potential collusion with the Trump campaign," The Daily Beast's Spencer Ackerman adds. "Schiff said that work would continue and anticipated interviewing Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist, on Wednesday."

All in the service of a permanent majority. We've seen how that works.

Flummoxed (Update)

I have to admit to being taken aback at this:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a Texas ruling that said the right to a marriage license did not entitle same-sex couples to spousal benefits under employee insurance plans.

The city of Houston had asked the high court to overturn last June’s Texas Supreme Court decision, which determined that all marriage-related matters were not decided when the U.S. Supreme Court established a right to same-sex unions in 2015, leaving room for state courts to explore the limits of gay marriage.

The federal court’s decision, issued without comment, allowed the Texas ruling to stand.

I find it hard to believe that four justices did not vote to hear this one.

Here's what I think it the big flaw in the Texas decision:

The Texas court merely said that the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, while acknowledging the right of same-sex couples to marry, did not answer or resolve all marriage-related questions, including whether governments must provide the same benefits to same-sex couples that are provided to opposite-sex couples, they argued.

From the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (p. 28):

Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.

(Emphasis added.)

That seems to me to be pretty conclusive: if you offer benefits to married opposite-sex couples, you must offer the same benefits to married same-sex couples.

Am I missing something?

Via Joe.My.God.

Update: A possible explanation:

• In Turner v. Pidgeon (City of Houston appeals Texas Supreme Court holding that Obergefell didn’t settle question whether married same-sex couples must receive same spousal benefits as different-sex couples), Case Number 17-424, the court DENIES CERT, i.e., will not hear the case.

While speculation is just that - only speculative - it's possible the justices think it's premature to take up the case given that the Texas Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings in lower court.

Well, It Was Nice While It Lasted

The American experiment in self-governance, I mean. Here's one more sign that it's on the way out:

A federal judge Monday permanently struck down one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders, cutting off funds to “sanctuary cities.”

In a summary judgment ruling, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III found Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order violated the Constitution in multiple ways: by invoking spending powers that belong exclusively to Congress, and by placing unrelated conditions on federal grants in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

“Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves,” Orrick wrote in a 28-page ruling.

So far, all well and good. (There are further details at the link.)

The DoJ,on the other hand, doesn't seem to believe in American system of government:

However, a Department of Justice spokesman said the court had “exceeded its authority” in its ruling, and vowed that the department would continue to follow Trump’s direction with regard to the January executive order.

Let's see -- where in the Constitution does it say that the executive branch gets to decide the limits on the power of the courts?

I see a flurry of contempt citations coming.

Via Joe.My.God.

This Is Really Scary

But we've seen it coming: Republicans hate America:

Critics of President Trump have repeatedly warned of his potential to undermine American democracy. Among the concerns are his repeated assertions that he would have won the popular vote had 3 to 5 million “illegals” not voted in the 2016 election, a claim echoed by the head of a White House advisory committee on voter fraud.

Claims of large-scale voter fraud are not true, but that has not stopped a substantial number of Republicans from believing them. But how far would Republicans be willing to follow the president to stop what they perceive as rampant fraud? Our recent survey suggests that the answer is quite far: About half of Republicans say they would support postponing the 2020 presidential election until the country can fix this problem.

As the article notes, this is hypothetical, but any bets on whether Trump will try it?

The substance:

Nevertheless, we do not believe that these findings can be dismissed out of hand. At a minimum, they show that a substantial number of Republicans are amenable to violations of democratic norms that are more flagrant than what is typically proposed (or studied).

These are the "real Americans": the ones who don't believe in equal rights for all, who hate our independent judiciary, who think their "religious freedom" takes precedence over everyone else's rights, who think the press should be muzzled, who think only they deserve adequate health insurance, and on down the line.

The Republican party has spent the last thirty-odd years working toward this. Now it's out there.

Is anyone surprised?

Law 'n' Order -- We Don't Need No Stinkin' Constitution

Running true to form, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III comes down on the side of the police state:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has expanded the authority of law enforcement to seize criminal suspects' money and property, bucking a movement in Congress and many states to rein in a practice that critics said led to flagrant abuses and was unconstitutional.

The Justice Department announced Wednesday it was restoring so-called adoptive forfeitures, where local or state authorities can seize valuable assets from suspects under federal law, circumventing more restrictive state laws.

Asset forfeitures are controversial because law enforcement agencies often take possession of cars, homes, jewelry and cash from suspects implicated in drug deals or other crimes without first obtaining convictions or, in some cases, indictments.

I wonder how many gun-totin' white supremacists are going to have their possessions seized? Oh, wait: It's all about the War on Drugs, and we know who's involved in that.

In the previous eight years, adoptive forfeitures — mostly by the Drug Enforcement Administration — had garnered about $880 million, according to a March report by the Justice Department's Inspector General.

