Corruption Is All Fun and Games Until It Threatens to Tank the Economy

/24 Comments/in , , /by

WSJ has a follow-up to the story Reuters published a week ago, on November 5 (which I wrote about here). The Reuters piece described that FHFA’s Inspector General had been fired as he was preparing to share information relevant to EDVA’s cases — so Letitia James — and also Congress.

The ouster of Joe Allen, FHFA’s acting inspector general, follows the agency’s director, Bill Pulte, becoming an outspoken voice in support of the Trump administration. Across the government, the Trump administration has so far fired or reassigned close to two dozen agency watchdogs, who police waste, fraud and abuse. It has also defunded the group that supervises those offices.

[snip]

Allen received notice of his termination from the White House after he made efforts to provide key information to prosecutors in that office, according to four sources. The information he turned over was constitutionally required, two of them said, while a third described it as being potentially relevant in discovery.

His ouster also came about as he was preparing to send a letter to Congress notifying lawmakers that the FHFA was not cooperating with the inspector general’s office, three of the sources said.

WSJ describes that Allen was investigating whether Bill Pulte ordered people to snoop in Trump’s adversaries’ records. It also confirms that Allen did share that information with EDVA (it doesn’t mention whether Allen had succeeded in sending off any letter to Congress).

Fannie Mae watchdogs who were removed from their jobs had been probing if Trump appointee Bill Pulte had improperly obtained mortgage records of key Democratic officials, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, according to people familiar with the matter.

Fannie’s ethics and investigations group had received internal complaints alleging senior officials had improperly directed staff to access the mortgage documents of James and others, according to the people. The Fannie investigators were probing to find out who had made the orders, whether Pulte had the authority to seek the documents and whether or not they had followed proper procedure, the people said.

That group elevated the probe about the James documents to the more senior Office of Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that Pulte heads, the people said. The acting inspector general then passed the report to the U.S. attorney’s office in eastern Virginia, some of the people said.

[snip]

The FHFA acting inspector general sent the office the report at least in part because it could be considered material information for James’s defense in the case, one of the people said.

The very days this all happened, on November 4, the Loaner AUSA in the James case, Roger Keller, filed a notice saying DOJ was not going to comply with Judge Jamar Walker’s order to turn over vindictive and selective prosecution evidence, specifically pointing to the carve out in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for “reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents” made by “other government agents in connection with the investigation,” language that would cover any FHFA reports into Bill Pulte’s corruption.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 does not require the Government to produce vindictive/selective prosecution-related evidence before a defendant files such a motion. The Rule permits a defendant to discover evidence material to her defense, FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(1)(C), but “defense” means the “defense against the Government’s case in chief, . . . not to the preparation of selective prosecution claims.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462 (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(1)(C))(emphasis added). FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(2) underscores the limitation to “defense” as it “exempts from defense inspection ‘reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by the attorney for the government or other government agents in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.’” Id. (quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(2)). “If a selective-prosecution claim is a ‘defense,’ Rule 16(a)(1)(C) gives the defendant the right to examine Government work product in every prosecution except his own.” Id. [my emphasis]

James did mention the earlier Reuters report in her vindictive and selective prosecution motion, submitted last Friday.

The retribution campaign against AG James had only just begun. Around the same time, another federal agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), led by Director William Pulte, was also looking for dirt to use against AG James. By April 14, they had concocted it. Mr. Pulte delivered a criminal referral “[b]ased on media reports” to DOJ against AG James, claiming she had “in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.” Ex. F at 1. The criminal referral cherry-picked documents to claim fraud over three properties—one even going back to 1983—none of which was the Peronne Property at issue in the indictment.16 The referral asked DOJ to open a criminal investigation into AG James. See Ex. F at 1. Mr. Pulte also coordinated with Edward Martin—the self-described “captain” of DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group who is President Trump’s close confidante and would later also be named a Special Attorney.17

16 Mr. Pulte’s conduct demonstrates how far allies of the President would go to carry out his “get James” orders. Public reports indicate that Mr. Pulte “skipped over his agency’s inspector general when making criminal referrals” against President Trump’s political enemies. Reports also indicate he may have bypassed ethics rules in doing so. Marisa Taylor & Chris Prentice, Exclusive: Trump official bypassed ethics rules in criminal referrals of Fed governor and other foes, sources say, Reuters (Oct. 6, 2025), https://perma.cc/HK6Y-LJVR. The FHFA has no generalized crimefighting or anti-fraud authority. It does not even have an express authority to make criminal referrals besides those granted to the FHFA’s Inspector General under the Inspector General Act of 1978. In addition to violations of the act itself, Mr. Pulte may have failed to comply with the FHFA’s own Privacy Act regulations, which require FHFA to “ensure” that records containing personally identifiable information are “protected from public view.” Domenic Powell, Are Pulte’s “Mortgage Fraud” Investigations Legal?, Yale J. Reg.: Notice and Comment (Nov. 1, 2025), https://perma.cc/2U6G-S46X.

17 Alan Feuer et al., Trump Demands That Bondi Move ‘Now’ to Prosecute Foes, N.Y. Times (Sept. 20, 2025), https://perma.cc/FC9R-U8TK. [link added]

This story may provide opportunity to submit a follow-up (or at least revisit the issue in a reply memo due in two weeks).

By then, of course, we may have more visibility into who got Allen fired, and whether simply the referral to Lindsey Halligan did the trick.

Particularly if Allen did succeed in getting that letter sent to Congress.

All this is happening at a curious time. First, just yesterday Politico claimed someone in Trump’s immediate orbit was furious at the way Pulte sold Trump on an insanely stupid 50-year mortgage plan.

White House officials are furious with Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director, who talked the president into suggesting a 50-year mortgage plan.

The White House was blindsided by the idea, according to two people familiar with the situation granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, and is now dealing with a furious backlash from conservative allies, business leaders and lawmakers.

On Saturday evening, Pulte arrived at President Donald Trump’s Palm Beach Golf Club with a roughly 3-by-5 posterboard in hand. A graphic of former President Franklin Roosevelt appeared below “30-year mortgage” and one of Trump below “50-year mortgage.” The headline was “Great American Presidents.”

Roughly 10 minutes later, Trump posted the image to Truth Social, according to one of the people familiar, who was with the president at the time.

Almost immediately, aides were fielding angry phone calls from those who thought the idea – which would endorse a 50 year payback period for a mortgage – was both bad politics and bad policy, a move that could raise housing costs in the long run, the person said.

After describing fury about how Pulte did this — hitting Trump up with visuals at the golf club — Politico spends 11 paragraphs describing a range of people panning the idea before describing the last time Pulte did this: when pitching a plan to bring Fannie and Freddie public, another insanely stupid idea.

“Anything that goes before POTUS needs to be vetted,” said the person present for Pulte’s poster presentation. “And a lot of times with Pulte they’re not. He just goes straight up to POTUS.”

[11 ¶¶ of influencers and experts panning the idea]

This is not the first time Pulte’s policy proposals have caused headaches. He was also behind the idea Trump floated earlier this year to take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public, which also resulted in significant pushback from industry.

Which brings us to the very last paragraph of the WSJ story, a story mostly focused on Pulte’s investigation-related corruption. It suggests Pulte’s corruption may make it harder to bring Fannie and Freddie public, that prior idea he floated by cornering Trump with unvetted ideas.

The Trump administration is considering an initial public offering for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, one of the biggest IPOs in history at a crucial moment for the mortgage market. That process will require convincing potential investors, and the broader mortgage-bond market, the management of the companies is stable.

As I read both James’ and Comey’s motions to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, there’s part of me that selfishly wants this process to be one step harder than it needs to be: rather than simply dismissing on the abundant evidence of vindictive prosecution laid out (or, even more likely, because Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer is only playacting as US Attorney, about which there is a hearing tomorrow), I want them to get discovery so we can unpack all this process and bring down the corrupt enablers like Pulte, Eagle Ed Martin, on up to Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche.

Still, there’s something that may force this to go even more public than it otherwise would: Lisa Cook, into whose private records Pulte was likely also snooping, who will have a hearing about whether Trump attempted to fire her “for cause,” or because Pulte snooped in her private records looking for cause.

Corruption is all fun and games until it gets fast-tracked to SCOTUS (where, admittedly, Justices have been all too happy to legalize corruption). It’s all fun and games, Trump’s team seems to believe, until it poses a risk to the housing market.

For whatever reason, Bill Pulte seems to be getting fast-tracked in Trump world, from a useful corrupt flunky to a dangerous liability.

Share this entry

Three Ways You Can Tell Trump Is Lying about Tariff Rebates

/30 Comments/in , /by

Trump is lying about his tariffs again (or rather, still), in fact telling similar lies that he did in a letter that backfired before SCOTUS, because he boasted about how much revenue he was making.

But, perhaps because people are just tuning in, they’re treating Trump’s false claims as if they’re somehow less false than every other thing he says.

First, Trump promised he’d give all the non-rich $2000 rebates from his unlawful tariffs.

Then, he claimed there’d still be money leftover after he had sent people “free” money.

Then, he accused Democrats of making numbers up.

Then, he said it would create a national security crisis if the Supreme Court made him give back money he raised unlawfully.

But there are three ways you can tell Trump is just as full of shit as he always is.

First, because because Kevin Hassett invoked the Laffer Curve when trying to claim we could afford it.

Next, because — as Dean Baker laid out — the numbers don’t add up.

Doing the simple arithmetic, the country has 340 million people. If 10 percent of these people fit Trump’s definition of high-income, and therefore don’t get the rebate, roughly 300 million people would get the checks.

At $2,000 a piece it would come to $600 billion, more than twice what Trump is collecting from us with his import taxes. Since he’s already $330 billion short, how can Trump think he has money to pay down the national debt? Also, he seems not to know that our deficit this year is projected to be $1.8 trillion, so he is actually adding considerably to the debt and would be adding even more with his $600 billion tariff “rebate.”

Most importantly — the the likely reason he’s telling these particular lies right now — because when Trump got a stay from the first ruling that his tariffs were illegal, he promised to pay the tariffs back, at least for the plaintiffs, even while insisting it could not replace the revenue raised from the tariffs.

And a stay would not harm plaintiffs, who can be made whole through a refund, including interest, if tariffs paid during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful.

[snip]

And, absent a stay, the government will receive reduced revenue that it will be unable to recoup if the tariffs are ultimately upheld—another irreparable harm. See Department of Educ. v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966, 968-969 (2025) (per curiam).

2. Conversely, a stay would not cognizably harm plaintiffs. If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any postjudgment interest that accrues. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 2017 WL 65421, at *5 (C.I.T. Jan. 5, 2017) (“there is virtually no risk to Plaintiff that it would not be made whole should it prevail”). The balance of harms is not close.

Trump’s advisors have told him he’s going to lose at SCOTUS on this. And like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he’s trying to claim (simultaenously) that the cookies have already been eaten, but here, would you like some? in an effort to stave off an order to give the cookies back.

You could already tell in last week’s hearing that the Justices are struggling with the prospect of making Trump pay the money back.

JUSTICE BARRETT: And then if you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess? I mean, you’re saying before the government promised reimbursement. And — and now you’re saying, you know, well, that’s rich, but how would this work? It seems to me like it could be a mess.

MR. KATYAL: So the first thing I would say is that just underscores how major a question this is, the very fact that you are dealing with this with quotas, there’s no refund process of — to the tunes of billions of dollars or embargoes, but there is here. But for our case, the way it would work is, in this case the government’s stipulated for the five plaintiffs that they would get their refunds. So for us that’s how it would work.

Your question, I take it, is about everyone else. We don’t have a class action or anything like that.

With respect to everyone else, there’s a whole specialized body of trade law. And 19 U.S.C. 1514 outlines all these administrative procedures. It’s a very complicated thing. There’s got to be an administrative protest. There was a Harbor Management case earlier that this Court was involved with in United States Shoe in which, you know, the refund process took a long time. There were any number of claims and equitable relief and —

JUSTICE BARRETT: So a mess.

MR. KATYAL: So it’s difficult, absolutely

JUSTICE BARRETT: Okay.

MR. KATYAL: We don’t — we don’t deny that it’s difficult, but I think what this Court has said in — in — in the McKesson case in 1990, a serious economic dislocation isn’t a reason to do something.

Northern Pipeline, you guys stayed your decision for a while in order to let the congressional process unfold. There may be a congressional process here as well.

You know, your — you know, you may be able to also — be that this Court could limit its decision to prospective relief under the John Q. Hammons case. There’s lots of possibilities.

Neal Katyal, in a rush to ensure that the payback question doesn’t given the Justices cause to make a really bad decision, quickly offered a bunch of terrible options for all the other people who’ve been paying Trump’s illegal taxes because Judges didn’t impose a stay. Trump may think the mere prospect of paying the money back might yet persuade his captive court to rule for him.

But more likely, Trump is just applying political pressure — on the Justices, with false claims about what the real numbers are, on his mob, in hopes they’ll provide another kind of pressure if denied money he claims is free but which in reality they’ve actually already paid out of pock themselves — to avoid being ordered to pay the money back to everyone.

If and when SCOTUS rules against Trump on the tariff issue, it will be a very significant loss, the first time right and left joined together to force Trump to stop doing something unlawful.

But if SCOTUS rules Trump has to pay the money back, to everyone, it will create the kind of fiscal challenge that could turn his current political woes into a crisis, not least because right wing members of Congress have been treating this tariff revenue as “free” money they could point to to pretend they were addressing the deficit.

And that’s why Trump is ranting about tariffs.

Not because he wants to give out “free” — in reality, unlawfully seized money that American consumers already paid — money. But because he doesn’t want to pay any consequences for his unlawful actions.

And he definitely wants to avoid the default reality: that Trump will be forced to pay back importers, but consumers will get nothing.

Share this entry

The Anti-Democracy Project Of John Roberts

/53 Comments/in /by

Trump v. CASA Inc., decided June 27, continues the personal project of John Roberts to enhance the power of the executive at the expense of the other two branches of government. It continues the work of Trump v. United States,  where Roberts gave Trump almost unlimited power to ignore Congress as he sees fit. It follows his weakening of statutes he doesn’t like, his refusal to allow Biden to exercise the authority given him by Congress, as in the student loan case, Biden v. Nebraska, and many other cases.

This post will show how these cases weaken the legislature and the judiciary while strengthening the President. That is profoundly anti-democratic.

Trump v. United States

Here’s a reasonably fair summary of Trump v. United States, which I offer because I refuse to pretend to be neutral about it and don’t seem to be able to make myself read it again anyway.  Read the real thing if you can; it’s a breath-taking demonstration of judicial hubris, based on the ridiculous idea that these six rogues can create a rule for the ages, and the even dumber idea that what this nation really needs is a “vigorous” president, unafraid to push against the boundaries of the law as set by the legislature and judicial precedent.

Trump v. CASA Inc.

This case is a government request for relief from nationwide injunctions barring enforcement of the obviously unconstitutional Trump executive order denying birthright citizenship to a large number of babies born here, causing untold damage to them and their families and inflicting untold costs on the states.

The Dissent filed by Ketanji Brown Jackson gives a clear picture of the case.

It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution— please allow this.

Snip

To hear the majority tell it, this suit raises a mind-numbingly technical query: Are universal injunctions “sufficiently ‘analogous’ to the relief issued ‘by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act’” to fall within the equitable authority Congress granted federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789? Ante, at 6. But that legalese is a smokescreen. It obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?

Speaking for the anti-democratic majority, Amy Coney Barrett says no. The courts cannot order the Executive to follow the law unless that is necessary to provide complete relief to the parties to the litigation. Her “reasoning” is that the Judiciary Act doesn’t allow a court to give relief to a non-party. Why? Because such relief would not have been allowed under the English Common Law.

Art. III, §1 of the Constitution provides in part as follows:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Barrett says that the judicial power of the United States is limited to the powers of the English High Court of Chancery in 1789. That’s absurd. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court held that it had the final say on Constitutional questions. That is not true under English law, and certainly not for Courts of Chancery.

Barrett cites Marbury once;

See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it).

The Wikipedia entry explains that the Court in Marbury first held that the Judiciary Act gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases of mandamus. That was greater than the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court granted in Article III. Therefore that section of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional, and was struck down. Marbury specifically holds that mandamus would be appropriate, but that it would have to proceed through a trial court. Does that sound like Barrett’s citation? No it does not.

Under Barrett’s holding, it is not clear exactly how the judicial branch is to act as a check on the executive branch. There is some discussion about class actions and other techniques. But there is no certainty. Perhaps the decisive factor is this:

Finally, the Government must show a likelihood that it will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. When a federal court enters a universal injunction against the Government, it “improper[ly] intru[des]” on “a coordinate branch of the Government” and prevents the Government from enforcing its policies against nonparties. That is enough to justify interim relief. Cite omitted.

In other words, the only harm that matters on injunctive relief is the government’s. The damage to everyone else, to every person in the same position as the named parties, is irrelevant. The damage done to the rule of law by allowing a patently unconstitutional and immoral harm is irrelevant.

Comparing Trump v. CASA Inc. and Trump v. United States

1. In both cases, SCOTUS ignores the facts of the case. The indictment in Trump v. United States said that Trump conspired to overturn an election, and laid out substantial factual allegations to support the claim. Roberts natters on about core powers and such, ignoring the fact that there are no circumstances in which overturning an election is a core executive anything.

In CASA, Barrett ignores the damage Trump and his henchmen do by imposing a blatantly unconstitutional policy on non-parties.

2 In both cases SCOTUS imposes an outcome that favors one political party. In Trump v. United States the decision favors Trump. There is no reasonable observer who thinks this would have been the outcome if that indictment had been charged against a Democrat.

In CASA, Barrett says that Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh had previously raised questions about nationwide injunctions, including those levied against the Biden administration. Either she or Roberts or both could have joined with those four to deal with the problem in any of the cases raised by Biden. But no. Then, suddenly, a few weeks after Trump’s second term begins, they both decide this is an important Constitutional issue that must be totally resolved in favor of Trump and the Republicans.

3. In both cases, the power of the coordinate branches of government is weakened. In Trump v. United States, Roberts strangled the power of Congress to control the actions of the President. The holding makes it clear that Trump is entitled to do whatever he wants with the powers given him by law, and can only be held accountable under highly limited circumstance, to be determined later by him and his crew.

The decision also weakened the power of the judiciary to check the executive branch. It gave no guidance to lower courts or prosecutors. It sets itself up as the arbiter, a role it can easily duck. It insures vast delays in any effort to enforce the law against a criminal president.

The opinion in In CASA weakens the power of the judiciary to check the actions of a lawless executive branch, this time directly. It also weakened the power of Congress. Existing laws can only be enforced piecemeal against a lawless president.

In both cases, the power of the President is exalted above all other considerations.

The attack on democracy

Both cases should be seen as part of a decades-long attack on democracy. The legislature is the most democratic branch. It is closest to the citizenry, even given the undemocratic makeup of the Senate. Reducing the power of Congress reduces the influence of voters. By weakening the judiciary, the anti-democratic forces insure that the actions of a lawless executive cannot be controlled.

These aren’t the only attacks by SCOTUS though. The Voting Rights Act was expressly intended to improve our democracy. Roberts struck it down, finding that there is an implicit statute of limitations in the Reconstruction Amendments.

The recent invention of the so-called major questions doctrine weakens the power of the legislature to deal with emergencies. The attacks by SCOTUS on the administrative state are designed to increase the power of the president despite the explicit intent of Congress. Does anyone think Congress would have empowered Trump to decide on the toxicity of lead or the value of specific vaccines? Does anyone think letting Trump direct prosecutions and criminal investigations is a reasonable thing to do?

It’s not just that Roberts and his gang refuse to protect our rights. They actively help Trump destroy our rights.

Share this entry

Open Thread: End of 2024-2025 Term, The Last Decisions

/100 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

We are finally at the end of this torturous SCOTUS term with six decisions expected today.

The most important in my opinion is Trump v. CASA, regarding the reach of a lower court order with regard to Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship.

Today’s decisions follow below and will be added to this post as released; any shadow docket decisions released today will follow in an update at the bottom of this post.

~ ~ ~

Trump v. CASA Inc. — Justice Barrett wrote the 6-3 decision, with the court breaking along ideological lines. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent for her, Kagan, and Jackson; Jackson also wrote a dissent.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

This case centered on district court decisions in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington blocking enforcement of Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship to persons born in the US depending on the status of their parents’ citizenship. SCOTUS in essence said district courts can only write orders narrowed to the case though birthright citizenship has been recognized since the passage of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management — Justice Kavanaugh delivered this 6-3 decision; Thomas wrote the dissent which Alito and Gorsuch joined.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf

This case arose from right-wing Christianist attacks on preventative health care under ACA like PrEP intended to prevent HIV infection; they claimed it infringed on their religious rights “by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.” (Never mind any first responders who might be on PrEP to protect themselves from incidental exposure.) The attack focused on the Appointment Clause attempting to sever the relationship between subordinate officers empaneled by HHS and policy execution; the case has had enormous repercussions affecting other preventative care under ACA.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research — Justice Kagan has the 6-3 decision; Gorsuch filed the dissent which Thomas and Alito joined.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf

summary TK

Mahmoud v. Taylor— Justice Alito wrote the 6-3 decision; Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed the dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson.

See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

summary TK

Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton — Justice Thomas has the 6-3 decision; Justice Kagan filed a dissent joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf

summary TK – though I must add RTFN:

Held: H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of
adults. Pp. 5–36.

Fuck any Free Speech rights minors may have, or the school district’s rights to determine PUBLIC SCHOOL curriculum because of right-wing Christianist freaks.

Louisiana v. Callais — This case was rescheduled for re-argument. Justice Thomas disagrees with this rescheduling and issued a dissent documenting his rationale.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-109_l53m.pdf

summary TK

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic — This case appears to have been pushed out to next week.

summary TK

I assume we’ll get any shadow docket cases next week as well, but I could be wrong; the last decisions weren’t all released today after all and I thought incorrectly they would be.

