What strikes me isn’t simply the attempt to end birthright citizenship. It is the reasoning offered by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. If the argument is no longer “What does the Constitution require?” but instead “Congress could always change the law later,” then what exactly is the role of the Supreme Court?
Surely constitutional justices are appointed to defend and interpret the Constitution—not improvise around it or substitute their own preferences. Their duty isn’t to make things up as they go along; it’s to uphold the framework they swore to protect.
In any other workplace, an employee who consistently failed to perform the core duties set out in their position description would face consequences. Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. It seems reasonable to ask why the American people have so little power to hold Supreme Court justices accountable when they appear to abandon the very constitutional principles they were appointed to defend.
Many years ago, I taught at an all-boys Jesuit prep school exactly like the one Brett Kavanaugh attended at exactly the same time. He is the exactly the same age as my own students at the time were. Back then (I can't speak about now), young Jesuit men could generally be described as fitting into one of two categories. The first group knew they were lucky to get the kind of first-class education and later ticket to the halls of power a Jesuit institution would give them. They were the also ones who took seriously the Jesuit call, repeated faithfully since the time of St. Ignatius of Loyola, to be a "man for others." They were the ones just as excited about a senior project involving outreach to the poor, service to the disenfranchised, welcoming the immigrant, as they were about scholastics or athletics.
Then there were the barf-and-poof boys, the beer boys, the jokers, the smug and slick, entitled frat types who just took the ticket, never mind about the lesson that 'from those who have been given to, much is expected.'
No need to bother guessing which group Kavanaugh gravitated to by nature and practice....
I think that distinction extends well beyond Jesuit schools. In my experience, the legal profession seems to attract two very different kinds of lawyers. One sees the law as a public trust - a framework for protecting rights, upholding justice and serving the community, even when it’s inconvenient. The other sees the law as a toolkit to be manipulated in pursuit of power, ideology or personal ambition. The tragedy is that both groups can be equally intelligent and equally accomplished.
It's all about whether you acknowledge that you didn't get here just by yourself alone, but by standing on the shoulders, institutions, accomplishments, and sometimes blood-sweat-and-tears others sacrificed to give you opportunities denied others.
Your comment reminds me of the poem “Alone” by Maya Angelou.
It ends with,
“Nobody, but nobody
Can make it out here alone.”
We must all be grateful for all that has gone into helping us have freedoms and opportunities in life and to help preserve and protect those blessings for everyone.
The English poet John Donne reminded us that “No man is an island”. “Therefore”: he further noted, “do not seek to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”
That is absolutely true - others opened many doors for me. I make this point strongly in the autobiography that I've written for my 7-year old granddaughter. I was this kid, one of seven children, from a decidedly poor family in southwest Texas. At 7 years old, I had to walk the two miles to school in the 2nd grade barefoot because the one pair of shoes that I had were in the shop for repair (holes in the soles.) What were my chances to a higher education, to a Ph.D. and a J.D., both from Harvard? Mentorship and luck.
Like the allied sentiment during WWII “The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi”. We might be sent to the camps for saying such a thing in front of the wrong company.
Kazz McKnight, thank you also for describing the two diverse types of characters in the legal profession. It seems that we spend much of our lives trusting and expecting the honest, caring, dedicated personalities to fill our world; then comes the jolt of dishonesty and manipulation for self promotion and gain as found in some people. I wish we could help all people to truly care about people and to do their work with integrity. We certainly need the caring types in our government, as well as everywhere, including having our Supreme Court members to live up to the oath to protect, defend, and interpret the Constitution.
Exactly (I was in the first category of lawyer) -- and a core difference is also whether one views oneself as part of a community or an "I'm alright, Jack" selfish individualist.
One aspect often neglected by those looking in from outside is that while many lawyers and doctors etc. start out with great commitment to work for the good of others (be that as court-appointed counsel, legal aid, medical clinics, etc.) when they go into the profession, their enormous student debt (full-free tuition for many professional programmes, at least as it now stands in Canada and probably the US, too) means they cannot go for the more socially 'useful' but less well-paid work, at least until they pay off the debt, professional liability insurance, capital investment to make partner in a law firm, etc.
two groups may be fair, for the purposes of the present discussion (though lawyer excel at fine points of distinction), but there is no reason to presume that they are of equal size. My experience as law student, lawyer and retired lawyer for 55 years is that there are far more of the 'serve the public' type than the 'serve my own interests' kind. The former are not necessarily public policy heroes, but likely nonetheless to do the right thing when faced with a choice.
You are closer to the reality than the others commenting on this. Particularly in observing that the "serve the public" types are often (in my experience, rarely) heroic, they are just "serve my own interests" types whose interests align left or right and not necessarily for money (remember, there are public policy lawyers on both sides).
I disagree that they do the "right thing" in all cases (you didn't go that far, to be fair). Many in "public policy" law are extremists after all. Depends on which public policy one likes:)
Yes, there are fine people who are lawyers and work with genuine, good conscience and intentions to do their best to help people. They work long hours with dedication. If everyone were like that, how wonderful that would be!
In any profession, character varies. There is no intent to put down the good, fine, and much appreciated people.
"from those who have been given much, much is expected." One of the few things I remember that from the Jesuit priest who taught religion in the parochial grade school I attended.
... And yet 4 people who apparently can't read were nominated and approved to serve on the highest court in the land and given incredible power. To that extent the illiterate 4 are a symptom, not a cause, and are examples of a deep sickness in our country. I am very concerned.
Lawyers (& judges) specialize in scrutinizing the meaning of each phrase/word and trying to exploit potential loopholes in legal texts. So a will to interpret a text in a way that aligns with one's pre-existing ideological convictions can be found on both left and right and everywhere between; 'inability to read' would be bad enough, if it were true, but the willing distortion of a text to accommodate your position is worse. Though the 6-3 split in SCOTUS is frequent, there are enough cases where justices line up differently to suggest they do not always force the text into their own ideological Procrustean bed.
If you want to take me literally that seems plain silly to me but I'm curious.
What do you make of 4 textualists/originalists concluding that these EXACT words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" mean that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are NOT citizens of the United States?
At a minimum I suggest there's a serious reading comprehension problem to say nothing of the high bullshit factor of the self proclaimed believers in textualism/originalism being unable to stick to the text. I'll stick with "apparently can't read" as a very good, ummm, constitutional interpretation of what the not so fab 4 did.
It’s Come to This, thank you for describing the values of the school, the character types of the students, and for the fine work you did. Until now I had not known as much about the school. How I wish everyone who attended had been the eagerly and happily dedicated type you described!
Kazz, just as this thread has made a distinction (thanks to ICTT) between one kind of student he taught at the school and another kind, that same distinction can be seen in any profession. There are those who take seriously the call to hold the well-being of others as their responsibility and those who see other people as tools for their own aggrandizement. It's true in law, ministry, medicine, politics, and more. It's what makes sense of a Harvard-trained, very smart, capable person who has no spine, does not exude compassion... like so many in power at present.
Having attended Harvard, and worked there briefly, I can tell you I was surprised at how many not-smart people were there amongst the brilliance. Legacy admissions means that some people can buy their way in if grandpa went there or has a big fat donation pending. And character cannot be bought.
As someone who went to Harvard (undergrad or other?) you don't know much about legacy admissions. Legacies generally perform better in terms of GPA, Advanced Placement and SATs than regular admits. To the extent that a small number of students are admitted (actually, a tiny number) because of money, it is precisely those families that fund the scholarships for the poor. Without wealthy alums, you have no Pell grant students or others, even middle class. The wealthy alums subsidize the less wealthy. You don't like that?
Google tells us that a Jesuit Education is - "Jesuit education philosophy emphasizes the holistic development of individuals, focusing on intellectual, moral, spiritual, and emotional growth. It aims to form students into compassionate leaders committed to service and social justice, guided by the principles of cura personalis (care for the whole person) and magis (striving for excellence).
The 6 far-right SCOTUS justices were all Jesuit trained. They all apparently missed the classes on the most basic Christian principle -- "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and also apparently every lesson on ethics and morals.
"The 6 far-right SCOTUS justices were all Jesuit trained."
Hmmm. If that's the case, then is it just happenstance that they are all Jesuit training, or is it a very clear and distinct indicator of a major flaw in Jesuit indoctrination?
I don't know offhand which Jesuit schools the 6 justices attended, but there are also two 'schools' of Jesuits. The majority in North America and Europe are among the most socially engaged in the Catholic Church, and are heavily involved in social outreach like educating the poor, working with refugees (Jesuit Refugee Service), working for peace and social justice. Like the late Pope Francis, the American Jesuit priest Fr James Martin, America Magazine, Georgetown University. But here are a few (like Ignatius Press/Fr Fessio in Calif.) who are on the orthodox, conservative wing of the Church and engage in some of the culture wars on that side.
I started college at Jesuit-run Georgetown U. in 1969. Close to 80% of the undergraduate student body was Catholic, the liberal-arts college had only started admitting women the previous year, and IIRC the Foreign Service school and the business school were about 85% men. In the School of Languages & Linguistics, the ratio was about 60% women, 40% men. This was of great concern to the school's dean, Robert Lado, who argued that the school must increase its male enrollment to have academic credibility. The Nursing School was about 99% women, but no one worried about its lack of credibility, academic or otherwise. I was a lapsed Episcopalian who'd graduated from a competitive all-girls school, so this was an education. [CORRECTED: The SLL dean wasn't a Jesuit, but he was very conservative. I just added his name.]
Fortunately, "barf-and-poof boys" were very few: Georgetown had no fraternities, it was academically fairly competitive (especially for women), and Georgetown boosters sometimes referred to it as "the Harvard of the Catholic League." (Lol.)
Thank you for pointing that out. As an immigrant, I wouldn't have had an opportunity for an education such as that. I do know the Catholic education system from Jamaica where I was born. It was based on the English system and it was quite good. I know the Jesuits to be very studious and thoughtful people.
As a graduate of Loyola High School in Los Angeles, I couldn't agree more. The "Friend of Squee" is practiced in the sophistic arts of unprincipled deception, not the Jesuitical arts of principled exception. AMDG is a noble aspiration, not a clanging cymbal, as Kavanaugh would have it
Linda, I believe they understood the duties they took on. But when presented a choice they rejected all that without a backward glance because dishonesty was easier, and it paid them immediately. No amount of education can replace an absence of character.
Absence of character was revealed when these particular nominees literally lied before Congress for approval to become lifetime justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Garrett, as a teacher my idea of understanding might be different. Understanding is an experiential thing. I was concerned in the beginning that the life experiences of many members were such that they would not be able to understand the complexity of the cases before them. Consider this being a Christian Nationalist, Republican bubble. Therefore they do not even understand character the way you and I do. Still, I believe that several among them are outright crooks, selling their votes to the highest bidder of their shared world view.
On another note. A friend just shared this fight to win to stand up for science campaign. It seems like something we would be supporting. It particularly takes on Russel Vought of Project 2025 Infamy. There are links in here to contact your MoC to get them to act. Please also share with others. It is super easy and one can send a message without donating, but of course donations are good too.
