In short, individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” is untenable and dangerous.
- US DIstrict Judge Charles Breyer
There is no featured post this week; this weekly summary is all I'm writing.
It was a news-heavy week, most of it bad. In an earlier draft of this post, the opening quote was Shakespeare's "Hell is empty and all the devils are here."
This week everybody was talking about right-wing political assassinations
Early Saturday morning, a man impersonating a police officer killed Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband at their home. He also shot and seriously wounded State Senator John Hoffman and his wife in a similar fashion. Hortman was the ranking Democrat in the Minnesota House and a former Speaker. A suspect has been captured and charged with murder and attempted murder.
A very good summary of what is known is in the NYT. Apparently, the Hoffmans were killed first, and their daughter called 911. Police checked on Hortman's house and found a fake police vehicle in the driveway. The suspect was present and exchanged gunfire before running away.
A federal law enforcement official said that the vehicle was found with a list of about 70 potential targets. Also found were papers that referenced the “No Kings” protest, a series of anti-Trump rallies that were to be held on Saturday.
I've seen claims elsewhere that all 70 were Democrats, but I haven't seen enough to trust that as a fact. The suspect did not register with a political party, but has given sermons against abortion and LGBTQ rights. A friend reported that he voted for Trump.
Trump's first reaction Saturday was to issue a somewhat presidential statement on Truth Social:
I have been briefed on the terrible shooting that took place in Minnesota, which appears to be a targeted attack against State Lawmakers. Our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the FBI, are investigating the situation, and they will be prosecuting anyone involved to the fullest extent of the law. Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God Bless the great people of Minnesota, a truly great place!
But by Sunday he had revered to form, telling ABC News that he "may" call Governor Walz, who is "a terrible governor" and "grossly incompetent".
The gold standard for responses to violence from your supporters is the statement Bernie Sanders made after the Steve Scalise shooting.
I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.
I'd love to hear Trump say outright that he doesn't want his supporters committing violent acts, and calling on anybody who is planning such an act to stop. But I suspect I never will.
and Trump's military occupation of Los Angeles
Federalized National Guard units and hundreds of Marines remain in Los Angeles, but I've had a hard time googling up any articles about what they've done these last two days. I hope that means they've been behaving themselves, protecting federal facilities and personnel, and not performing law enforcement tasks that would violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
A Washington Post reporter posted a video of police firing non-lethal shells at non-violent anti-ICE protesters approaching a federal building. But that's ordinary police-escalated violence, and appears to have nothing to do with the military.
In case you've been wondering, Posse Comitatus does actually have something to do with the posses that sheriffs round up to pursue bank robbers in the Western movies. Oversimplifying just a little, the law says that military forces can't be part of a law-enforcing posse.
Both uses derive from the Latin verb posse, which means to be able or have power.
Thursday, a federal judge ordered President Trump to return command of the federalized California National Guard troops to Governor Newsom. It hasn't happened, because an appellate court stayed the order until it can have a hearing tomorrow. It's easy to imagine that Trump might abuse the slowness of the judicial process to keep the troops there as long as he wanted to anyway.
But precedents are getting established along the way. Judge Breyer's reasoning in the 36-page justification of his order echoes arguments made by a federal judge in the Alien Enemies Act case, which likewise is still winding its way through the system.
Like the Alien Enemies Act case (still awaiting final decision), this case revolves around legislation that grants the president additional powers in certain situations. In each case, the question being challenged in court is whether the appropriate situation exists. Trump's lawyers argue that it is up to him to judge whether the conditions to extend his powers apply. In practice, this would mean that the President has additional powers whenever he decides he wants them. So far, the courts are not buying this argument.
Between the unique concerns raised by federal military intrusion into civilian affairs and the fact that federal officials are not uniquely positioned to ascertain what is happening on the ground (as compared to, say, state and local officials), the Court is not convinced that the judiciary cannot question presidential assertions about domestic activities leading to military action. ... Indeed, as Justice [Robert H.] Jackson explained using examples from Weimar Germany, the French Republic, and World War II–era Great Britain, “emergency powers are consistent with free government only when their control is lodged elsewhere than in the Executive who exercises them.”
The law in question allows federalization of the National Guard when there is a rebellion against he US government. But Judge Breyer skeptically applied the conservative principle of originalism: What did "rebellion" mean at the time the law was passed?
... the Court observes that the dictionary definitions from the turn of the century share several key characteristics. First, a rebellion must not only be violent but also be armed. Second, a rebellion must be organized. Third, a rebellion must be open and avowed. Fourth, a rebellion must be against the government as a whole—often with an aim of overthrowing the government—rather than in opposition to a single law or issue.
... The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of “rebellion.” ... Moreover, the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.
I expect the appellate court to uphold that finding; the only question is how long it will take. I predict Trump will end his occupation of Los Angeles before the Supreme Court can also rule against him.
Pundits speculate about whether or not Trump and his people will obey a clear court order, but that's not the only issue here. The National Guard units themselves will have to make a decision about which set of orders they receive are the legal ones.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem:
The Department of Homeland Security and the officers and the agencies and the departments and the military people that are working on this operation will continue to sustain and increase our operations in this city. We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor had placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.
Take a minute to process that statement. Trump and his administration have sent military troops to LA to "liberate" the city from its elected leaders. Presumably, they expect Californians to be grateful to be relieved of the "burden" of democracy. What cities and states might they "liberate" next?
Thursday, California Senator Alex Padilla was forcably removed from a Kristi Noem press conference, then pushed to the floor and handcuffed.
Noem lied about the incident afterward, saying that Padilla did not identify himself and no one recognized him. The idea that no one recognized one of the two California senators is ridiculous on its face. But tape shows Padilla clearly identifying himself. And Noem has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee's panel on immigration, citizenship and border safety, where Padilla is the ranking Democrat. She knew who he was.
and Israel's attack on Iran
Israel launched a campaign of air strikes against Iran Thursday, targeting nuclear facilities, nuclear scientists, and top government officials. The strikes appear to have been highly successful in an immediate tactical sense.
Warplanes struck the Natanz nuclear facility, while other operations killed Iran’s top military general, the leader of its Revolutionary Guards, the head of its Air Force, and at least six nuclear scientists. News images showed apartment buildings in Tehran with smoke billowing from specific rooms, indicating precisely targeted attacks (though Iran said that eighty civilians were also killed). An unnamed security source told Channel 12 that the Mossad intelligence services had recently established bases inside Iran, where they kept precision missiles and suicide drones. The news aired grainy black-and-white footage of masked Mossad agents on the ground there, delicately setting down what were reportedly explosive drones, aimed at destroying the country’s air defenses. For twenty years, Israel had threatened to attack Iran’s nuclear program. Seemingly within minutes, it suddenly had.
Whether or not it makes strategic sense for Israel to start a new war with Iran is another question that depends largely on the goal: Is the idea to "mow the lawn" by destroying resources Iran can eventually replace? Or is Israel aiming at some kind of regime change?
Iran has struck back with missile attacks on Israel, which are less sophisticated and less well targeted than the Israeli attacks.
My reading of history is that no matter how big your current advantage may be, no one keeps the upper hand forever. So my question for the Netanyahu government and the Israeli electorate: Is maintaining permanent superiority your plan, or is there some vision of a stable equilibrium that you hope to achieve someday? I mean: an arrangement that your current enemies will someday accede to voluntarily, without an iron fist constantly over their heads?
Trump is fond of claiming that any bad thing in the world -- the Ukraine War, the October 7 Hamas attack, post-pandemic inflation, and so on -- would not have happened if he had been president when it started. Such alternate-time-line boasts are nearly impossible to check, no matter how unlikely they seem.
But this is a case where a bad thing is directly attributable to Trump: If he had not junked Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, this war would not be happening.
As is so often the case, Trump claimed he could get a "better deal" and wound up with no deal. Trump's prowess as a deal-maker is a big part of his myth, but has very little grounding in reality. Real deal-making isn't about bombast and theatrics, it's about understanding what your partner in the deal really wants, and what you can give up without trashing your own position. Trump's brain can't handle that level of detail and nuance. It's not a matter of age; he never could.
Trump has tried to have it both ways with respect to this attack. He claims he had nothing to do with it, but also that he knew it was coming and that he warned the Iranians.
Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!
If I were an Iranian reading that tweet, I'd assume I was at war with the United States, not just with Israel.
and the No Kings protests
Other cities may have had larger turnouts, but San Francisco's protest had the most style. Here's a human banner at Ocean Beach.
Organizers estimated that the 2,100 separate protests drew 5 million participants, including 200,000 in Lost Angeles alone. I'm not sure I believe the claim of a million in Boston, but this drone video is pretty impressive. A drone view of the New York demonstration is also striking.
Dan Fromkin's PressWatch blog has an article I wish more journalists would take seriously: ‘How many people were arrested?’ is a lousy way to cover protests. Fromkin points to a common way of covering protests that is particularly lazy and cowardly: Just talk to the cops.
Tell us what brought people out. Was it a range of issues or mostly just one? Tell us what some of the signs said – were they funny, angry, both? Tell us what the protesters did – did they march, chant, scream?
Were there speakers? What did they say? What are the organizers hoping to accomplish? What are their short-term goals and their long-term goals?
Describe the makeup of the crowd and give a rough indication of its size (yes you can make a reasonable estimate.) A sense of scale is crucial information.
and Trump's sad military parade
No doubt when Trump envisioned his taxpayer-funded $45 million birthday bash, he pictured it being the biggest story of that news cycle, with even the denunciations drawing attention to it. In fact, it barely registered. I have not found an estimate of the crowd size, but numerous pictures show empty bleachers, and AP reported that
attendance appeared to fall far short of early predictions that as many as 200,000 people would attend the festival and parade.
Ostensibly, the parade was to honor the 250th birthday of the US Army, not Trump's 79th birthday. But a similar anniversary is approaching for the Navy, and no similar spectacle is planned. And some spectators sang "Happy Birthday" to Trump after his speech.
and you also might be interested in ...
Republican senators need to pay more attention the lyrics of Paul Simon's "The Boxer":
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises.
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.
Who can forget Susan Collins accepting Brett Kavanaugh's pocketful of mumbles about respecting precedent and Roe v Wade being established law?
Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as “precedent on precedent.” When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”
The latest example of Republican senatorial gullibility is Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. A doctor who gained prominence by vaccinating low-income kids in his home state, Cassidy might have blocked RFK Jr.'s nomination as HHS secretary, and for a time appeared inclined to do so over Kennedy's anti-vax activism. But after voting Yes in a key committee hearing,
Cassidy explained that he’d received “serious commitments” from the Trump administration that made him comfortable with voting yes. Speaking later on the Senate floor, he added that RFK Jr. had promised to “meet or speak” with him multiple times a month, that the Trump administration would not remove assurances from the CDC’s website that vaccines do not cause autism, and that the administration would give his committee notice before making any changes to the nation’s existing vaccine-safety-monitoring systems.
Lies and jests. Monday, RFK Jr. removed all 17 members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee. Wednesday he announced eight replacements: largely unqualified people, many of whom are on record as vaccine skeptics.
Diseases will spread and Americans will die because Senator Cassidy failed to do his job.
New rules at the Veterans Administration have removed some non-discrimination protections, including those for marital status and political beliefs.
Medical staff are still required to treat veterans regardless of race, color, religion and sex, and all veterans remain entitled to treatment. But individual workers are now free to decline to care for patients based on personal characteristics not explicitly prohibited by federal law.
Language requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated. Doctors and other medical staff can also be barred from working at VA hospitals based on their marital status, political party affiliation or union activity, documents reviewed by the Guardian show.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office came out with its analysis of the impact of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. To no one's surprise, it makes life easier for the rich and harder for the poor.
The very poor tend to be unpopular, with a lot of Americans believing they are lazy bums who deserve what they get. (I'm not claiming that, I'm just pointing out that a lot of people believe it.) But I want to call your attention to the working poor: people in the 2nd and 3rd decile who probably work as hard as anybody, but in low-paying jobs. They are also worse off if this bill passes.
Meanwhile, the Senate's version of the Big Beautiful Bill looks likely to include a provision to sell 3 million acres of public land. The proposal is dressed up as a solution to the national housing shortage, but in fact most of this land is far from any expanding town. An analysis by Headwaters Economics found that most of the land near expanding towns has high wildfire risk, while other sites are prone to drought or flood.
What's the real reason to sell this land? Probably just an ideological hatred of public ownership.
Philips O'Brien draws attention to something the mainstream media isn't paying attention to: More and more, Trump officials echo Putin's worldview.
A. R. Moxon answers a question Rep. Nancy Mace threw at Governor Walz: "What is a woman?"
This is a pretty standard question from the type of bigot that Nancy Mace is. It's meant to erase the existence of trans women, who are being especially targeted for cruelty and exclusion by [Trump] and all his little minions. The question is asked to attempt to enforce the asker's own narrow definitions, and then to accuse anyone who refuses to accept those restrictions of sexism and bigotry.
Moxon suggests answering: A woman is not a what. A woman is a who.
I have noticed that what [Trump] and his hateful crew do as almost an instinct is reduce a who to a what, and they do it to women in just the same way as they do it to immigrants and anybody else they want to target, and for the same reason, which is to exclude them from their full humanity so that they can be more easily abused.
and let's close with something natural
We often hear that it's a dog-eat-dog world. But also sometimes it's a turtle-help-turtle world.