Share this entry

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions, End of Term Ahead

/26 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

This is the last week of the 2024-2025 term for the Supreme Court. SCOTUS is expected to release multiple decisions at least twice this week; what follows is the first batch.

As mentioned last week, the big decision we are waiting for with the end of this term is Trump v. CASA Inc. regarding nationwide injunctions blocking executive orders, in this particular case related to birthright citizenship.

Decisions released (these summaries from Marcy — Rayne is busy):

Hewitt v. US: 5-4 Jackson decision upholds First Step Act sentencing.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood: 6-3 Republican opinion rules that private plaintiffs can’t enforce Medicaid provision.

Guttierrez v. Saenz: 6-3 Sotomayor opinion, fascists in dissent, rules for death row inmate on DNA testing procedures.

Riley v. Bondi: 5-4 Alito ruling narrowing review in immigration case.

All remaining opinions will be released tomorrow.

 

Share this entry

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions, Friday Edition

/35 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

We’re still in the end-of-term desk clearing zone at the Supreme Court. SCOTUS released a whopping six decisions today.

Decisions released:

FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
Justice Barrett lead the 7-2 decision.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1187_olp1.pdf

Esteras v. United States
Justice Barrett also lead this 7-2 decision with Justice Alito and Gorsuch dissenting.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-7483_6k4c.pdf

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the 6-3 decision.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1226_1a72.pdf

Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency
Surprisingly, Justice Kavanaugh wrote this 7-2 decision and not Thomas who wrote Wednesday’s two decisions related to the EPA.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-7_8m58.pdf

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida
Justice Gorsuch lead this 7-2 decision, although concurrence and dissent are a bit of a mish-mash:

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BARRETT, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to Parts III and IV, except for n. 12.

See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-997_6579.pdf — you might want to read this one closely as it pertains to disability rights and nearly all of us at some point in our lives has been employed and been/will be disabled.

Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-20_f2bh.pdf

Of these six decisions I note that Justice Kagan wrote one dissent joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in the matter of McLaughlin Chiropractic. She’s otherwise joined the conservatives. Hmm.

In my opinion, the big decision we are waiting for with the end of the term is Trump v. CASA Inc. regarding nationwide injunctions blocking executive orders, in this particular case related to birthright citizenship.

That this decision has not already been released disturbs me; it feels like Roberts is holding it off until SCOTUS can make a clean getaway at the very end of the term next week. But is Roberts preparing to flee the wrath of Trump and his Wormtongue Miller, or the wrath of the people?

Share this entry

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions

/49 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

It’s desk clearing time at the Supreme Court with the end of its annual term looming ahead. SCOTUS will dump a bunch of decisions in a short time frame beginning today.

Decisions released today:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has 6-3 decision. See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1300_b97c.pdf
With this decision SCOTUS overturned the Fifth Circuit which had vacated a license granted to a private waste handler that wanted to build a nuclear waste facility in Texas, permitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This decision is contrary to Texas state law but hinged on challenge by a nonparty.

Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining
Justice Clarence Thomas has the decision. See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1229_c0ne.pdf
summary to follow

Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency
Justice Clarence Thomas has the decision. See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1067_6j36.pdf
summary to follow

United States v. Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee, et al.
Chief Justice John Roberts has the decision. See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf
This is revolting, allowing Tennessee to continue to undermine bodily autonomy of a small group of persons because they weren’t born into a false binary. The decision upholds the state of Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors because of wretched twistiness regarding “sex” versus “gender” identity.

Updates will follow as summaries are completed and additional information becomes available.

Share this entry

Harvie Wilkinson Tries To Salvage Trump v. US

/55 Comments/in , /by

Every bad thing that has happened during this lawless administration can be traced to the execrable decision of John Roberts and the Trump Clique in Trump v. US. That certainly includes the rendition of Kilmar Albrego Garcia to a notorious prison in El Salvador; he’s been moved to another prison there. Trump and his henchmen believe that they can lever that decision to justify their outrageous goals. Step one: claim there’s an emergency. Step two: issue a proclamation. Step Three: everything is now just the energetic, vigorous executive dealing with the emergency.

In this case, the “emergency” is the invasion of the US by gangs from Venezuela under the control of an evil dictator. Step two is the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. Step three is the sudden rendition of several hundred people to foreign prisons, denial of due process required by the Constitution and laws of the US, demands that the Department of Justice defend the action without regard to ethical obligations of all lawyers, and refusal to comply with Court orders. Albrego Garcia isn’t a member of the evil gang but so what? Mistakes happen when you’re being vigorous and energetic.

When Roberts and the Trump Clique saved Trump from accountability in Trump v. US, they never imagined that he might turn on them and on the judiciary so ferociously that the wimp Roberts was forced to issue a limp statement defending the rule of law and the judiciary.

Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit is trying to show Roberts his error. In his order slapping down the government’s attempt to avoid accountability for its illegal abduction of Abrego Garcia. Wilkinson writes:

“Energy in the [E]xecutive” is much to be respected. FEDERALIST NO. 70, at 423 (1789) (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). It can rescue government from its lassitude and recalibrate imbalances too long left unexamined. The knowledge that executive energy is a perishable quality understandably breeds impatience with the courts. Courts, in turn, are frequently attuned to caution and are often uneasy with the Executive Branch’s breakneck pace.

And the differences do not end there. The Executive is inherently focused upon ends; the Judiciary much more so upon means. Ends are bestowed on the Executive by electoral outcomes. Means are entrusted to all of government, but most especially to the Judiciary by the Constitution itself.

For Wilkinson this is prelude to a discussion of the need for respect between the executive and the judiciary, for which he makes an extraordinary plea.