Garrett, "No amount of education can replace an absence of character." So very true! In fact, the more education an unscrupulous character gains, the more they figure out ways to harm society through dishonest and unfair means.
There is no place in a civilized society for unscrupulous leaders. Since the current regime is full of all kinds of liars, cheats, thieves, and horribly immoral people - we are no longer "civilized."
Even as a child, I knew that you could NOT lie under oath. You just couldn't do it. I didn't know what would happen if you did, but it was sure to be the most awful thing ever. Maybe you would be struck dead or get a deadly disease and suffer forever; but you would not risk your life by lying under oath. Unfortunately, society today does not value honesty or character and so we have liars, cheats and thieves in place of moral leaders. We have "gone to hell" of our own making.
PS: I was raised atheist, but I have always believed in a "spirit (God) of the Universe.
The three who cannot read and understand need to spend a little time in one of the 'prisons for profit' that are so popular. Give them a little more experience with our 'justice system'. And Kavanaugh, too, for his weaseling. I never liked that guy.
Alito and Thomas are angry, mean little men with big chips on their shoulders. And baby-teeth Kavanaugh is just plain creepy - and a weasel -- great term for him James!
Maybe "ivory towers' are not good places for anyone to hang out in exclusively. Seems we too easily become rigidified in our comfort zones when being triggered by differences is what we need to succeed in non-material riches and useful participation. We're witessing such waste of potential.
And seem to truly believe that the law does not apply to them or their corrupt buddies. Any group left to “police” itself with ethics oversight is destined to fail.
At least. It sounds like with all the work they have, they might have to have 2 groups and divvy the work, drawing cases by lottery so it would be hard to bribe someone not knowing which cases they would draw. We also need oversight of them, and it must be an oversight group that has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. It should meet regularly. Finally, there should be term limits. That would prevent people from dying in the job at inopportune times, and would prevent people who are truly awful from staying in a super long time.
Linda, that's exactly my point of view. There should also be a strong ethics code... at a minimum, the same one that other judges have to follow... with oversight outside the court itself.
Counselor, given the breadth of law that SCOTUS covers, I'd go for 13, with a rotating CJ for no more than a 10 year term. Each of the 11 Regional courts, the DC court, and the Federal Court of Appeals.
I would also have an age limit, or at least limited terms. Oregon ages out their State Circuit Court judges at 75. I would suggest 65 myself.
There are 11 Regional Circuit Courts, 1 Federal District Court in DC, and 1 Federal Court, with specialization in certain types of laws. So, IMO, we need 13 Supreme Court justices.
Hello Kazz... "SACK THE BASTARDS"... Go Australia!!!!... One of the Dumb-Founding aspects of DJT is how Hypocritical DJT is.. His Grandparents were German Citizens when his Father was born... Indeed DJT's Mother was a Scottish Citizen when DJT was born... Yet DJT Believes That DJT Is The Greatest Ever!!!...
Yes. Really. Ivana became a citizen in 1988, Don, jr was born in ‘77, Ivanka in ‘81 and Eric in ‘84. Barron was born in March of 2006 and Melania became a citizen in June of 2006….and what about her parents?
Apache - unless this is all a wordplay to couch the true issue: what matters to MAGA is where immigrants are from and what defines them. White South Africans are good immigrants, white Muslims are bad, white Europeans are good immigrants, brown and black are bad. Stepford wives are acceptable, enlightened women, bad. Birthright resistance is a cover for bigotry.
We have always had an issue with the lifetime appointments of the Justices and in this case they the are”justices “. Six of our SCOTUS justices have been either bought by the rich or chosen because they could be corrupted.
Abe Fortas was pressured to resign for far less than the corruption that Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and possibly Kavanaugh, have committed. SCOTUS justices serve during periods of good behavior. Those three should told to resign or face impeachment, removal and trial. To reject the plain text of the Constitution is not good behavior in addition to their corruption.
Extremely good point, especially given that the Anglo-American legal system is based on the idea that either the courts decide cases, based on precedent and on interpreting the Constitution or other statute law, or else elected representatives (Congress) can adopt legislation to regulate an area that comes up in the courts and for which there is no positive law (statutes) yet. So technically, what Justice Kavanaugh says is at a basic level true of all situations, namely, that if there is a gap or ambiguity in the Constitution, they can enact legislation to cover it. With the proviso of course that the statute is not deemed by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional (power of judicial review). So what I would like to hear is whether the reasoning offered by Justice Kavanaugh here goes further than this principle? Is he implying that if Congress did pass a law restricting birthright citizenship, SCOTUS would accept it as constitutional, or is that another page, depending on how such a statute would be worded?
The role of the SC is to interpret the Constitution.
There are many different interpretation theories (originalism, for instance). Obama, as a law professor, adhered to the theory that says that Justices need to interpret the Constitution in a way that is compatible with what the majority of citizens want.
"Unitary Executive theory" (another name for neofascism) however believes that democracy has been a mistake and a failure and fascism should take over. Once this is what you believe, you'll interpret the Constitution in such a way that the installation of fascism is approved by the SC.
Constitutions are just papers. The result is only as good as "we the people" are.
I think SC justices can be impeached, if I am not mistaken. That's the process, but not happening in this climate. Better solution is term limits for scotus. At least limit the impact any bloc can have to balance the scales. And we have to have some sort of enforceable ethics clause covering their behavior. The crap that thomas and alito have gotten away with is unforgivable.
Is Kavanaugh saying that laws passed by Congress no longer have to accord with the constitution? If so, then he is basically saying that the Supreme Court has no meaningful function as a co-equal branch of government other than to rubber stamp whatever laws are passed (or that they agree with).
Then by “I like beer”’s thinking, the Congress can write the Supreme Court out of existence or at the very least impose term limits, age limits, IRS investigations, etc etc etc.
What he's referring to is precisely the role of the court. Typically, justices prefer to resolve cases in the narrowest way possible. And one of the most common ways is to look for a statutory explanation rather than a constitutional one. By doing so, they defer to the democratic process, because laws can be changed by the popular will. So the outliers were the other justices, not Kavanaugh.
''The Constitution, Now Available in Executive Order Flavor''
President Donald Trump apparently looked at the Fourteenth Amendment, saw the words “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” and thought, “Interesting draft, but have we tried vibes?” So on January 20, 2025, he signed an executive order attempting to cancel birthright citizenship, because nothing says constitutional originalism like pretending the Constitution has a comments section.
The problem, as usual, was the Constitution itself, that persistent little document MAGA reveres right up until it says something inconvenient. Birthright citizenship was not a clerical error. It was forged after the Civil War because former Confederates were determined to invent second-class citizenship for Black Americans and anyone else they could shove outside the circle of equality. The Fourteenth Amendment answered with elegant bluntness: born here, citizen here.
Naturally, Trump’s order came wrapped in patriotic packaging, the political equivalent of selling arson as “historic fireplace restoration.” It targeted children, asylum seekers, immigrant families, and the entire idea that citizenship belongs to law, not bloodline panic. The Supreme Court had already settled this in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but why respect 126 years of law when a partisan legal theory with a microphone has feelings?
The courts slapped the order down because, shockingly, presidents cannot edit constitutional amendments like typo-ridden social media posts. Even Judge John Coughenour, appointed by Ronald Reagan, called the order “blatantly unconstitutional,” which is legal language for “please stop making me explain grade-school civics.”
The real punchline is that the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship 6 to 3, which means three justices looked at “All persons” and started hunting for an asterisk. That is not just alarming. It is a reminder that democracy survives only when the public refuses to let billionaires, bigots, and career flatterers turn citizenship into a gated community.
OK HCR Subscribers, with the arrival of Tonight's LFAA we have revived yet another "Best Ever" letter from Professor Richardson although her Letter could have been an amicus, Friend of the Court brief on behalf of defendant 'Barbara' who has prevailed on behalf of all citizens of the United States.
Not being a legal scholar, (or a scholar at all for that matter,) it would seem the Supreme Court just documented that if you are born in America, you are a citizen of America.
Since abortion rights were ended when the same court and president said "life begins at conception" so abortions can no longer be performed as it is tantamount to killing. Are "birthright citizens" actually "conception right citizens"?
Is the unintended consequence of rescinding abortion rights.... making "life" begin at conception apply to birthright citizenship as well?
So, if you are conceived in the US you are from the US?
Mr Trump continuously "Fixes things that don't need fixing, and can't fix what is broken or what he broke ?" This is just another example.
Roe v Wade was just fine as it was, Hormuz was open, and had no tolls or mines, the reflecting pool wasn't a petri dish of algae, energy came from every available source, legislation was bipartisan agreement, presidents were public servants, science seeks truths...need I go on?
I look at birthright citizenship as being correct as written, and un necessary to review, as I thought Roe V Wade was also unnecessary to review, as it was the law of the land.
Trumps diversions and deceptions are strictly intended to keep him top of the fold while he steals freedom and funds from us all.
I agree but wonder why nobody thought of the consequences of overturning birthright citizenship. For instance my maternal grandfather was born in the US of non-citizen parents, so according to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle none of his descendants would be citizens if he wasn't. And actually as things stand I'd be OK with being deported to his country of origin. But I am sure most others would not be.
The problem is that most of our 'countries of origin' will not take us. Sweden only takes the first generation. I'm second. As far as they are concerned I am not Swedish. But according to Trump I would not be American. I guess they dump us all in the DRC with the Afghan families we promised protect if they helped us?
I agree although the original reason for the amendment is no longer valid. I am not supportive of the amendment but I recognize that it is absolute law and must be honored until and if it is abolished. It was enacted to protect Afrocentric peoples. Today, it is frequently abused as anchor babies and you might disagree but this is my understanding. Thank you.
Bill, you seem to have missed “…To remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing “[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right[s] in every State and Territory in the United States.”
The bill specifically does not limit to whom it refers.
And you fully missed my points. I stated emphatically that it’s the law until it’s not the law and I recognize it as such. I also state that it’s unnecessary today.
Listen up, I’m so against some things that I should have went screaming into the arms of MAGA years ago but for some reason, I haven’t. Now, at I finish my coffee?
Full discourse: I am a CA lawyer, an ACLU member. an ACLU donor, a ABA Member & the person who filed a verified complaint with California Attorney General ROB BONTAS to preserve Voting early, Voting-by-Mail in CA all under express CA legal authority.
But, you do NOT have to be an attorney file such a verified complaint, Any person can file such a complaint with the CA AG but, under Oath. I have filed Declarations under Oath under penalty of perjury in over a 1000 cases in state & Federal courts in my legal career.
ACLU — Isn’t that the group that keeps arguing against having cameras at street intersections because it diminishes our god-given privacy while crash’s are killing and smashing down utility poles everywhere and being totally oblivious to the fact that we have all lost our privacy at the dawn of the computer age. Don’t worry, I usually support them.
And I argued pro sa (say… whatever) in superior court early this year and won my case against an attorney representing my city. I assembled more facts than she had. I walked out of court that day and immediately headed to a bar and bought myself a martini. And realized that I missed one of my callings as an attorney.
I have a direct link to the gods of Hades and they tell me everything. How’s dat.
To your question; I read. There are countless cases of women visiting the US just in time to give birth often wealthy Asians. And besides, I just don’t believe in the birthright concept. You seem to be hardwired to believe in it because you were told to believe in it all your life. Also, while I’m not at all against controlled immigration, I am against population expansion and I always have been both for the country as well as Mother Earth. Express your opinions as I am expressing mine. I’ll be redundant and say the original reason for the birthright amendment no longer exists.
Mr Katz, a problem with opposing birthright citizenship is that we are all "wandering Arameans" to use a term from Deuteronomy. It is a confession the farmer should make when offering the "first fruits" of the harvest. The farmer should say, "my father was a wandering Aramean," to reinforce humility and an other-oriented posture so as not to become focused on ourselves, given to hoarding for ourselves, concerned only with our own wealth or power. We give our "first fruits" (a traditional tithe) for the sake of the poor... because we, too, are wanderers on this Earth.
Ho boy… let me express a little tidbit. The human population in of our lifespans has more than doubled since the 1960s often academic discussions of population growth also stated in book for as “population explosion.” We are now at around 8 billion when we were once at around 3 billion. So please tell me, enlighten me, when does it end? At 10, 20 30 billion humans. How about we just round things off at 100 billion. I have a pollinator garden in the front of my house and I’m now sipping my coffee waiting for the monarch butterflies to pass by for a bite to eat but I just don’t see any these days. Ah, but maybe they too are self eliminating to make room for more humans that need more of everything.
Bill, the population problem is big but it's not connected very well to birthright citizenship. I have a pollinator garden in the front yard, too, and sit out on the front steps at twilight to watch the fireflies. I've seen Monarchs this year but our best Monarch food isn't yet blooming: Tithonia and sunflowers. Best wishes for your garden!
About 33 countries offer unrestricted birthright mainly on account of countries emerging from the colonial past wanting to increase population.33 out of how many nations? Another 30 offer conditional citizenship. However, my argument is that we are no longer trying to increase population we are no long sending slaves back to Africa. Oppsie… I may have spoken to liberally on that part. And just because Richardson professes a belief doesn’t make it sacrosanct. I have a right to my opinions. Or do you want to remove my rights as well.
Overruled. “We are a common law system…” and that has nothing to do with the argument of whether or not birthright is necessary just because a woman gives birth in this country. How many nationals allow for birthright? Do you have an answer, counselor?”
You mean “nations”? From AI “35 countries have birthright citizenship… 30 to 40 more offer conditional citizenship based on parental residency or background.”
There is no such thing as "over ruling" common law. It is a gigantic body of law over a 1000 years old.
Judges not attorneys instruct juries on the law. FYI, we inherited the jury system as a major component of the common law refined in legal detail by statutes & binding case law.
As long as those five remain healthy, this issue is safely decided, but that four justices are willing to let the president rewrite the Constitution has to give us pause.
As a first-generation Ukrainian American, this one felt deeply personal. It’s easy to talk about constitutional principles in the abstract, but for many families those principles become part of our own story.
The role of the SC is to interpret the Constitution. As soon as you believe in neofascism (which the GOP calls "unitary executive theory"), you believe that the executive branch of government should have all the power and not be accountable to anyone - not even the people, since they try to destroy real elections.
Then you'll interpret the Constitution in such a way that it allows for this to happen in the US.
What this shows is how Constitutions are just documents. They're worthless if we don't create a democratic society of citizens who are well-informed and actively support democracy. Whether it's blatantly ignoring the Constitution, as the Nazis did, or interpreting it in such a way that it is entirely compatible with neofascism (even though it includes the explicit separation of the three branches of government, rather than "uniting" the legislative and judicial branches into the executive branch, as fascism does), as Kavanaugh does, the result is the same: through elections, a democracy full of politically illiterate people can easily vote fascists into power and then be destroyed from the inside.
The "promise" was so clear that it inspired 100+ pages of dissent. One suspects that for many people here the only dissenting opinions that warrant value are those by Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson. New flash! All dissents are written by serious people with many highly intelligent law clerks assisting. True, emotional dissents carry less weight (which is why the justices don't pay much attention to Jackson), but they mean that, contrary to constitutional scholar Klymenko -- issues aren't the "clearest."
A pity, then, so many of us so stubbornly refuse to recognize the Trumpstein purpose is nothing less than the destruction of our nation -- and following that, the eradication of every humanitarian advancement our species has ever made. We are as truly at war now as we were on 15 March 1941, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared the Lend-Lease Policy. (This is a powerful speech, eerily relevant today; with thanks to MC for providing full text to bypass the less-than-perfect audio.) https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-15-1941-lend-lease
The nation, our nation that we see being destroyed, is not the same nation that they see as under threat from all their bogeymen and scapegoats. It's a function of different people taking away different understandings from a common, shared experience.
"What do you make of that?" is a question that begins the exploration of the differences, based on INDIVIDUAL experiences and understanding, that may be constructed from said common experience.
It's not just Trump, the mindless circus barker. It's the behind-the-scenes Republican Party "planners" who have articulated a methodology to completely abort what the United States is all about. It's about redesigning our country into an oligarch's playground.
Good news that the activist judges did not overturn the 14th. But not only should it not have been this close, the case should have died in the cradle. IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS MUCH OXYGEN.
ICYMI: (1) Ben Winkler was the Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair in 2025 who used grassroots organizing to elect Susan Crawford to the Wisconsin Supreme Court despite the massive (>$20 million) donation of Elon Musk to her opponent. He ran for national DNC Chair but was narrowly defeated by Ken Martin, an apparent master of crony politics, backroom dealing, special interests and the status quo (see his interview on Pod Save America where he looked like Pam Bondi responding at a Congressional hearing on the Epstein files). Ken Martin notoriously paid a crony to do an analysis of the Democratic Party’s errors in the 2024 election. When the report wasn’t released for about a year, there was a public outcry and a jumbled document that looked like a 3rd grader’s scratch pad was presented as the “report” (just five months before the election in November). Of course all the establishment cronies defended it (nothing to see here). Simon Rosenberg went on Hopium and spent over an hour apologizing for and minimizing the incompetence demonstrated by the behavior. Amazingly but not unexpectedly he condemned the local grassroots organizers and recommended they should just rely on the Washington beltway experts in the DNC, DCCC, etc. because they “know best how to win elections”. The folly of this is seen in the recent primary elections where grassroots candidates won defeating establishment super-PAC funded candidates that the DNC, DCCC, Chuck Schumer, etc. ran against them. Fortunately Ben Winkler wrote an OpEd in the NYT: “NYTimes.com: My State Was a ‘Democracy Desert.’ This Is How We Turned It Around.”. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/opinion/trump-democracy-plan.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.o5Kv.EfNZUE4vQ7Iu&smid=em-share (there is an app on the article that will read it to you)
(2) How do we make our political donor dollars count? Jess Craven author of the political action blog “Chop Wood, Carry Water” interviewed Brian Derrick, political strategist, activist, and tech founder of Oath.vote, a one-stop shop for informed political donation. Oath is a political advising platform that empowers Democratic donors to maximize their impact. They provide guidance and tools that identify the most critical races in need of support to eliminate wasteful spending and they protect donors from spam. They protect your personal information (it is not traded or sold to other fund raising organizations) and they do not deduct a fee from your donation. (You can give a “tip” to support them if you wish.)
(3) Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, interviews Lisa Graves, a lawyer (J.D. degree from Cornell Law School). She is one of the nation’s foremost experts in exposing how special interests distort public policy and try to thwart the public’s interest in a thriving democracy and healthy planet. And see her recent book: “Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights”. They discuss the recent 6/29/26 SCOTUS Slaughter case decision concerning the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) that gives Trump the power to fire any government agency employee at will. They view it as an attack on expertise which Trump will replace with cronyism/nepotism and corruption and they discuss what it will take to reverse this.
(b) Heather has a spectacular discussion of current governmental corruption in her “American Conversations” interview of University of Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade about the criminality of the Trump administration and her new book “The Fix: Saving America from the Corruption of Mob-Style Government”: The interview is: “Barbara McQuade | American Conversations - YouTube”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ5_n4mTTa8 Professor McQuade draws on her prosecutorial experience, analogies to “The Godfather” and the Hungarian Revolution to explain the corruption of the Trump Administration and how to overcome it.
(5) Ruth Ben-Ghiat is an internationally known and respected authority on authoritarianism, Professor of History and Italian Studies at NYU, author of “Strongmen”. At her podcast, Lucid, 6/31/26 she gives a brief summary of “Ruth Ben-Ghiat on how the SCOTUS partners in enabling authoritarianism”. https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-partner-in-authoritarian?r=1d2cea&utm_medium=ios She discusses the recent SCOTUS Slaughter decision and how Supreme Court Justices like Clarence Thomas have been corrupted by ultra right wing extremists.
Fred, thank you for putting all this together, for those of us who are having more and more difficulty getting our heads around the never-ending fecal stream coming from the regime.
How shocking and deplorable that we live in a time when a clearly stated constitutional provision would be hotly debated and actually receive several SCOTUS votes to not abide by it. Shame on those partisan judges that so dishonor our Constitution!
There are going to be endless arguments about what that abysmally poorly-drafted and sclerotic document means until you people sit down and re-write it in modern English.
“Now that [the Supreme Court] has opened the floodgates for foreign invaders to flock across our borders and spawn…”
Fish spawn. Animals spawn.
First step in war is to de-humanize the enemy. It’s easier to kill them that way. The Nazis made Jews “subhumans” before they rounded them up and gassed them. In WW II, we fought the “japs” and the “krauts”, and later, the “godless commies” in Korea and Vietnam.
The GOP has be come the New American Nazi Party (NANP). Don’t think for one minute that many of them aren’t capable of doing what the German Nazi Party did eight decades ago.
This also jumped out at me, Ralph, the word “spawn". The far-right ignoramuses continually use animalistic descriptors for non-whites, and purposefully so. Notice, too, that the same person calls anyone who disagrees with the MAGA platform of hate, “lesbians.” These people are not very imaginative. They can’t actually attack democratic policies on the basis of any thoughtful analysis; it’s always the bullying, the dehumanizing, the insults. Pitiful.
🩸🩸🩸 I'm going to post this video every day so we never forget what the 34x POS convicted felon who incites political violence, adjudicated rapist & pedophile Trump did on J6 🩸🩸🩸
"The reason everything feels so broken right now is because it is" -- Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama today on MS-NOW 'Deadline Whitehouse.'
Today, we got the Supreme Court to acknowledge that the 14th Amendment really does confirm birthright citizenship, just the way it says it does and was intended from its inception and later challenge a century ago. Woo-hoo. As Heather and others note, this case should never even have come to the Supreme Court to begin with. And 3 out of the 9 Justices don't even acknowledge the obvious, binding, black-and-white requirements of the Constitution and its amendments. That's the true exclamation point of yesterday's ruling.
But the real kicker after this "victory" — the removal of the last bit of limits and restraint on campaign financing, something only the highest echelons of the Republican Party wanted, nobody else. Nobody else has ever called for "more" money in our election campaigns. It's a ruling meant to benefit one JD Wanker — a man bereft of brains, contemptuous of history, hypocrite and phony-for-hire, completely out of his depth in every way a person could be. Nothing else but money could get him elected in 2028, not charm, not personality, not smarts, not his phony, made-for-tee-vee Catholicism. So prepare yourselves for buckets and buckets of new dark money to infect the country's politics — just in time for the midterms.
Most readers here don’t donate to the DCC or the DSC, sniffing their noses at how they think the DNC behaved in the past. In so doing, they bypass the organizational arm of the Democratic Party at the moment of its greatest need, turning elections into their own personal boutique shopping experience. Has anybody noticed that our coffers are currently empty? Yet, as literally everybody knows, money speaks, and big money speaks bigly, even more so after today. Without an infusion of cash, good candidates will turn into irrelevant candidates quicker than you can say 'full algal bloom,' especially given a gerrymandered House.
Despite what anyone says, political parties -- not individuals -- remain the backbone of a healthy democracy. Weak parties do not win elections. Majorities, not personalities, determine who controls a legislative chamber. Pause and consider what happens between now and November.
I am one who stopped donating to DNC. They are anemic and somehow leaders are chosen for something besides gumption. I am less able to donate than before so I pick races and people. Sorry but Dems need a trillionaire or two. My $15 can’t save them.
"Most readers here don’t donate to the DCC or the DSC, sniffing their noses at how they think the DNC behaved in the past.
I think you're right about this. But it's not just "boutique shopping." The DNC's problem is not so much what they have done or not done in the past. The past is past. But there's no indication that the present DNC is capable of doing any better. If anything, they're just doubling down on a failed strategy. DNC doesn't appear to have learned from its past failures. Money is tight and getting tighter. So DSC and DCC suffer from DNC's failures. Fix DNC and DCC and DSC will benefit. Don't fix it and November's blue tsunami will dwindle to a blue trickle. I'm not optimistic.
I think the money decision is appalling -- we need big money out of politics, not more of it in politics -- the long-term ramifications of this will be awful. First Amendment basis -- my Aunt Fanny (as my Mother would say!).
#shorts - Senator Warren is actively investigating and calling out the DoD's expanding partnerships with private equity. *CONTACT YOUR SENATORS - Urge them to support anti-price gouging measures like the Price Gouging Prevention Act or the Stop Wall Street Looting Act*
She is actively pushing back against military contractors—many backed by Wall Street—that charge exorbitant prices for routine replacement parts (such as a $4,361 charge for a half-inch metal pin that costs $46)
Senator Warren, along with lawmakers like Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Ro Khanna, has pressed the DoD regarding its growing reliance on PE-backed defense contractors. They cited significant risks to taxpayers, opaque ownership structures that pose national security threats, and a track record of bankruptcies.
Who to Contact: Reach out directly to your local Representative and both of your state’s Senators. If they sit on the House or Senate Armed Services Committees, their oversight influence is even stronger. Also the Government Accountability Office (GAO FraudNet) accepts allegations of the mismanagement of federal funds and routes them to congressional investigators.
"...pushing back against military contractors—many backed by Wall Street—that charge exorbitant prices for routine replacement parts (such as a $4,361 charge for a half-inch metal pin that costs $46)".
This is the sort of activity that Epstein's crimes were supporting. The sexual abuse of minors was a sideshow. It did (still does?) provide leverage to keep filthy rich criminals involved in military procurement in with the in group that makes tons of money on war and aggression. The worst of it may be the sale of backdoor software (search "PROMIS") that may have been how Israel gained atomic weapons. It was Ghislaine Maxwell's dad that pulled that off.
And we're at the beginning of a Revolution in Military Affairs that may well blindside the contractor fat cats. I'm not sure if either party is in a position to do what needs to be done regarding the DoD (I refuse to call it DoW) budget. I think we need more and better drones, fast, and fewer floating targets. I wonder if the Gerald Ford is this generation's Repulse/Prince of Wales, although the Ford was forced from the theater by internal failures (Thanks, cronies) rather than hostile action. And Desert Storm ain't happenin' again.
Still can’t believe that this was in front of the Supreme Court. Glad that our Constitution was upheld. Yet the disappointment is palpable that the decision wasn’t unanimous.
Out of the three in dissent. What’s astounding is that Thomas fails to recall that his descendants were West Africans who were enslaved and he misses the whole point of the 14th Amendment.
Then there’s Alito. That had all four of his grandparents who immigrated to the United States from southern Italy. That his mother was born in this nation making her a citizen.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, reaffirming the right to birthright 14th Amendment. —
“Of course, the ultimate irony is that for all the talk about the detestable Dred Scott decision, the Government and the principal dissent propose a return to its core tenet. Their bottom line is that, for certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship. It is that odious conclusion that the Citizenship Clause plainly rejects, as the Court explains. Ante, at 26. I add only that the Fourteenth Amendment's universalist aims should forever be the death knell for this kind of claim—one that seeks to make bloodline the marker of birthright. The America that was reborn from the rubble of the Civil War simply does not countenance that inequitable result.
Thankfully, a majority of the Court remembered this today, and has dutifully preserved the most basic animating principle of our Nation's founding-that all human beings are created equal-once more.”
All human beings are created equal but don’t make me sit next to them or acknowledge their existence. Even adding “under the law” is an affront to my existence. So say the magats
In unrelated news, polling closed on the Colorado primary Tuesday at 7 pm, and the results started coming in. It's another BLUE WAVE in Colorado! Repubs got shellacked.
Beyond the expected betrayal of members of the SCOTUS in spitting on the Constitution, I know I should not be newly shocked each time at the base depravity of these MAGA podcasters such as Matt Walsh further dehumanizing the children of immigrants as "spawn" and then doubling down (actually pretty hilariously) on the "lesbian activists" who will be screeching about militarizing the border, etc. Maybe we should be flattered that it is the lesbian activists who will be out there screeching? I think the Bulwark said it best - this decision is nice in the same way that DJT not pulling out a gun and shooting someone with impunity in broad daylight on a major New York street is nice.
The putrid, vile, un-America racism and xenophobia that festers in this regime was on FULL DISPLAY today with post-decision social media posts from POTUS and his deputy Miller, to disgust us all...
Professor Richardson -- Thanks for summarizing the background, significance, and impact of today's court ruling. To what extent has Brett Kavanaugh's objection opened a Pandora's box, allowing Congress to attempt to overturn the "clear terms of the Constitution"?
Sometimes the biggest story isn’t just the outcome. It’s how close we came to treating one of the Constitution’s clearest promises as optional.
Birthright citizenship isn’t a loophole.
It’s a constitutional promise.
What strikes me isn’t simply the attempt to end birthright citizenship. It is the reasoning offered by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. If the argument is no longer “What does the Constitution require?” but instead “Congress could always change the law later,” then what exactly is the role of the Supreme Court?
Surely constitutional justices are appointed to defend and interpret the Constitution—not improvise around it or substitute their own preferences. Their duty isn’t to make things up as they go along; it’s to uphold the framework they swore to protect.
In any other workplace, an employee who consistently failed to perform the core duties set out in their position description would face consequences. Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. It seems reasonable to ask why the American people have so little power to hold Supreme Court justices accountable when they appear to abandon the very constitutional principles they were appointed to defend.
In other words SACK THE BASTARDS.
Many years ago, I taught at an all-boys Jesuit prep school exactly like the one Brett Kavanaugh attended at exactly the same time. He is the exactly the same age as my own students at the time were. Back then (I can't speak about now), young Jesuit men could generally be described as fitting into one of two categories. The first group knew they were lucky to get the kind of first-class education and later ticket to the halls of power a Jesuit institution would give them. They were the also ones who took seriously the Jesuit call, repeated faithfully since the time of St. Ignatius of Loyola, to be a "man for others." They were the ones just as excited about a senior project involving outreach to the poor, service to the disenfranchised, welcoming the immigrant, as they were about scholastics or athletics.
Then there were the barf-and-poof boys, the beer boys, the jokers, the smug and slick, entitled frat types who just took the ticket, never mind about the lesson that 'from those who have been given to, much is expected.'
No need to bother guessing which group Kavanaugh gravitated to by nature and practice....
I think that distinction extends well beyond Jesuit schools. In my experience, the legal profession seems to attract two very different kinds of lawyers. One sees the law as a public trust - a framework for protecting rights, upholding justice and serving the community, even when it’s inconvenient. The other sees the law as a toolkit to be manipulated in pursuit of power, ideology or personal ambition. The tragedy is that both groups can be equally intelligent and equally accomplished.
It's all about whether you acknowledge that you didn't get here just by yourself alone, but by standing on the shoulders, institutions, accomplishments, and sometimes blood-sweat-and-tears others sacrificed to give you opportunities denied others.
Your comment reminds me of the poem “Alone” by Maya Angelou.
It ends with,
“Nobody, but nobody
Can make it out here alone.”
We must all be grateful for all that has gone into helping us have freedoms and opportunities in life and to help preserve and protect those blessings for everyone.
The English poet John Donne reminded us that “No man is an island”. “Therefore”: he further noted, “do not seek to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”
That is absolutely true - others opened many doors for me. I make this point strongly in the autobiography that I've written for my 7-year old granddaughter. I was this kid, one of seven children, from a decidedly poor family in southwest Texas. At 7 years old, I had to walk the two miles to school in the 2nd grade barefoot because the one pair of shoes that I had were in the shop for repair (holes in the soles.) What were my chances to a higher education, to a Ph.D. and a J.D., both from Harvard? Mentorship and luck.
But, not a hole in your soul. 🙏
Gratefulness and not entitlement. Perhaps that’s also part of the equation.
I am guessing you worked really hard to climb the ladder Richard.
You're being too modest. No one gets into Harvard by luck (other than affirmative action).
Like the allied sentiment during WWII “The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi”. We might be sent to the camps for saying such a thing in front of the wrong company.
Huh? Come in from left field.
ICTT, In other words moral values, humility, and integrity - both sorely lacking in this admin.
Not just this administration. All of humanity is being tested. Again.
Kazz McKnight, thank you also for describing the two diverse types of characters in the legal profession. It seems that we spend much of our lives trusting and expecting the honest, caring, dedicated personalities to fill our world; then comes the jolt of dishonesty and manipulation for self promotion and gain as found in some people. I wish we could help all people to truly care about people and to do their work with integrity. We certainly need the caring types in our government, as well as everywhere, including having our Supreme Court members to live up to the oath to protect, defend, and interpret the Constitution.
Roy Cohn as a bad example.
He was the Cortez, Omar, Taylor Greene, Boebert, Tlaib, Pressley, Crockett of his profession.
Exactly (I was in the first category of lawyer) -- and a core difference is also whether one views oneself as part of a community or an "I'm alright, Jack" selfish individualist.
