Yesterday, I received two Axios alerts about the courts – one that SCROTUS will hear Metanucillini’s birthright citizenship case, and the other that a Federal judge has ordered Epstein’s grand jury transcripts unsealed. Also, The Root had an update on Baby Chance – you’ll remember the case. And the New York Times (are you sitting down?) actually did something in favor of freedom of the press.
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/a-2-1-panel-of-the-dc-circuit-makes
from Joyce Vance – “The case is styled as Harris v.o Bessent, although there are numerous parties involved and the order directly impacts the president’s ability to fire at will.”
Colorado Public Radio addresses my Secretary of State’s refusal to turn sensitive voter information over to the DOJ. I knew that was the case but it’s good to also have her legal reasons. I might also point out the request is unconstitutional – the conversation gives the states sole authority to run elections. There have been times I wished that wasn’t the case – but now is not one of those times.
This is essentially one story from Senator Hickenlooper – and it’s a story comparable to Abrego Garcia’s. Hick and his staff are doing everything they can think of and are getting stonewalled at every step.
Yes, I realize this is almost an hour long, and yes, there are some ums and aws in it. That’s why I put it in Saturday when it’s from Thursday. There is a transcript if that’s better for you (I didn’t vet it so it may have some creative spelling in it.) The first 16¼ minutes are an overview of history starting in the 1920s and then explaining how we got here from the 1980s. I lived through a lot of it, and I expect you did too. After that she goes into how we got here from 1980, including the “Some people are better than others” fallacy (of course some people are smarter and/or more competent than others, but the idea that skin color or gender has anything to do with that is such an obvious fallacy that one really has to have a mind which is out of shape to fall for it.) She explains how the unitary executive theory was proposed and is being used to make some people worth less in law. She touches on a principle that if you take a random 10 people, 2 will have actual opinions on government and 8 just want things to go smoothly and predictably so they don’t have to think about it – and just want to get along with people, and how to use that knowledge to get through to many people on whom reason and logic don’t work. She mentioned that she put so much effort into this video that she might not do a Thursday night letter (turns out she did, but it didn’t post until after 3 am her time). If you choose not to watch it or read the transcript, that’s fine. It’s your decision.