The reference to Federalist No. 70 is a polite call-back to Trump v. US:

The Framers “sought to encourage energetic, vigorous, decisive, and speedy execution of the laws by placing in the hands of a single, constitutionally indispensable, individual the ultimate authority that, in respect to the other branches, the Constitution divides among many.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 712 (1997) (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). They “deemed an energetic executive essential to ‘the protection of the community against foreign attacks,’ ‘the steady administration of the laws,’ ‘the protection of property,’ and ‘the security of liberty.’ ” Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 223–224 (quoting The Federalist No. 70, p. 471 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton)). The purpose of a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive, they thought, was to ensure “good government,” for a “feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government.” Id., at 471–472.

Roberts, whether out of naiveté or ideological fervor, in substance removed the possibility of judicial control over egregious violations of law. Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the minority, pointed to the mendacity of Roberts’ citation of Federalist No. 70:

The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines ,,, all the requisites to energy,” Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Library ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” Ibid. The answer after today is no.

Reading Wilkinson in this light shows how he is telling Roberts and the Trump Clique they screwed up and must remedy that by asserting the requirement that energy be restrained and explaining how that restraint is to be enforced. In her dissent in Trump v. US, Ketanji Brown Jackson explains what the idiot majority missed:

Here, I will highlight just two observations about the results … . First, the Court has unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress. Second, the majority … undermines the constraints of the law as a deterrent for future Presidents who might otherwise abuse their power, to the detriment of us all.

Wilkinson agrees with Jackson at least on the first point. The executive is focused on ends, he says, while the judiciary is focused on means to the end. He says means are set by all three branches of government. He thinks the judiciary is primarily responsible for insuring that the executive is limited to the means provided by law, which leads him to put the judiciary first. But he implicitly acknowledges the role of the legislature in setting  allowable means through laws. This too follows from both Federalist Nos. 70 and 77, which emphasize the power of the people acting through popularly elected legislatures as the protector of the safety of the people from tyrants.

Others have pointed out that Wilkinson is a conservative, and a respected jurist. His opinion should be read as a direct challenge from Roberts’ own ideological team to the foolish decision in Trump v. US. With the astonishing action of SCOTUS in the wee hours today, that message may be starting to sink in for some members of the Trump Clique.

 

Share this entry

Chuck Grassley Says the FBI Must Combat Sexual Misconduct But the Senate Can Whitewash It

/11 Comments/in , , /by

In a piece billed as “analysis” describing why Kash Patel likely faces little Republican opposition, the NYT’s Catie Edmondson chose to quote one after another Republican making false claims about bias from the Bureau:

  • Thom Tillis falsely claiming Patel’s nomination fulfilled Trump’s promise to “enforce our laws equally and fairly”
  • Chuck Grassley lying that the “unprecedented raid of President Trump’s home in Florida” was “to serve a warrant for records” and not conduct a search necessitated by Trump’s earlier obstruction
  • Joni Ernst imagining that Kash’s nomination would “create much-needed transparency at the F.B.I”
  • John Cornyn asserting that “no one should have to go through what President Trump went through by a partisan Department of Justice and F.B.I.,” which he falsely portrayed as a retribution tour launched by Jim Comey
  • Markwayne Mullin imagining that Kash might “actually get them focused on mission, rather than politics”

What the NYT describes but does not factually label is that most of the Republican party either parrots or truly believes Donald Trump’s manufactured claims of victimhood. But unless you describe that those claims that poor Donald Trump has been targeted are false, then you simply participate in the propaganda, blindly performing the same ritual of obeisance the Republican Senators are.

NYT quotes, but does not link, the letter in which Grassley issued his rant. Fact checking the letter (sent the day before Chris Wray announced he would resign, as Grassley demanded) might have provided a way to demonstrate the pile of false claims on which this impression of the FBI was built.

Oh sure, this particular journalist might not have had time to point out that on December 10, Alexander Smirnov answered any questions about the bribery claim he made up against Joe Biden by signing a plea deal (which the NYT wrote up yesterday, but buried), which Grassley complained about this way:

Consistent with that FBI failure, yet another glaring example of FBI’s broken promises under your leadership is its inexcusable failure to investigate bribery allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden, while strictly scrutinizing former President Trump. You’ve repeatedly claimed you would ensure the FBI does justice, “free of fear, favor, or partisan influence.”25 The FBI under your watch, however, had possession of incriminating information against President Biden for three years until I exposed the existence of the record outlining those allegations, but did nothing to investigate it.26 This record, known as an FD-1023, documented allegations of bribery between and among then-Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden, and Ukrainian officials.27 The FBI confidential human source (CHS) behind this FD-1023 was on the FBI’s payroll during the Obama administration, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, was given permission to violate the law, and the information he provided was used in prosecutions. The FBI called this CHS “highly credible,” and Deputy Director Abbate publicly testified in response to the FBI’s refusal to remove obstructive redactions from that document that “[w]e often redact documents to protect sources and methods…the document was redacted to protect the source as everyone knows, and this is a question of life and death, potentially.” 28 Then after the FD-1023 was made public – which didn’t include the source’s name – DOJ not only publicly named him, but indicted him, calling into question the truthfulness of Deputy Director Abbate’s testimony and his refusal to be transparent.29 Still, to-date, the DOJ and FBI have neither answered whether they investigated the substance of the FD-1023, nor have they provided an explanation for any effort undertaken to obtain the financial records and other pieces of evidence referenced within the document. This sounds a lot like Director Comey’s leadership of the FBI, which was nothing short of shameful.