The report found that many of the forfeiture cases were not linked to provable crimes. It cited a case in South Florida that led to seizures of $49 million but not one criminal indictment.

You know where that money goes? Into the budgets of the police departments.

And strangely enough, it's the police departments who are in favor:

"We heard loudly and clearly from local police agencies that they think this is a valuable tool," Rosenstein said.

It's painfully obvious that the arguments in favor of this policy are so much bullshit, and it's also obvious that it violates Constitutional requirements for due process.

They can't even get Republicans on board:

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who sponsored legislation this year to more tightly regulate asset forfeiture, called the new policy "a troubling decision for the due process protections afforded to us" under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

"Criminals shouldn't be able to keep the proceeds of their crime but innocent Americans shouldn't lose their right to due process, or their private property rights, in order to make that happen," Issa said in a statement.

Six members of the Senate urged Sessions in a May 31 letter to revise the asset forfeiture policies in light of increasing indications that the Supreme Court views the practice as unconstitutional.

"Instead of revising forfeiture practices in a manner to better protect Americans' due process rights, the (Justice Department) seems determined to lose in court before it changes its policies for the better," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of the six, said in a statement Wednesday.

Welcome to Trump's America.

Todays' Must-Read: Welcome to the Police State (Update)

From Digby, this comment on what AG Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is up to while we're all focusing on the Trump circus. This image is a good summary.

Did you really think you had a right to engage in peaceful protest? Read the whole thing.

Update: There's a lot more detail in this article from Think Progress.

The protesters will have plenty of time to think about the extensive charges filed against them — and perhaps that is the prosecutors’ intention. The first trials are not expected to start until March 2018. “In my mind, that violates their right to a speedy trial,” Flores-Williams said.

“Having serious felonies like this hanging over you is an incredible burden on your life,” he said. “Chances are that at a certain point, they’ll either roll on each other or we’ll see plea agreements regardless of their guilt or innocence.”

It's going to be interesting to see how this works out at trial -- the government at this point appears to have violated a whole slew of First Amendment rights, not to mention a few others.

As If You Didn't Have Enough to Worry About

How about Neil Gorsuch, Trump's prime suspect for elevation to the Supreme Court? Some of his opinions sound like he got his degree from the Southern Baptist Convention Seminary. As Dahlia Lithwick points out in identifying a "toehold" for Democrats to oppose the nomination:

But there’s another, almost more consequential issue at play when it comes to talking about Judge Gorsuch. It’s a problem that has to do with faith, and the many ways in which it has become the third rail of judicial confirmation politics. This has nothing to do with the prospective justice’s personal faith as an Episcopalian and everything to do with his willingness to let people of faith impose their views on others. The problem of religion in the courts centers on the alarming tendency to honor the claims of religious people that their suffering is the only relevant issue. If we cannot begin to have a conversation about why this is a problem, it will be all but impossible to talk about Gorsuch’s qualifications in a serious way.

Our current religious-liberty jurisprudence, as laid out by the Supreme Court in its Hobby Lobby opinion, is extremely deferential toward religious believers. What believers assert about their faith must not be questioned or even assessed. Religious dissenters who seek to be exempted from neutral and generally applicable laws are given the benefit of the doubt, even when others are harmed. Sometimes those harms are not even taken into account.

Gorsuch agrees with all of this and then some. His record reflects a pattern of systematically privileging the rights of religious believers over those of religious minorities and nonbelievers. It is, of course, vital and important to protect religious dissenters; the First Amendment could not be clearer. But the First Amendment is equally anxious about state establishment of religion, an anxiety Gorsuch is less inclined to share.

It's much worse than that:

It’s not just the great deference Gorsuch shows religious adherents that is worrisome. He also believes that the views of religious adherents are beyond factual debate. Again in the Hobby Lobby case, he wrote that companies must pay for “drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg.” That claim is simply false, even with regard to Plan B. It is a religious conclusion, not a medical or legal one. Whether that view is his or he simply declines to probe whether the religious conclusion is accurate, the effect is the same: He has written into a legal opinion a religious “fact” not supported by medical science.

This kind of thinking matters especially when the tremendous respect for religious dissenters is not balanced against the harms incurred by nonadherents. Gorsuch sometimes minimizes or outright rejects the third-party harms of religious accommodations. As Yuvraj Joshi points out at NBC, “while the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby considered the impact of the case on women, Judge Gorsuch’s opinion does not even acknowledge the harmful effects of denying access to reproductive health care on female employees and dependents. Instead, his sole concern is for religious objectors who feel complicit in the allegedly sinful conduct of others.”

The thrust of all those cases involving florists, bakers, photographers, etc. with regard to marriage equality has been to hold a certain group of "Christians" as above the law. The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch may very well cement that into our jurisprudence, in effect gutting the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

Via Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo.