Tonight, I rise with the intention of getting in some good trouble. I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able. I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis
This week's featured posts are "Is this a turning point?" and "On Tariffs and the Markets".
This week everybody was talking about tariffs and the resulting stock market crash
That's the topic of one of the featured posts.
and the "Hands Off" protests
Saturday's protests at 1400 locations around the country had been planned for some time. But they got a huge boost from a week of bad news for the Trump administration, which I summarize in the other featured post.
Good estimates of how many people participated are hard to come by. Organizers tend to inflate numbers, while news organizations and public-safety departments usually underestimate. Then there's the problem of combining over a thousand individual estimates into a collective estimate.
The organizers of these protests claim "millions" of participants. And that total sounds reasonable when you see police estimates like 25-30 thousand in Boston alone, or NYT reporting of a march 20 blocks long in New York.
and Cory Booker's speech
The political impact of Cory Booker's record-breaking 25-hour speech to the Senate surprised me. It was a stunt, of course. The speech itself produced no direct change in law or policy. And yet it drew massive amounts of public attention and made an important symbolic statement: Yes, Democrats in Congress do realize that American democracy is at a crisis point, and they are looking for ways to do something about it.
The point of a stunt is to draw attention, and Booker certainly did. An estimated 300K viewers livestreamed at least part his speech, and the Tik-Tok stream got 350 million likes.
Like many stunts, Booker's speech was a feat of physical endurance. He had to remain standing for the full 25 hours, and didn't take any bathroom breaks. He didn't have to speak the entire time, because allies in the Senate took up some time by asking him occasional questions. I had thought he would wear Depends or have some kind of catheter strapped to his leg, but apparently not.
I think I stopped eating on Friday, and then to stop drinking the night before I started on Monday, and that had its benefits and it had its really downsides.
I believe I would faint dead away or start hallucinating if I tried that. But Booker mainly reported muscle cramps from dehydration.
A side benefit of Booker's speech was to take arch-segregationist Strom Thurmond out of the record books. Thurmond's previous record-holder was a 24-hour speech against a civil rights bill in 1957. Unlike Thurmond, who resorted to reading the phone book at one point, Booker remained on-topic and empassioned right up to the end.
That's due largely to the changing times, I think. Thurmond was filibustering, so the time he took up was an end in itself. While Booker did interrupt the business of the Senate for 25 hours, there was no particular action he intended to delay. He was trying to build and hang onto a worldwide audience, an impossibility in 1957.
and Wisconsin voters' rejection of Elon
A number of election were held Tuesday. The most significant was for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Liberals achieved a 4-3 majority on the court two years ago, and had begun to undo a gerrymander that had put the Republican leadership of the legislature virtually beyond the reach of voters. Wisconsin's congressional districts are similarly gerrymandered, so that the evenly divided state sends 6 Republicans and only 2 Democrats to the U. S. House. If the conservative had won, flipping the court to a 4-3 conservative majority, that gerrymander would likely have remained.
Elon Musk made himself a major issue in the election by contributing quantities of money variously reported in the $20-25 million range. His contributions were controversial and possibly illegal: He gave voters $100 each to sign a petition denouncing "activist judges", and offered two million-dollar checks to voters who came to a rally he headlined in Green Bay. Musk claimed "the future of civilization" hung on the outcome of this election.
But apparently Wisconsin voters don't want the richest many in the world choosing their judges: the Trump/Musk candidate lost 55%-45%.
Tuesday's other elections are harder to interpret. Two special elections for Florida congressional seats went to the Republicans, but only by about half the 30-point margin Trump had in those districts in November. Democrats may take encouragement from those elections -- and Republicans whose districts were only +15 in November may get anxious -- but a loss is still a loss.
and you also might be interested in ...
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019, so the government has been specifically barred from sending him back to El Salvador, where he says he would be in danger. The government has claimed that he is in the infamous MS-13 gang, but has never presented evidence supporting that claim.
