The Trump administration told Texas to gerrymander based on race. Texas did as asked. A judge said the gerrymander was illegal because it was based on race. The Supreme Court said that despite the detailed investigation by the lower court that showed a race-based gerrymander, they don’t think it was based on race. They based that opinion on very little, and overturning a lower court based on one’s opinions of the facts is illegal, unless the lower court decision was overwhelmingly erroneous, which it was not in this case. The Supreme court also said it is too close to an election to make a change even though the elections are a year out. This means state legislatures can illegally gerrymander half the years because House elections are every two years.
The Supreme Court is clearly ruling on freedom of religion cases in a way that is biased toward Christianity and that allows Christians to risk and hurt non-Christians as long as they consider it a part of their religion.
“The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” …in Bridges v. Wilson (1945), the Supreme Court unambiguously stated that “freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.””
The conservative court decided no matter how extreme a partisan gerrymander, it is legal. However, they said racial gerrymanders are illegal. A district judge dug into the Texas gerrymander and concluded that the actors involved explicitly gerrymandered based on race. Without disputing the facts, the conservatives on the Supreme Court rejected it.
Russia’s privatization after the Cold War, failed partially because the Russian government was too weak. It could not enforce property rights and the rule of law. Instead, the government was corrupted by the oligarchs. When Putin took over, he exchanged many oligarchs for one–himself.
When the U.S. tries to deregulate for potentially good reasons, and avoids taxes, we need to be careful that we are not setting up our own oligarchs who avoid helpful taxes and regulations at the expense of the people.
The Supreme Court has used a doubtful gun study funded by a Second Amendment advocacy group to justify its decisions. The author has not published the study, has not shared the data, refuses to talk to anyone about it, refuses to testify in court about it, and one lawsuit dropped the reference to the study because he refused to testify. How the survey was represented was inaccurate compared to the actual survey questions.
“A federal judge has indefinitely extended her order banning the Trump administration from mass firing federal employees during the government shutdown.”
“In August, President Donald Trump took over the police force in Washington, D.C., and flooded the city with officers from various federal agencies. As part of this show of force, federal agents arrested hundreds of people, while prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia—led by interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro—seemingly intended to throw the book at them, whether or not the punishment actually fit the crime.
This week, one of the administration’s more high-profile cases crashed and burned at trial.
In July, according to a charging document, D.C. resident Sydney Reid filmed with her phone as agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took two people into custody from the city jail. When one ICE officer told Reid to move back, she “continued to move closer to the officers and continued to record the arrest.” When she didn’t reply to further commands, an officer pushed her against the wall, and FBI Agent Eugenia Bates stepped in to assist as Reid “was flailing her arms and kicking and had to be pinned against a cement wall.” During the scuffle, the indictment claims Reid “forcefully pushed [Bates’] hand against the cement wall” and “caused lacerations,” and it includes a picture of her hand with two red marks.
Reid was arrested for “assaulting, resisting, or impeding” federal officers, a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison. But when prosecutors presented the case, a grand jury declined to indict—not once or even twice, but three separate times.
This is not unique to Reid: In August, the same month, prosecutors also failed to secure a grand jury indictment against Sean Dunn, the Department of Justice employee who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer stationed in D.C. In fact, within three weeks of Trump’s D.C. takeover, grand juries declined to return indictments at least seven times.”
“Federal law says the president of the United States may only call state National Guard members “into Federal service” when certain specific conditions are met, such as when “there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against” the federal government, or when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
According to President Donald Trump, he alone gets to decide when or if such conditions exist. Or, as Trump recently argued in a legal filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, “such decisions are committed to the discretion of the President and are unreviewable” by the federal courts.”