One aspect often neglected by those looking in from outside is that while many lawyers and doctors etc. start out with great commitment to work for the good of others (be that as court-appointed counsel, legal aid, medical clinics, etc.) when they go into the profession, their enormous student debt (full-free tuition for many professional programmes, at least as it now stands in Canada and probably the US, too) means they cannot go for the more socially 'useful' but less well-paid work, at least until they pay off the debt, professional liability insurance, capital investment to make partner in a law firm, etc.
So true. Of the 1.3 million lawyers, they are either one or the other. Right? What area of law did you practice?
Republicans aren't all racists. But Republican policies consistently produce racist outcomes.
The question isn't whether Republicans are racist. The question is: Why do they keep supporting policies with documented racial harms?
If the outcome is racist, does the intent matter?"
What is your experience that leads you to take 1.3 million lawyers and divide them into two groups?
two groups may be fair, for the purposes of the present discussion (though lawyer excel at fine points of distinction), but there is no reason to presume that they are of equal size. My experience as law student, lawyer and retired lawyer for 55 years is that there are far more of the 'serve the public' type than the 'serve my own interests' kind. The former are not necessarily public policy heroes, but likely nonetheless to do the right thing when faced with a choice.
You are closer to the reality than the others commenting on this. Particularly in observing that the "serve the public" types are often (in my experience, rarely) heroic, they are just "serve my own interests" types whose interests align left or right and not necessarily for money (remember, there are public policy lawyers on both sides).
I disagree that they do the "right thing" in all cases (you didn't go that far, to be fair). Many in "public policy" law are extremists after all. Depends on which public policy one likes:)
Yes, there are fine people who are lawyers and work with genuine, good conscience and intentions to do their best to help people. They work long hours with dedication. If everyone were like that, how wonderful that would be!
In any profession, character varies. There is no intent to put down the good, fine, and much appreciated people.
"from those who have been given much, much is expected." One of the few things I remember that from the Jesuit priest who taught religion in the parochial grade school I attended.
And how does that translate into constitutional interpretation?
... And yet 4 people who apparently can't read were nominated and approved to serve on the highest court in the land and given incredible power. To that extent the illiterate 4 are a symptom, not a cause, and are examples of a deep sickness in our country. I am very concerned.
Lawyers (& judges) specialize in scrutinizing the meaning of each phrase/word and trying to exploit potential loopholes in legal texts. So a will to interpret a text in a way that aligns with one's pre-existing ideological convictions can be found on both left and right and everywhere between; 'inability to read' would be bad enough, if it were true, but the willing distortion of a text to accommodate your position is worse. Though the 6-3 split in SCOTUS is frequent, there are enough cases where justices line up differently to suggest they do not always force the text into their own ideological Procrustean bed.
You're on to something. For decades justices have been choosing clerks who are at the top of their classes at the best law schools but who can't read.
FACT CHECK: False.
Can’t read? Just a plain silly comment!
If you want to take me literally that seems plain silly to me but I'm curious.
What do you make of 4 textualists/originalists concluding that these EXACT words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" mean that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are NOT citizens of the United States?
At a minimum I suggest there's a serious reading comprehension problem to say nothing of the high bullshit factor of the self proclaimed believers in textualism/originalism being unable to stick to the text. I'll stick with "apparently can't read" as a very good, ummm, constitutional interpretation of what the not so fab 4 did.
It’s Come to This, thank you for describing the values of the school, the character types of the students, and for the fine work you did. Until now I had not known as much about the school. How I wish everyone who attended had been the eagerly and happily dedicated type you described!
It’s Come To This: Acknowledging also how many millions they stomped on, walked over and threw under the bus.
Kazz, just as this thread has made a distinction (thanks to ICTT) between one kind of student he taught at the school and another kind, that same distinction can be seen in any profession. There are those who take seriously the call to hold the well-being of others as their responsibility and those who see other people as tools for their own aggrandizement. It's true in law, ministry, medicine, politics, and more. It's what makes sense of a Harvard-trained, very smart, capable person who has no spine, does not exude compassion... like so many in power at present.
Having attended Harvard, and worked there briefly, I can tell you I was surprised at how many not-smart people were there amongst the brilliance. Legacy admissions means that some people can buy their way in if grandpa went there or has a big fat donation pending. And character cannot be bought.
“ character cannot be bought.” So absolutely true.
As someone who went to Harvard (undergrad or other?) you don't know much about legacy admissions. Legacies generally perform better in terms of GPA, Advanced Placement and SATs than regular admits. To the extent that a small number of students are admitted (actually, a tiny number) because of money, it is precisely those families that fund the scholarships for the poor. Without wealthy alums, you have no Pell grant students or others, even middle class. The wealthy alums subsidize the less wealthy. You don't like that?
As a beneficiary of a Jesuit education - I thank you.
👍
Google tells us that a Jesuit Education is - "Jesuit education philosophy emphasizes the holistic development of individuals, focusing on intellectual, moral, spiritual, and emotional growth. It aims to form students into compassionate leaders committed to service and social justice, guided by the principles of cura personalis (care for the whole person) and magis (striving for excellence).
The 6 far-right SCOTUS justices were all Jesuit trained. They all apparently missed the classes on the most basic Christian principle -- "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and also apparently every lesson on ethics and morals.
"The 6 far-right SCOTUS justices were all Jesuit trained."
Hmmm. If that's the case, then is it just happenstance that they are all Jesuit training, or is it a very clear and distinct indicator of a major flaw in Jesuit indoctrination?
I don't know offhand which Jesuit schools the 6 justices attended, but there are also two 'schools' of Jesuits. The majority in North America and Europe are among the most socially engaged in the Catholic Church, and are heavily involved in social outreach like educating the poor, working with refugees (Jesuit Refugee Service), working for peace and social justice. Like the late Pope Francis, the American Jesuit priest Fr James Martin, America Magazine, Georgetown University. But here are a few (like Ignatius Press/Fr Fessio in Calif.) who are on the orthodox, conservative wing of the Church and engage in some of the culture wars on that side.
Old Jesuit joke -- what are three things God himself doesn't know?
1. How much knowledge the Jesuits have...
2. How much money the Dominicans have...
3. How many Franciscans there are.
The laws do not protect our rights, it is ultimately the ethics, morals, and integrity of the justices interpreting them.
That is so interesting, thank you, ICTT!
He is their poster boy
I started college at Jesuit-run Georgetown U. in 1969. Close to 80% of the undergraduate student body was Catholic, the liberal-arts college had only started admitting women the previous year, and IIRC the Foreign Service school and the business school were about 85% men. In the School of Languages & Linguistics, the ratio was about 60% women, 40% men. This was of great concern to the school's dean, Robert Lado, who argued that the school must increase its male enrollment to have academic credibility. The Nursing School was about 99% women, but no one worried about its lack of credibility, academic or otherwise. I was a lapsed Episcopalian who'd graduated from a competitive all-girls school, so this was an education. [CORRECTED: The SLL dean wasn't a Jesuit, but he was very conservative. I just added his name.]
Fortunately, "barf-and-poof boys" were very few: Georgetown had no fraternities, it was academically fairly competitive (especially for women), and Georgetown boosters sometimes referred to it as "the Harvard of the Catholic League." (Lol.)
Thank you for pointing that out. As an immigrant, I wouldn't have had an opportunity for an education such as that. I do know the Catholic education system from Jamaica where I was born. It was based on the English system and it was quite good. I know the Jesuits to be very studious and thoughtful people.
He proclaimed how he likes to drink beer. Nothing wrong with that. But he should not have been allowed to pass.
As a graduate of Loyola High School in Los Angeles, I couldn't agree more. The "Friend of Squee" is practiced in the sophistic arts of unprincipled deception, not the Jesuitical arts of principled exception. AMDG is a noble aspiration, not a clanging cymbal, as Kavanaugh would have it
You should have taught in a Yeshiva.
A reasonable inference from my point of view.
What did you teach?
Agreed. We deserve real justices. Get rid of the ones who are unable to understand their duties and fulfill them. Impeach.
Linda, I believe they understood the duties they took on. But when presented a choice they rejected all that without a backward glance because dishonesty was easier, and it paid them immediately. No amount of education can replace an absence of character.
Absence of character was revealed when these particular nominees literally lied before Congress for approval to become lifetime justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Garrett, as a teacher my idea of understanding might be different. Understanding is an experiential thing. I was concerned in the beginning that the life experiences of many members were such that they would not be able to understand the complexity of the cases before them. Consider this being a Christian Nationalist, Republican bubble. Therefore they do not even understand character the way you and I do. Still, I believe that several among them are outright crooks, selling their votes to the highest bidder of their shared world view.
On another note. A friend just shared this fight to win to stand up for science campaign. It seems like something we would be supporting. It particularly takes on Russel Vought of Project 2025 Infamy. There are links in here to contact your MoC to get them to act. Please also share with others. It is super easy and one can send a message without donating, but of course donations are good too.
https://fight2win.standupforscience.net/?utm_source=ALLactvisits&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=OMB_FR2
Garrett, "No amount of education can replace an absence of character." So very true! In fact, the more education an unscrupulous character gains, the more they figure out ways to harm society through dishonest and unfair means.
There is no place in a civilized society for unscrupulous leaders. Since the current regime is full of all kinds of liars, cheats, thieves, and horribly immoral people - we are no longer "civilized."
Even as a child, I knew that you could NOT lie under oath. You just couldn't do it. I didn't know what would happen if you did, but it was sure to be the most awful thing ever. Maybe you would be struck dead or get a deadly disease and suffer forever; but you would not risk your life by lying under oath. Unfortunately, society today does not value honesty or character and so we have liars, cheats and thieves in place of moral leaders. We have "gone to hell" of our own making.
PS: I was raised atheist, but I have always believed in a "spirit (God) of the Universe.
The three who cannot read and understand need to spend a little time in one of the 'prisons for profit' that are so popular. Give them a little more experience with our 'justice system'. And Kavanaugh, too, for his weaseling. I never liked that guy.
Alito and Thomas are angry, mean little men with big chips on their shoulders. And baby-teeth Kavanaugh is just plain creepy - and a weasel -- great term for him James!
I wonder what made Alito and Thomas so angry and bitter. Well, actually, I know what made Thomas so mad . . .
Maybe "ivory towers' are not good places for anyone to hang out in exclusively. Seems we too easily become rigidified in our comfort zones when being triggered by differences is what we need to succeed in non-material riches and useful participation. We're witessing such waste of potential.
And seem to truly believe that the law does not apply to them or their corrupt buddies. Any group left to “police” itself with ethics oversight is destined to fail.
The watchdogs need watching.
Such an innocent world it was when the Supreme Court was set up. What trust was placed in those nine to be the ultimate set of watchdogs.
There were originally six Supreme Court justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the Court with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices.
They believe they are the law, and we believe it too, which is why we accept their judgements by not trying to overthrow them.
Per Senator Whitehouse (RI) we, need 11 Justices- one for each Federal Circuit.