Nonetheless, Garcia got pulled over while driving on March 12 (his 5-year-old in the back seat) and was sent to the gulag in El Salvador where the administration has been dumping immigrants it doesn't like. The government has acknowledged the mistake in court (and the lawyer who acknowledged this obvious fact has been put on leave).
[Judge Paula] Xinis on Sunday wrote in a legal opinion that allegations against Abrego were “vague” and “uncorroborated” –– and that in any case, he was under protected status.
“As defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador — let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere,” she wrote.
She ordered him returned to the US by today, which the Trump administration is refusing to do while it appeals her order. Absurdly, they claim that Garcia is now out of their control, since they do not run El Salvador. If this claim is allowed, it puts a loophole in everyone's rights. Trump could arrest me or you, send us to El Salvador, and then claim it made a "mistake" that can't be rectified.
In one featured post I covered how Fox News has played down the stock-market collapse. Here's how Fox handled this story: Numerous Fox hosts have argued that Garcia is just one guy, and he's an immigrant anyway, and Trump's people claim (without evidence) he's part of a criminal gang, so it doesn't matter.
It turns out there's an internal reason why the Trump administration keeps running afoul of judges, and it has nothing to do with judicial bias.
In previous administrations (even Trump's first administration), the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has been powerful. Essentially, it's been the executive branch's internal Supreme Court, the ultimate within-the-administration authority on what the law says or allows. OLC reports are technical and sometimes secret, so they usually slide under most voters' radar. But occasionally some have drawn attention, like during the Bush-43 administration when OLC came up with creative readings of the law to justify torture.
The head of OLC is a political appointee, so it's not like OLC has ever been completely independent of the White House. For the most part, it's going to give the president the most favorable opinion it can justify. Nonetheless, OLC is made up of lawyers who have certain professional standards. They don't like being pushed to frame opinions so far out of line that judges will sanction administration lawyers who make those arguments in court.
That's why it's significant that the Trump administration has downgraded the OLC. Trump still has not named the OLC's head, and the office has not vetted Trump's executive orders for legality. It's part of the larger pattern: No one should tell Trump that he can't do what he wants to do, even if it's illegal.
The Pentagon has sent at least six B-2 bombers – 30% of the US Air Force’s stealth bomber fleet – to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, in what analysts have called a message to Iran as tensions once again flare in the Middle East. ... Images taken by private satellite imaging company Planet Labs on Tuesday show the six US bombers on the tarmac on the island, as well as shelters that could possibly conceal others.
Maybe this is a ramping up of the campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, which the US attacked in mid-March. But it might be something else:
Trump has also been pushing Iran to make a deal over its nuclear capabilities, saying on March 19 that he would give Tehran two months to come to an agreement or face the consequences. There “are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal."
The Eyes Only blog adds this bit of interpretation:
the B-2 isn’t just any bomber. It’s the only US aircraft certified to carry the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bunker-busting message written in steel and fire. That’s tailor-made for Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites in places like Natanz and Fordow.
and let's close with something useless
In addition to all the news-relevant topics I have to research to write this blog, you probably have no idea how much totally useless knowledge I accumulate along the way. This week I learned that the word ritzy derives from a man's name: César Ritz was a Swiss businessman who founded the Ritz hotels, which became synonymous with luxury.
He opened The Ritz in Paris in 1898, and shortly afterward the upscale Carlton Hotel in London. The North American rights to the Ritz-Carlton brand was franchised to Albert Keller, who opened New York's Ritz-Carlton Hotel in 1911.
The Ritz cracker appears to have no direct connection to either the hotels or César Ritz. In 1919, Nabisco bought Jackson Cracker company of Jackson, Michigan, which made a precursor of the Ritz. That cracker got rebranded as Ritz during the Depression, as part of a marketing plan to make it seem luxurious. (Apparently, in that less litigious age, the Ritz hotels didn't sue.) The Ritz cracker also appears to be the first beneficiary of a movie marketing tie-in: Walt Disney included a box of Ritz crackers in Mickey's Surprise Party in 1939. The Wikipedia article does not mention whether Walt got paid to do this.