As I noted on the Senate floor on February 27, 2024, if a highly regarded source had alleged President Trump accepted a bribe, the FBI would pursue this information without keeping it stored away in one of its dusty closets for three years.30

Even before Smirnov’s plea agreement, though, there was plenty in the indictment (like reference to all the travel records that disprove Smirnov’s claims) that not just debunk Grassley’s claims, but make clear that the scandal here was that Scott Brady falsely insinuated to Congress that Smirnov’s travel records corroborated his claims, when they did the opposite.

There’s a far, far bigger problem though: Grassley’s claims about how FBI would respond to a claim of bribery if one implicated Trump are ridiculous.

When FBI (in reality, the decisions here were repeatedly made by DOJ, not FBI, which returning SJC Chair Grassley should be expected to know) got credible claims Trump had been paid by Egyptian spooks, first Robert Mueller (probably Rod Rosenstein), then Bill Barr prevented investigators from obtaining the financial records to pursue the case, a version of which story NYT published in August.

There’s the tip that — the NYT described — the Italians gave Barr and John Durham in 2019 about “suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump,” a detail Durham chose to exclude from his final report.

There’s the $2 billion investment that Saudis made with Jared Kushner after Trump’s son-in-law finished his nepotistic service in the White House; as the NYT laid out, even the Saudis had doubts that Kushner had the expertise to invest that money. A NYT follow-up showed that Kushner’s firm has pocketed $112 million in fees without showing any profit from investments. Democrats have called for a Special Counsel to investigate that, but the Special Counsel-happy Merrick Garland has not done so.

And since the election, a Chinese national whom the SEC has accused of fraud, Justin Sun, effectively just sent Donald Trump $18 million (here’s a less direct NYT story on the how cryptocurrency creates real opportunity for corruption). Where’s your call for fairness, Chuck?

But there were alternative ways to debunk Grassley’s lies other than pointing to the six NYT stories that disproved his claims that FBI ignored a bribery allegation about Biden but chased them with Trump. Consider his most justified complaint, the one with which he begins his rant: The FBI has not explained whether it has pursued allegations of sexual misconduct within its own ranks fairly.

One of the most egregious examples is the FBI’s failure to provide basic information I requested more than two years ago related to the FBI’s ongoing mishandling of sexual harassment claims made by the FBI’s female employees. This request was not pulled out of a hat. It was based on credible whistleblower disclosures alleging hundreds of FBI employees had retired or resigned to avoid accountability for sexual misconduct. 5 Whistleblowers also alleged the FBI had disciplined senior officials less severely than their subordinates for this misconduct.6 In November 2022, I released internal FBI documents corroborating these disclosures.7 I and my staff ever since have asked repeatedly for information sufficient to determine how FBI handled these serious claims and how widespread the problem really is. The FBI, for its part, told the media it would provide the information to me.8 You personally told me at a December 5, 2023, Judiciary Committee hearing, when I confronted you with the FBI’s blatant inaction, that you would check with your team and then follow up with me.9 Your Deputy Director, Paul Abbate, also publicly stated the FBI is serious about removing officials for sexual misconduct. 10 After a year since you made that pledge, over three years since Deputy Director Abbate’s public comments, and after many more requests to FBI to provide this information, neither of you have followed up or followed through. This inexcusable delay and obstruction by you and Deputy Director Abbate has prevented Congress and the Judiciary Committee from addressing the shocking sexual misconduct at the FBI. This is a promise made and broken, on an issue of utmost importance.

Chuck Grassley says FBI’s failure to deal with credible claims of sexual misconduct is “an issue of utmost importance.”

Huh.

Grassley has not yet weighed in on the nominations of Pete Hegseth, Linda McMahon, or Kimberly Guilfoyle — all of whom have been implicated in sexual harassment or assault, but his comments about RFK Jr thus far have focused on, “educating him about agriculture,” rather than the assault of a nanny RFK admitted to. Other Senators, though, have suggested that Hegseth’s accusers should not enjoy the same protections that Grassley has fiercely defended for FBI whistleblowers, and have brushed off how Hegseth’s accuser could testify publicly given the nondisclosure agreement he paid her to sign.

More curiously, when he was asked about the sexual misconduct allegations against Matt Gaetz, Grassley falsely claimed his committee, “did a very thorough job following up on every accusation made against (Supreme Court) Justice Kavanaugh and nothing ever materialized.” Grassley said that after Sheldon Whitehouse issued a report showing that the FBI had forwarded all tips to the White House, rather than chasing them down.

On instructions from the White House, the FBI did not investigate thousands of tips that came in through the FBI’s tip line. Instead, all tips related to Kavanaugh were forwarded to the White House without investigation. If anything, the White House may have used the tip line to steer FBI investigators away from derogatory or damaging information.

Whitehouse’s report describing the whitewash FBI did quotes now-debunked claims Grassley made about the thoroughness of the investigation several times.

“These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations.”

[snip]

Then-Chairman Grassley said that the FBI “decided” which individuals to contact,98 that the FBI’s investigation was being conducted “in accordance with the agency’s standard operating procedures,” that “the career public servants and professionals at the FBI know what they’re doing and how best to conduct a background investigation,” and that the FBI’s investigation “should be carried out independent of political or partisan considerations.”

If you want to talk about FBI’s inadequate response to sexual misconduct allegations, then surely its whitewash of allegations against Brett Kavanaugh should be included? Want to complain about the FBI? Complain about how they deprived you, Chuck Grassley, of treating misconduct claims against Brett Kavanaugh as “an issue of utmost importance.”

But doing so would expose Grassley’s crass double standard, refusing to exercise the same due diligence with sexual misconduct allegations that, he complains, the FBI has not done in his own job, exercising advice and consent with Donald Trump’s nominees.