At least. It sounds like with all the work they have, they might have to have 2 groups and divvy the work, drawing cases by lottery so it would be hard to bribe someone not knowing which cases they would draw. We also need oversight of them, and it must be an oversight group that has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. It should meet regularly. Finally, there should be term limits. That would prevent people from dying in the job at inopportune times, and would prevent people who are truly awful from staying in a super long time.
Linda, that's exactly my point of view. There should also be a strong ethics code... at a minimum, the same one that other judges have to follow... with oversight outside the court itself.
I admire Senator Whitehouse.
And term and/or age limits.
Yes.
Counselor, given the breadth of law that SCOTUS covers, I'd go for 13, with a rotating CJ for no more than a 10 year term. Each of the 11 Regional courts, the DC court, and the Federal Court of Appeals.
I would also have an age limit, or at least limited terms. Oregon ages out their State Circuit Court judges at 75. I would suggest 65 myself.
There are 11 Regional Circuit Courts, 1 Federal District Court in DC, and 1 Federal Court, with specialization in certain types of laws. So, IMO, we need 13 Supreme Court justices.
The word impeach has become an empty threat. It greatly concerns me.
It is only empty because it is not used where it should be.
If you are a US citizen or have US residency, would you please read my piece explaining the Free Speech for People campaign to impeach Trump AND his cabinet and help them get 2 million signatures by signing the petition in it? https://lindaweide.substack.com/p/indivisible-abroad-supports-the-impeach?r=f0qfn
If you can't find the link to the petition in the above piece, here it is. Just scroll down and you will find it. https://www.impeachtrumpagain.org/
Hello Kazz... "SACK THE BASTARDS"... Go Australia!!!!... One of the Dumb-Founding aspects of DJT is how Hypocritical DJT is.. His Grandparents were German Citizens when his Father was born... Indeed DJT's Mother was a Scottish Citizen when DJT was born... Yet DJT Believes That DJT Is The Greatest Ever!!!...
And let’s not forget the four of his five children had mothers that weren’t citizens until after they were born.
Really?
Yes. Really. Ivana became a citizen in 1988, Don, jr was born in ‘77, Ivanka in ‘81 and Eric in ‘84. Barron was born in March of 2006 and Melania became a citizen in June of 2006….and what about her parents?
No wonder his ship is forever adrift, 4 of five Felon47’s kids have only one fluke on their anchor.
He is stupid, ignorant, shameless and evil. What’s the magats excuse
He’s more preoccupied with denying citizenship to people he thinks aren’t white.
Not to mention 4out of his 5 children born to non-citizen mothers.
Yes. We the people could do a lot with that.
And Don Jr and Eric and Ivanka were all born before Ivana became a citizen. So let’s deport them first!
Same with Baron.
We are all children, grandchildren or great grandchildren of immigrants, legal or not.
SCOTUS is a disgrace!
Apache - unless this is all a wordplay to couch the true issue: what matters to MAGA is where immigrants are from and what defines them. White South Africans are good immigrants, white Muslims are bad, white Europeans are good immigrants, brown and black are bad. Stepford wives are acceptable, enlightened women, bad. Birthright resistance is a cover for bigotry.
We have always had an issue with the lifetime appointments of the Justices and in this case they the are”justices “. Six of our SCOTUS justices have been either bought by the rich or chosen because they could be corrupted.
Per Senator Whitehouse, we should have term limits & enforceable SCOTUS ethical rules.
Abe Fortas was pressured to resign for far less than the corruption that Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and possibly Kavanaugh, have committed. SCOTUS justices serve during periods of good behavior. Those three should told to resign or face impeachment, removal and trial. To reject the plain text of the Constitution is not good behavior in addition to their corruption.
Extremely good point, especially given that the Anglo-American legal system is based on the idea that either the courts decide cases, based on precedent and on interpreting the Constitution or other statute law, or else elected representatives (Congress) can adopt legislation to regulate an area that comes up in the courts and for which there is no positive law (statutes) yet. So technically, what Justice Kavanaugh says is at a basic level true of all situations, namely, that if there is a gap or ambiguity in the Constitution, they can enact legislation to cover it. With the proviso of course that the statute is not deemed by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional (power of judicial review). So what I would like to hear is whether the reasoning offered by Justice Kavanaugh here goes further than this principle? Is he implying that if Congress did pass a law restricting birthright citizenship, SCOTUS would accept it as constitutional, or is that another page, depending on how such a statute would be worded?
!!!!
The role of the SC is to interpret the Constitution.
There are many different interpretation theories (originalism, for instance). Obama, as a law professor, adhered to the theory that says that Justices need to interpret the Constitution in a way that is compatible with what the majority of citizens want.
"Unitary Executive theory" (another name for neofascism) however believes that democracy has been a mistake and a failure and fascism should take over. Once this is what you believe, you'll interpret the Constitution in such a way that the installation of fascism is approved by the SC.
Constitutions are just papers. The result is only as good as "we the people" are.
I think SC justices can be impeached, if I am not mistaken. That's the process, but not happening in this climate. Better solution is term limits for scotus. At least limit the impact any bloc can have to balance the scales. And we have to have some sort of enforceable ethics clause covering their behavior. The crap that thomas and alito have gotten away with is unforgivable.
Heather spoke of Supreme Court Justice impeachment on her 6/30/2026 political chat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmTSj9l9azo
thank you.
AMEN
Is Kavanaugh saying that laws passed by Congress no longer have to accord with the constitution? If so, then he is basically saying that the Supreme Court has no meaningful function as a co-equal branch of government other than to rubber stamp whatever laws are passed (or that they agree with).
Very eloquently put.
Then by “I like beer”’s thinking, the Congress can write the Supreme Court out of existence or at the very least impose term limits, age limits, IRS investigations, etc etc etc.
What he's referring to is precisely the role of the court. Typically, justices prefer to resolve cases in the narrowest way possible. And one of the most common ways is to look for a statutory explanation rather than a constitutional one. By doing so, they defer to the democratic process, because laws can be changed by the popular will. So the outliers were the other justices, not Kavanaugh.
''The Constitution, Now Available in Executive Order Flavor''
President Donald Trump apparently looked at the Fourteenth Amendment, saw the words “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” and thought, “Interesting draft, but have we tried vibes?” So on January 20, 2025, he signed an executive order attempting to cancel birthright citizenship, because nothing says constitutional originalism like pretending the Constitution has a comments section.
The problem, as usual, was the Constitution itself, that persistent little document MAGA reveres right up until it says something inconvenient. Birthright citizenship was not a clerical error. It was forged after the Civil War because former Confederates were determined to invent second-class citizenship for Black Americans and anyone else they could shove outside the circle of equality. The Fourteenth Amendment answered with elegant bluntness: born here, citizen here.
Naturally, Trump’s order came wrapped in patriotic packaging, the political equivalent of selling arson as “historic fireplace restoration.” It targeted children, asylum seekers, immigrant families, and the entire idea that citizenship belongs to law, not bloodline panic. The Supreme Court had already settled this in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but why respect 126 years of law when a partisan legal theory with a microphone has feelings?
The courts slapped the order down because, shockingly, presidents cannot edit constitutional amendments like typo-ridden social media posts. Even Judge John Coughenour, appointed by Ronald Reagan, called the order “blatantly unconstitutional,” which is legal language for “please stop making me explain grade-school civics.”
The real punchline is that the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship 6 to 3, which means three justices looked at “All persons” and started hunting for an asterisk. That is not just alarming. It is a reminder that democracy survives only when the public refuses to let billionaires, bigots, and career flatterers turn citizenship into a gated community.
The oath of office is to “protect and uphold the constitution.”
His campaign promise was to “attack and undo the constitution.”
The narrow margin of victory in the Supreme Court is so alarming.
OK HCR Subscribers, with the arrival of Tonight's LFAA we have revived yet another "Best Ever" letter from Professor Richardson although her Letter could have been an amicus, Friend of the Court brief on behalf of defendant 'Barbara' who has prevailed on behalf of all citizens of the United States.
Not being a legal scholar, (or a scholar at all for that matter,) it would seem the Supreme Court just documented that if you are born in America, you are a citizen of America.
Since abortion rights were ended when the same court and president said "life begins at conception" so abortions can no longer be performed as it is tantamount to killing. Are "birthright citizens" actually "conception right citizens"?
Is the unintended consequence of rescinding abortion rights.... making "life" begin at conception apply to birthright citizenship as well?
So, if you are conceived in the US you are from the US?
Mr Trump continuously "Fixes things that don't need fixing, and can't fix what is broken or what he broke ?" This is just another example.
Roe v Wade was just fine as it was, Hormuz was open, and had no tolls or mines, the reflecting pool wasn't a petri dish of algae, energy came from every available source, legislation was bipartisan agreement, presidents were public servants, science seeks truths...need I go on?
I look at birthright citizenship as being correct as written, and un necessary to review, as I thought Roe V Wade was also unnecessary to review, as it was the law of the land.
Trumps diversions and deceptions are strictly intended to keep him top of the fold while he steals freedom and funds from us all.
I agree but wonder why nobody thought of the consequences of overturning birthright citizenship. For instance my maternal grandfather was born in the US of non-citizen parents, so according to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle none of his descendants would be citizens if he wasn't. And actually as things stand I'd be OK with being deported to his country of origin. But I am sure most others would not be.
The problem is that most of our 'countries of origin' will not take us. Sweden only takes the first generation. I'm second. As far as they are concerned I am not Swedish. But according to Trump I would not be American. I guess they dump us all in the DRC with the Afghan families we promised protect if they helped us?
I agree although the original reason for the amendment is no longer valid. I am not supportive of the amendment but I recognize that it is absolute law and must be honored until and if it is abolished. It was enacted to protect Afrocentric peoples. Today, it is frequently abused as anchor babies and you might disagree but this is my understanding. Thank you.
This is a maga talking point, Bill.
Mary, I don’t care if it’s a MAGA talking point. It’s my opinion long before there was MAGA. Stay in your regiment and you will be fine.
Bill, you seem to have missed “…To remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing “[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right[s] in every State and Territory in the United States.”
The bill specifically does not limit to whom it refers.
And you fully missed my points. I stated emphatically that it’s the law until it’s not the law and I recognize it as such. I also state that it’s unnecessary today.
Needed now more than ever as Defendant Barbara understood vividly.
Concur.
I am not a crowd joiner. I think for myself.
That’s fine. But your opinion happens to be the same as a MAGA talking point.
Listen up, I’m so against some things that I should have went screaming into the arms of MAGA years ago but for some reason, I haven’t. Now, at I finish my coffee?
Recommend thinking in full historical context.
Full discourse: I am a CA lawyer, an ACLU member. an ACLU donor, a ABA Member & the person who filed a verified complaint with California Attorney General ROB BONTAS to preserve Voting early, Voting-by-Mail in CA all under express CA legal authority.
But, you do NOT have to be an attorney file such a verified complaint, Any person can file such a complaint with the CA AG but, under Oath. I have filed Declarations under Oath under penalty of perjury in over a 1000 cases in state & Federal courts in my legal career.
