“The question of whether a single federal trial judge should have the power to halt a federal law or policy throughout the entire country is hotly contested. As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2020 opinion arguing against nationwide injunctions, “there are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal.” If nationwide injunctions are allowed, any one of these district judges could potentially halt any federal law, even if every other judge in the country disagrees with them.
The problem is particularly acute in Texas’s federal courts (Mazzant sits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas), where local rules often allow plaintiffs to choose which judge will hear their case. During the Biden administration, Republicans often selected highly partisan judges to hear challenges to liberal federal policies — and those judges frequently rewarded this behavior by issuing nationwide injunctions.
Such injunctions can potentially be lifted by a higher court, but the process of seeking relief from such a court can take weeks or even months — and that’s assuming that the appeals court is inclined to follow the law. Federal cases out of Texas, for example, appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is dominated by far-right judges who frequently defy Supreme Court precedents that are out of favor with the Republican Party.
Moreover, while some Republican judges such as Gorsuch expressed doubts about these nationwide injunctions, the GOP-controlled Supreme Court frequently let such injunctions against the Biden administration remain in effect for many months — even if a majority of the justices eventually concluded that the policies at issue in those cases, which often involved disputes over immigration policy, were legal. So the Court apparently did not view ending the practice of nationwide injunctions as a high priority so long as those injunctions thwarted Democratic policies.”
https://www.vox.com/scotus/393540/supreme-court-garland-texas-top-cop-shop-nationwide-injunction
“With an annual toll of 40,000 American lives, the deadliness of secondhand smoke is now common knowledge. But it was only a few decades ago that puffing on a cigarette was defended as an act that affected only the smoker.
In the 1980s, researchers for the first time demonstrated that smoking can kill people who never themselves lit a cigarette. Those findings undercut tobacco industry claims that smoking need not be restricted, because smokers had accepted any health risk arising from their habit. Even if that was true, it certainly wasn’t for others forced to breathe polluted air.
Secondhand smoke galvanized the anti-smoking movement. “You’re suddenly not talking about suicide,” said Robert Proctor, a history professor at Stanford University. “You’re talking about homicide.”
By the end of the 1990s, smoking was banned on domestic flights as well as across an expanding number of bars, restaurants, and workplaces. Tobacco use tumbled: In 2000, 25 percent of Americans said they smoked a cigarette during the prior week, down from 38 percent in 1983.
Secondhand smoke is a textbook example of a negative externality: a product’s costs that are paid by society instead of its users. It’s a framework that helped turn the public against tobacco, and it carries lessons for another product that is as ubiquitous today as cigarettes were 50 years ago. And like tobacco, its use can — and often does — kill innocent bystanders. I’m talking about oversized cars.
Over the last half-century, American sedans and station wagons have been replaced by increasingly enormous SUVs and pickup trucks that now comprise 80 percent of new car sales, a phenomenon known as car bloat. Much like secondhand smoke, driving a gigantic vehicle endangers those who never consented to the danger they face walking, biking, or sitting inside smaller cars. Although not widely known, car bloat’s harms are well-documented. Heavier vehicles can pulverize modest-sized ones, and tall front ends obscure a driver’s vision, putting pedestrians and cyclists at particular risk. Deaths among both groups recently hit 40-year highs in the US. The threat of hulking vehicles could even deter people from riding a bike or taking a stroll, a loss of public space akin to avoiding places shrouded in tobacco smoke.
Despite ample research demonstrating car bloat’s harms, American policymakers have done virtually nothing to counteract them. The political headwinds are powerful: Encouraged by carmaker ads depicting SUVs traversing rugged terrain, millions of Americans use oversized vehicles daily simply to get to an office, store, or school.”