Share this entry
none

Conclusion To Series On Rights

/5 Comments/in , , /by

 

Posts in this series

Conclusion to How Rights Went Wrong

In the last half of Jamal Greene’s book he gives us his explanation of a better way forward, and applies it to several controversial issues, including abortion and discrimination. Greene thinks that courts, especially SCOTUS, spend too much time on their made-up rules about about rights, instead of the rights themselves. He thinks all applicable rights claims have to be considered in rendering decisions and establishing remedies.

The Rodriguez case discussed in the last post is a good example. Kids are going to school with bats, but nothing can be done because of court-created rules designed to limit the reach of the Reconstruction Amendments. I think Greene is right about this.

I think that there are two problems underlying our current judicial approach that prevent Green’s ideas from being effectuated. First, immediately after the enactment of the Reconstruction Amendments SCOTUS limited their reach. The purported reason was preservation of federalism, as we see in The Slaughterhouse Cases. But that doesn’t explain the ferocity with which the Court attacked individual rights and especially Congressional action up to the 1930s, and then after a short respite, returned to the attack beginning in the Reagan era and continuing to the present.

This, I think, reflects a deep skepticism of democracy, whether in claims of individual rights against governments, or in concerted political action through the legislature. It seems SCOTUS has little respect for rights claims of ordinary people regardless of whether the rights arise through legislation or under the Constitution.

The judicial branch has always been a bastion of the privileged elites, who mostly like things the way they are. Powerful commercial interests are heavily over-represented, and have always been. Lewis Powell, the author of Rodriguez, is an example.

The second issue, I think, is the general unwillingness of the judicial system to make rulings requiring other branches to enforce. As an example consider Holmes’ 1902 decision in Giles v. Harris, discussed by Greene. Giles, a Black man, had been registered to vote in Alabama for years. The Alabama Constitution was changed to allow local election registrars to deny registration to people who lacked good character. Giles was not allowed to register under the new system. Ovrall, registration of Black men drooped to nearly zero. There is no doubt that this was a violation of the 15th Amendment. Holmes refused to do anything. One of his reasons was that “…the sheer scale of the conspiracy Giles was alleging exceeded the Court’s power to remedy it.” P. 49.

Courts have always been concerned about their ability to enforce their decrees, and rightly so. But that’s not an excuse for simply refusing to enforce rights. Courts are really good at collecting money. Creative use of this power is a great solution to weakness.

For example, in the Rodriguez case Powell could have given the school district a money judgment large enough to construct a new school, one less friendly to bats, and awarded further monetary damages necessary to bring the school’s textbooks up to date and deal with other issues. He could have imposed costs and attorney’s fees on the school district, and awarded the plaintiffs monetary damages for the injuries they suffered by going to school with bats and ripped up out-of-date textbooks. That would open the door to other under-funded schools in Texas to sue the State and local districts to equalize things. The legislature eventually would have been forced change the funding arrangement.

A third issue, most pornounced in the current panel of SCOTUS, is its effort to justify its decisions by newly created doctrines. The so-called Major Questions Doctrine is an example. This was apparently created for the purpose of thwarting government efforts to remedy serious emergencies pursuant to express legislative action. Another example is the absurd result in US v. Trump, where the loons expressly denied that they were looking at the facts of the actual case:  Trump’s efforts to overthrow an election. Instead they insisted they had to make a rule for the ages.

This is preposterous because the right-wingers on the Court don’t have a problem throwing out cases and rules they don’t like.

There are many better ways forward, including Greene’s. But so what? All Republicans including those on SCOTUS are incorrigible. We can’t even get the current crop of geriatric Democrats to hold a hearing on the corruption we all know exists in the judicial system, ranging from the ethics violations of right-wing SCOTUS members to the scandalous judge-shopping of the creepy right wing, to the overtly political decisions of the District and Circuit Court in Fifth Circuit. The fact is that only sustained aggressive demands will ever change anything.

Conclusion To The Conclusion

In this series I’ve discussed three texts: The Evolution Of Agency by Michael Tomasello; Chapter 9 of The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt; and Greene’s thoughtful book.

Tomasello provided a look at the way we humans evolved. I think it hints at how we came to think about rights. He speculates that the earliest ancestors of humans were weaker, slower, more fragile, and had less sensitive eyes, ears and noses than their competitors. They survived by being more cooperative, more attuned to their group, more sensitive to the desires and emotions of individuals in the group. This increased receptiveness to others was the genesis and result of increasing brain size. The larger brain changed the bodies of women to enable birth babies with larger heads. That led to complications of birth. Dealing with those complications required more social cooperation. The longer dependency of the young also increased the demands of cooperation. These changes increased over time and eventually we became human. For a similar view, I recommend Eve by Cat Bohannon, which discusses evolution from the perspective of the female body and mind.

The importance of cooperation in this story leads me to speculate that rights are a way of maintaining individuality among creatures who are tightly bound for the sake of survival.

The Arendt selection says that rights are mutually guaranteed by equal citizens in a society. It also says that rights don’t matter unless there is some way to enforce and protect them. These are her conclusions about the last 200 years, not the earlier millenia.

Greene’s book tells us the story of our national attempt to insure our rights through the legislature and the judiciary, and the sad results.

I think everything we know and essentially all we think and think we know comes from other humans. That includes our rights. Some of us talk about natural rights, some about constitutional rights, some about human rights, some about God-given rights, but all of that comes from other humans and our own interpretations of their thinking. We draw from religions, philosophy, novels, catechisms, preachers, practical experience, our own emotions and sensitivities, laws, each other, our parents and teachers, our colleagues and our children.

But it’s always just us humans, trying to survive as individuals and as members of a group.

So I conclude with a question: how do you discuss questions of rights with people who believe that they possess the absolute unvarying truth?

 

 

 

Share this entry