ACLU — Isn’t that the group that keeps arguing against having cameras at street intersections because it diminishes our god-given privacy while crash’s are killing and smashing down utility poles everywhere and being totally oblivious to the fact that we have all lost our privacy at the dawn of the computer age. Don’t worry, I usually support them.
And I argued pro sa (say… whatever) in superior court early this year and won my case against an attorney representing my city. I assembled more facts than she had. I walked out of court that day and immediately headed to a bar and bought myself a martini. And realized that I missed one of my callings as an attorney.
Do you have actual data to back up that claim, Bill Katz or is it just “your feeling”?
I have a direct link to the gods of Hades and they tell me everything. How’s dat.
To your question; I read. There are countless cases of women visiting the US just in time to give birth often wealthy Asians. And besides, I just don’t believe in the birthright concept. You seem to be hardwired to believe in it because you were told to believe in it all your life. Also, while I’m not at all against controlled immigration, I am against population expansion and I always have been both for the country as well as Mother Earth. Express your opinions as I am expressing mine. I’ll be redundant and say the original reason for the birthright amendment no longer exists.
Mr Katz, a problem with opposing birthright citizenship is that we are all "wandering Arameans" to use a term from Deuteronomy. It is a confession the farmer should make when offering the "first fruits" of the harvest. The farmer should say, "my father was a wandering Aramean," to reinforce humility and an other-oriented posture so as not to become focused on ourselves, given to hoarding for ourselves, concerned only with our own wealth or power. We give our "first fruits" (a traditional tithe) for the sake of the poor... because we, too, are wanderers on this Earth.
Ho boy… let me express a little tidbit. The human population in of our lifespans has more than doubled since the 1960s often academic discussions of population growth also stated in book for as “population explosion.” We are now at around 8 billion when we were once at around 3 billion. So please tell me, enlighten me, when does it end? At 10, 20 30 billion humans. How about we just round things off at 100 billion. I have a pollinator garden in the front of my house and I’m now sipping my coffee waiting for the monarch butterflies to pass by for a bite to eat but I just don’t see any these days. Ah, but maybe they too are self eliminating to make room for more humans that need more of everything.
Bill, the population problem is big but it's not connected very well to birthright citizenship. I have a pollinator garden in the front yard, too, and sit out on the front steps at twilight to watch the fireflies. I've seen Monarchs this year but our best Monarch food isn't yet blooming: Tithonia and sunflowers. Best wishes for your garden!
My father was a wandering German. Sorry. And if you are correct, we have enough "wandering Arameans" here already.
Bill. Buy a lottery ticket. I agree with you.
Go to heck.
You must have been "carefully taught".
" ... no longer valid"? I dissent.
We are a common law legal system country going back going back many centuries.
'Follow' Professor Richardson's practice grasshoppers & understand current events in full & complete historical context exactly as tonight's LFAA.
About 33 countries offer unrestricted birthright mainly on account of countries emerging from the colonial past wanting to increase population.33 out of how many nations? Another 30 offer conditional citizenship. However, my argument is that we are no longer trying to increase population we are no long sending slaves back to Africa. Oppsie… I may have spoken to liberally on that part. And just because Richardson professes a belief doesn’t make it sacrosanct. I have a right to my opinions. Or do you want to remove my rights as well.
Of course we are trying to increase population. We need workers. The right simply deems only one color as preferable.
Do t worry. There will soon be a robot cleaning your hotel room soon.
Overruled. “We are a common law system…” and that has nothing to do with the argument of whether or not birthright is necessary just because a woman gives birth in this country. How many nationals allow for birthright? Do you have an answer, counselor?”
You mean “nations”? From AI “35 countries have birthright citizenship… 30 to 40 more offer conditional citizenship based on parental residency or background.”
Dang auto correct.
There is no such thing as "over ruling" common law. It is a gigantic body of law over a 1000 years old.
Judges not attorneys instruct juries on the law. FYI, we inherited the jury system as a major component of the common law refined in legal detail by statutes & binding case law.
As long as those five remain healthy, this issue is safely decided, but that four justices are willing to let the president rewrite the Constitution has to give us pause.
When a promise is dependent on this Supreme Roberts Cult, no promise exists
As a first-generation Ukrainian American, this one felt deeply personal. It’s easy to talk about constitutional principles in the abstract, but for many families those principles become part of our own story.
The role of the SC is to interpret the Constitution. As soon as you believe in neofascism (which the GOP calls "unitary executive theory"), you believe that the executive branch of government should have all the power and not be accountable to anyone - not even the people, since they try to destroy real elections.
Then you'll interpret the Constitution in such a way that it allows for this to happen in the US.
What this shows is how Constitutions are just documents. They're worthless if we don't create a democratic society of citizens who are well-informed and actively support democracy. Whether it's blatantly ignoring the Constitution, as the Nazis did, or interpreting it in such a way that it is entirely compatible with neofascism (even though it includes the explicit separation of the three branches of government, rather than "uniting" the legislative and judicial branches into the executive branch, as fascism does), as Kavanaugh does, the result is the same: through elections, a democracy full of politically illiterate people can easily vote fascists into power and then be destroyed from the inside.
The argument against birthright citizenship makes sense. Although it is motivated by racism.
The "promise" was so clear that it inspired 100+ pages of dissent. One suspects that for many people here the only dissenting opinions that warrant value are those by Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson. New flash! All dissents are written by serious people with many highly intelligent law clerks assisting. True, emotional dissents carry less weight (which is why the justices don't pay much attention to Jackson), but they mean that, contrary to constitutional scholar Klymenko -- issues aren't the "clearest."
History matters. Constitutional principles don't exist in a vacuum—they carry the memory of why they were written in the first place.
Which is one of the reasons this Dr. Richardson's Substack is so useful, as well as interesting.
A pity, then, so many of us so stubbornly refuse to recognize the Trumpstein purpose is nothing less than the destruction of our nation -- and following that, the eradication of every humanitarian advancement our species has ever made. We are as truly at war now as we were on 15 March 1941, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared the Lend-Lease Policy. (This is a powerful speech, eerily relevant today; with thanks to MC for providing full text to bypass the less-than-perfect audio.) https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-15-1941-lend-lease
History rarely gives us perfect analogies, but it does remind us how important constitutional principles become during periods of political stress.
The nation, our nation that we see being destroyed, is not the same nation that they see as under threat from all their bogeymen and scapegoats. It's a function of different people taking away different understandings from a common, shared experience.
"What do you make of that?" is a question that begins the exploration of the differences, based on INDIVIDUAL experiences and understanding, that may be constructed from said common experience.
It's not just Trump, the mindless circus barker. It's the behind-the-scenes Republican Party "planners" who have articulated a methodology to completely abort what the United States is all about. It's about redesigning our country into an oligarch's playground.
Good news that the activist judges did not overturn the 14th. But not only should it not have been this close, the case should have died in the cradle. IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS MUCH OXYGEN.
Racism is always the pretext for dictatorship.
Always, has worked so take for another spin
Yep...
ICYMI: (1) Ben Winkler was the Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair in 2025 who used grassroots organizing to elect Susan Crawford to the Wisconsin Supreme Court despite the massive (>$20 million) donation of Elon Musk to her opponent. He ran for national DNC Chair but was narrowly defeated by Ken Martin, an apparent master of crony politics, backroom dealing, special interests and the status quo (see his interview on Pod Save America where he looked like Pam Bondi responding at a Congressional hearing on the Epstein files). Ken Martin notoriously paid a crony to do an analysis of the Democratic Party’s errors in the 2024 election. When the report wasn’t released for about a year, there was a public outcry and a jumbled document that looked like a 3rd grader’s scratch pad was presented as the “report” (just five months before the election in November). Of course all the establishment cronies defended it (nothing to see here). Simon Rosenberg went on Hopium and spent over an hour apologizing for and minimizing the incompetence demonstrated by the behavior. Amazingly but not unexpectedly he condemned the local grassroots organizers and recommended they should just rely on the Washington beltway experts in the DNC, DCCC, etc. because they “know best how to win elections”. The folly of this is seen in the recent primary elections where grassroots candidates won defeating establishment super-PAC funded candidates that the DNC, DCCC, Chuck Schumer, etc. ran against them. Fortunately Ben Winkler wrote an OpEd in the NYT: “NYTimes.com: My State Was a ‘Democracy Desert.’ This Is How We Turned It Around.”. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/opinion/trump-democracy-plan.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.o5Kv.EfNZUE4vQ7Iu&smid=em-share (there is an app on the article that will read it to you)
(2) How do we make our political donor dollars count? Jess Craven author of the political action blog “Chop Wood, Carry Water” interviewed Brian Derrick, political strategist, activist, and tech founder of Oath.vote, a one-stop shop for informed political donation. Oath is a political advising platform that empowers Democratic donors to maximize their impact. They provide guidance and tools that identify the most critical races in need of support to eliminate wasteful spending and they protect donors from spam. They protect your personal information (it is not traded or sold to other fund raising organizations) and they do not deduct a fee from your donation. (You can give a “tip” to support them if you wish.)
Our democracy is at risk and most of us aren’t billionaires. We need our scarce resources going to where they will have the greatest impact if we are going to take back our republic from corporations, oligarchs, special interests (Crypto, AI tech bros, AIPAC, foreign interests, etc.), corrupt politicians, fascist dictators, etc.. Oath.vote appears to do this: https://chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions.substack.com/p/how-do-we-make-our-political-donor?r=1d2cea&utm_medium=ios
(3) Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, interviews Lisa Graves, a lawyer (J.D. degree from Cornell Law School). She is one of the nation’s foremost experts in exposing how special interests distort public policy and try to thwart the public’s interest in a thriving democracy and healthy planet. And see her recent book: “Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights”. They discuss the recent 6/29/26 SCOTUS Slaughter case decision concerning the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) that gives Trump the power to fire any government agency employee at will. They view it as an attack on expertise which Trump will replace with cronyism/nepotism and corruption and they discuss what it will take to reverse this.
(4) ON GOING CORRUPTION
(a) The latest Trump major corruption scandal: “NYTimes.com: Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit.”. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/28/world/europe/trump-lutnick-sons-kazakhstan.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.wD_i.lWpYH6sqCu2W&smid=em-share (the article has an app that will read it out loud)}
(b) Heather has a spectacular discussion of current governmental corruption in her “American Conversations” interview of University of Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade about the criminality of the Trump administration and her new book “The Fix: Saving America from the Corruption of Mob-Style Government”: The interview is: “Barbara McQuade | American Conversations - YouTube”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ5_n4mTTa8 Professor McQuade draws on her prosecutorial experience, analogies to “The Godfather” and the Hungarian Revolution to explain the corruption of the Trump Administration and how to overcome it.
(5) Ruth Ben-Ghiat is an internationally known and respected authority on authoritarianism, Professor of History and Italian Studies at NYU, author of “Strongmen”. At her podcast, Lucid, 6/31/26 she gives a brief summary of “Ruth Ben-Ghiat on how the SCOTUS partners in enabling authoritarianism”. https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-partner-in-authoritarian?r=1d2cea&utm_medium=ios She discusses the recent SCOTUS Slaughter decision and how Supreme Court Justices like Clarence Thomas have been corrupted by ultra right wing extremists.