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/391733/gigantic-suvs-are-a-public-health-threat-why-dont-we-treat-them-like-one
Do we need to acknowledge Indians every time we give a talk on former Indian land?
https://youtu.be/0RUb46UhhBk?si=USLaeh36MGqvd6EO
“the shooting came at a time when health care seemed to be experiencing a bit of a surge in importance among Americans after the election. The share of registered voters who named it as the most important issue facing the country in YouGov/The Economist tracking polls had gradually declined from around 10 to around 7 percent throughout 2024, and even fewer, 4 percent, said it was the top issue specifically in determining their vote in the election. But after the election, that number has gone back up to between 8 and 11 percent.
A YouGov poll last week also found that more Americans, 49 percent, had an unfavorable view of the American health care system than the 42 percent who had a favorable one. Other polling suggests that Americans are as unhappy as they ever have been in recent years with the current state of health care. And while many Americans pointed fingers at the opposing party for the problems they see, more than 6 in 10 overall agreed that pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, as well as corporate executives like Thompson, were to blame for problems in the American health care system.
The U.S. remains unique among its peer nations in relying on a for-profit health insurance system and, as Mangione’s own writings alluded to, many Americans have expressed rage at a system that can deny coverage for people’s medical treatments while making shareholders and CEOs very rich. Despite decades of presidents trying to ensure universal access to health insurance, about 8 percent of Americans remained uninsured as of last year, and a higher percentage, about a quarter of American adults, said they or a family member had struggled to afford health care over the past year, whether they were insured or not.
By and large, Americans are unhappy with the costs of care and often find their insurance difficult to use. The share who rated the quality of health care in this country as “excellent” or “good” was just 44 percent in Gallup’s annual health and health care survey, conducted Nov. 6-20, its lowest point since 2001, when Gallup began asking the question. Even fewer, 28 percent, said the same about health care coverage — i.e., what insurance programs do — the lowest it has been since 2008″
…
“A growing share of Americans in Gallup’s surveys seem to want the government to take action to improve health care access: 62 percent said it was the federal government’s responsibility to ensure all Americans have health care, the highest it’s been since 2007. Republicans are the least likely to agree with this sentiment — 32 percent said so, compared to 90 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents — but those numbers have increased by around 20 percentage points among all three groups over the past decade or so.
Perhaps surprisingly, YouGov polling found that around two in three Americans are at least somewhat satisfied with their health insurance plans — but that topline figure doesn’t capture a lot of nuance. For example, 89 percent of those with Medicaid were satisfied with their health coverage, compared to 75 percent who are covered by an employer-sponsored plan. Unsurprisingly, those who had had an insurance claim denied were also more likely to be dissatisfied with their coverage.
And despite many being mostly satisfied with the plans they have, a high number of Americans still experience problems using them. KFF, a nonprofit health policy research organization, found in a survey last year that 58 percent said that they had at least some trouble using their insurance in the previous year — including issues like denied claims or difficulty accessing in-network providers — and nearly half of whom said their biggest problem was not resolved to their satisfaction. Overall, 18 percent of Americans with health insurance had experienced a denied claim, and those were more common among people with private or employer-sponsored insurance. Around a quarter of those who’d had a claim denied suffered serious consequences, like a decline in health or not receiving recommended medical care.”
https://abcnews.go.com/538/americans-unhappy-state-health-care-insurance/story?id=116775693
Rubio used to talk overall positively about foreign aid, now he speaks differently. Did he have a change in heart, or is he Trump’s little bitch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaPgQZnDg1I
“Democrat Biden had announced a target to eliminate single-use plastic utensils like drinking straws by 2035 across government agencies.”
Note: This is about future policies affecting federal agencies. There was no federal plastic straw ban.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-slams-paper-straws-vows-160410883.html
“The high tariffs that America imposed during the late 19th century did not make America rich and did not make American manufacturing strong. It’s also absurd to claim that the country was at its wealthiest in an era when most people did not have access to indoor plumbing, electricity, or modern medical care—and when the average person was, objectively, much poorer.”
…
“If tariffs are as great as Trump says they are, he should be implementing them no matter what the leaders of any other silly little countries say or do. We can tax our way to prosperity, Trump claims, but we’ll just…not do that, I guess?