Fred, thank you for putting all this together, for those of us who are having more and more difficulty getting our heads around the never-ending fecal stream coming from the regime.
Well done, Fred! Thanks for putting all these important links together in one place. Just to be nitpicky, Ben's last name is spelled Wikler.
Morning, Lynell! Fred's post is indeed a gem!
Thank you, Fred, for expending your time and effort to gather and share this information!
Thank you for taking the time to post all this! Invaluable information.
Thank you, Fred.
How shocking and deplorable that we live in a time when a clearly stated constitutional provision would be hotly debated and actually receive several SCOTUS votes to not abide by it. Shame on those partisan judges that so dishonor our Constitution!
There are going to be endless arguments about what that abysmally poorly-drafted and sclerotic document means until you people sit down and re-write it in modern English.
“Now that [the Supreme Court] has opened the floodgates for foreign invaders to flock across our borders and spawn…”
Fish spawn. Animals spawn.
First step in war is to de-humanize the enemy. It’s easier to kill them that way. The Nazis made Jews “subhumans” before they rounded them up and gassed them. In WW II, we fought the “japs” and the “krauts”, and later, the “godless commies” in Korea and Vietnam.
The GOP has be come the New American Nazi Party (NANP). Don’t think for one minute that many of them aren’t capable of doing what the German Nazi Party did eight decades ago.
This also jumped out at me, Ralph, the word “spawn". The far-right ignoramuses continually use animalistic descriptors for non-whites, and purposefully so. Notice, too, that the same person calls anyone who disagrees with the MAGA platform of hate, “lesbians.” These people are not very imaginative. They can’t actually attack democratic policies on the basis of any thoughtful analysis; it’s always the bullying, the dehumanizing, the insults. Pitiful.
When I read the word 'spawn' s miller's face popped up in my mind. I doubt he knows what spawn means.
They hinted at first, then moved to Ministry of Propaganda tactics, now repub party orthodoxy
They are currently doing what the Nazis did 8 decades ago by building concentration camps.
🇺🇸 Morgan J Freeman (04/06/26)
🩸🩸🩸 I'm going to post this video every day so we never forget what the 34x POS convicted felon who incites political violence, adjudicated rapist & pedophile Trump did on J6 🩸🩸🩸
https://substack.com/@mjfree/note/c-249402186?r=kxzps&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Thank you Morgan
"The reason everything feels so broken right now is because it is" -- Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama today on MS-NOW 'Deadline Whitehouse.'
Today, we got the Supreme Court to acknowledge that the 14th Amendment really does confirm birthright citizenship, just the way it says it does and was intended from its inception and later challenge a century ago. Woo-hoo. As Heather and others note, this case should never even have come to the Supreme Court to begin with. And 3 out of the 9 Justices don't even acknowledge the obvious, binding, black-and-white requirements of the Constitution and its amendments. That's the true exclamation point of yesterday's ruling.
But the real kicker after this "victory" — the removal of the last bit of limits and restraint on campaign financing, something only the highest echelons of the Republican Party wanted, nobody else. Nobody else has ever called for "more" money in our election campaigns. It's a ruling meant to benefit one JD Wanker — a man bereft of brains, contemptuous of history, hypocrite and phony-for-hire, completely out of his depth in every way a person could be. Nothing else but money could get him elected in 2028, not charm, not personality, not smarts, not his phony, made-for-tee-vee Catholicism. So prepare yourselves for buckets and buckets of new dark money to infect the country's politics — just in time for the midterms.
Most readers here don’t donate to the DCC or the DSC, sniffing their noses at how they think the DNC behaved in the past. In so doing, they bypass the organizational arm of the Democratic Party at the moment of its greatest need, turning elections into their own personal boutique shopping experience. Has anybody noticed that our coffers are currently empty? Yet, as literally everybody knows, money speaks, and big money speaks bigly, even more so after today. Without an infusion of cash, good candidates will turn into irrelevant candidates quicker than you can say 'full algal bloom,' especially given a gerrymandered House.
Despite what anyone says, political parties -- not individuals -- remain the backbone of a healthy democracy. Weak parties do not win elections. Majorities, not personalities, determine who controls a legislative chamber. Pause and consider what happens between now and November.
I am one who stopped donating to DNC. They are anemic and somehow leaders are chosen for something besides gumption. I am less able to donate than before so I pick races and people. Sorry but Dems need a trillionaire or two. My $15 can’t save them.
"Most readers here don’t donate to the DCC or the DSC, sniffing their noses at how they think the DNC behaved in the past.
I think you're right about this. But it's not just "boutique shopping." The DNC's problem is not so much what they have done or not done in the past. The past is past. But there's no indication that the present DNC is capable of doing any better. If anything, they're just doubling down on a failed strategy. DNC doesn't appear to have learned from its past failures. Money is tight and getting tighter. So DSC and DCC suffer from DNC's failures. Fix DNC and DCC and DSC will benefit. Don't fix it and November's blue tsunami will dwindle to a blue trickle. I'm not optimistic.
I think the money decision is appalling -- we need big money out of politics, not more of it in politics -- the long-term ramifications of this will be awful. First Amendment basis -- my Aunt Fanny (as my Mother would say!).
I take your Mom's favorite and turn it into a shaming vulgarity: "My fat @$$"
Are we like the labor unions? Our greatest defense may well be to literally go on STRIKE! How much comfort are we willing to sacrifice?
Oath.vote is where I would be donating - recommend by Jessica Craven at Chop Wood, Carry Water.
#shorts - Senator Warren is actively investigating and calling out the DoD's expanding partnerships with private equity. *CONTACT YOUR SENATORS - Urge them to support anti-price gouging measures like the Price Gouging Prevention Act or the Stop Wall Street Looting Act*
https://substack.com/@senatorwarren/note/c-280946145?r=kxzps&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
She is actively pushing back against military contractors—many backed by Wall Street—that charge exorbitant prices for routine replacement parts (such as a $4,361 charge for a half-inch metal pin that costs $46)
Senator Warren, along with lawmakers like Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Ro Khanna, has pressed the DoD regarding its growing reliance on PE-backed defense contractors. They cited significant risks to taxpayers, opaque ownership structures that pose national security threats, and a track record of bankruptcies.
Who to Contact: Reach out directly to your local Representative and both of your state’s Senators. If they sit on the House or Senate Armed Services Committees, their oversight influence is even stronger. Also the Government Accountability Office (GAO FraudNet) accepts allegations of the mismanagement of federal funds and routes them to congressional investigators.
"...pushing back against military contractors—many backed by Wall Street—that charge exorbitant prices for routine replacement parts (such as a $4,361 charge for a half-inch metal pin that costs $46)".
This is the sort of activity that Epstein's crimes were supporting. The sexual abuse of minors was a sideshow. It did (still does?) provide leverage to keep filthy rich criminals involved in military procurement in with the in group that makes tons of money on war and aggression. The worst of it may be the sale of backdoor software (search "PROMIS") that may have been how Israel gained atomic weapons. It was Ghislaine Maxwell's dad that pulled that off.
For more background see: https://alisav.substack.com/
And we're at the beginning of a Revolution in Military Affairs that may well blindside the contractor fat cats. I'm not sure if either party is in a position to do what needs to be done regarding the DoD (I refuse to call it DoW) budget. I think we need more and better drones, fast, and fewer floating targets. I wonder if the Gerald Ford is this generation's Repulse/Prince of Wales, although the Ford was forced from the theater by internal failures (Thanks, cronies) rather than hostile action. And Desert Storm ain't happenin' again.
The Roberts Court is helping Trump destroy our country one unprecedented and awful decision after another.
Still can’t believe that this was in front of the Supreme Court. Glad that our Constitution was upheld. Yet the disappointment is palpable that the decision wasn’t unanimous.
Out of the three in dissent. What’s astounding is that Thomas fails to recall that his descendants were West Africans who were enslaved and he misses the whole point of the 14th Amendment.
Then there’s Alito. That had all four of his grandparents who immigrated to the United States from southern Italy. That his mother was born in this nation making her a citizen.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, reaffirming the right to birthright 14th Amendment. —
“Of course, the ultimate irony is that for all the talk about the detestable Dred Scott decision, the Government and the principal dissent propose a return to its core tenet. Their bottom line is that, for certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship. It is that odious conclusion that the Citizenship Clause plainly rejects, as the Court explains. Ante, at 26. I add only that the Fourteenth Amendment's universalist aims should forever be the death knell for this kind of claim—one that seeks to make bloodline the marker of birthright. The America that was reborn from the rubble of the Civil War simply does not countenance that inequitable result.
Thankfully, a majority of the Court remembered this today, and has dutifully preserved the most basic animating principle of our Nation's founding-that all human beings are created equal-once more.”
All human beings are created equal but don’t make me sit next to them or acknowledge their existence. Even adding “under the law” is an affront to my existence. So say the magats
Kiss upwards, kick downwards
In unrelated news, polling closed on the Colorado primary Tuesday at 7 pm, and the results started coming in. It's another BLUE WAVE in Colorado! Repubs got shellacked.
See: https://coloradosun.com/colorado-election-results-2026/
So glad that Phil Weiser beat Michael Bennet in the governor’s race here in Colorado. Weiser is the real deal.
Democracy comes with responsibilities. It’s just that uncomplicated.
Absolutely right. But trumpty-dumpty and his cultists want none of that.
They defaulted with Nixon.
Yes they did... That was the point they went morally bankrupt.
Who IS responsible, if not us?
Beyond the expected betrayal of members of the SCOTUS in spitting on the Constitution, I know I should not be newly shocked each time at the base depravity of these MAGA podcasters such as Matt Walsh further dehumanizing the children of immigrants as "spawn" and then doubling down (actually pretty hilariously) on the "lesbian activists" who will be screeching about militarizing the border, etc. Maybe we should be flattered that it is the lesbian activists who will be out there screeching? I think the Bulwark said it best - this decision is nice in the same way that DJT not pulling out a gun and shooting someone with impunity in broad daylight on a major New York street is nice.
This diatribe from Matt Walsh is as disgusting as he is and just one more reason why a woman would be a lesbian activist in the first place.
Well said
Good analogy.
The putrid, vile, un-America racism and xenophobia that festers in this regime was on FULL DISPLAY today with post-decision social media posts from POTUS and his deputy Miller, to disgust us all...
They never disappoint and “social” media is never social
Especially Truth Social, which knows no truth.
Yes. That is a real oxymoron.
I have never used the puke and poop 💩🤮 emojis as much as I have with this administration.
Professor Richardson -- Thanks for summarizing the background, significance, and impact of today's court ruling. To what extent has Brett Kavanaugh's objection opened a Pandora's box, allowing Congress to attempt to overturn the "clear terms of the Constitution"?
You knew he picked up the phone at that moment and barked an order Mark.