That’s the problem with Trump’s theory about tariffs. Either tariffs are an inherently good and prosperity-generating policy that enriches America, or they are a threat to get other countries to do as Trump says. Both things can’t be true.”
https://reason.com/2025/02/03/trumps-theory-of-tariffs-makes-no-sense/
“Trump tore up the North American trade deal that he’d signed (and praised as the “best agreement we’ve ever made”) just five years ago. He sent the stock market tumbling, forced the American automotive industry and other manufacturers to beg for mercy, and antagonized two of America’s biggest trading partners and allies. And after all that, he got virtually nothing in return.
Indeed, Canada’s and Mexico’s governments may have gotten more. Their leaders learned that Trump sees 10,000 as a big and significant number and that they can appease his tariff fever by promising to just keep doing what they already do—as long as they make it sound like he’s convinced them to change course.”
…
“when Trump was asked directly by reporters on Saturday if there was anything Canada could do to avoid the tariffs, he said “nothing.” In various social media posts, Trump claimed first that the tariffs were intended to stop fentanyl from coming across the border And then, a day later, said they were meant to compel Canada to join the United States. Vice President J.D. Vance tried his hand at putting some random meats on this tangle of bones Sunday night, writing on X that Canada wasn’t keeping up with its NATO obligations.”
…
“The leaders of Mexico and Canada effectively called the president’s bluff that there was nothing they could do to avoid tariffs. Facing the reality that tariffs would cause serious pain for American businesses—something that he even admitted last weekend (maybe he’s learning?)—Trump retreated, leaving the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement in tatters and the relationship between America and two of its key allies strained.
We should be glad that Trump safely found an off-ramp after steering the United States recklessly into a potentially ugly situation, and we can hope that he did not cause too much long-term damage while getting there.”
https://reason.com/2025/02/04/trumps-north-american-trade-war-accomplished-nothing/
“CBS is back in the news. Less than two weeks into President Donald Trump’s second term, the network’s parent company Paramount is considering settling his lawsuit claiming CBS’ coverage of the presidential campaign—and, in particular, an allegedly deceptively edited interview with Kamala Harris—was unfair and somehow harmed him. Reports have tied this possible settlement to Paramount’s planned merger with Skydance, which Paramount shareholders fear the new administration could try to block or delay.
Notably, this also comes against a backdrop of President Trump’s appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr rattling his saber at broadcast networks that have earned the president’s ire.
Shortly before the inauguration, under the guidance of its former, Joe Biden–appointed chair, the FCC dismissed complaints against ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC regarding broadcasts during the campaign—including CBS’ 60 Minutes Harris interview. In doing so, the FCC emphasized the importance of honoring CBS’ editorial discretion and broadcasters’ First Amendment right to report on matters of public concern as they see fit. But Trump’s handpicked successor has indicated the FCC will reconsider that dismissal, along with the NBC and ABC dismissals (but not the Fox dismissal, unsurprisingly).
Freedom of the press protects journalists and the news media in publishing information—especially in the political sphere—free from official censorship. In that way, a free press serves a vital role as the “Fourth Estate” in our democratic society, keeping citizens informed so that individuals may oversee their government’s actions. As Ida B. Wells stated, “The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press.”
That’s why it’s concerning that CBS would go to the mattresses over a halftime show for a game it gets once every fourth year, or even a bread-and-butter scripted show like Without a Trace, but would capitulate when it comes to its news and political coverage. Already the network is reportedly poised to comply with an FCC demand for the transcript and camera feeds from the 60 Minutes interview.
When parties to legal disputes resolve them with monetary payments rather than seeing them through to a decision, it is often said they are “buying peace.” Here, there is no peace to be bought, at least not without reassurance from the courts that CBS can cover political matters as its editorial discretion dictates, no matter how much it might displease the president or his appointees.”
https://reason.com/2025/02/04/paramount-shouldnt-fold-to-trump/