Our condolences to football fans in Germany and The Netherlands. Tough, tough losses, both of them.

Trump Goes 1-5 with Supreme Court on Monday

The Supreme Court released its rulings in four cases yesterday, and declined to hear two others. Donald Trump got one big win, and five smaller losses.

We'll start with the win, which came in Trump v. Slaughter, with the decision breaking 6-3 along the usual ideological lines, and with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. One of the most important cases in Supreme Court history, at least until yesterday, was Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). In that decision, which was unanimous, the Hughes Court held that Congress is allowed to create independent executive agencies, and if Congress chooses to do so, the president may only remove the president-appointed, Senate-confirmed officials that lead those agencies for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

When it comes to Humphrey, Roberts has had a bug in his bonnet for more than 40 years. In 1983, when he was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed lawyer in the Reagan White House, he wrote a memo pooh-poohing the idea that independent agencies are constitutional. Slaughter finally offered Roberts and his five conservative colleagues the opportunity to strike, and strike they did. Yesterday's ruling says that the commissioners of (most) independent agencies do indeed serve at the pleasure of the president, and so can be fired by him. Per Roberts, "Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people." Because if there is one phrase that describes Donald Trump, it's "accountable to the people." Especially the people who are "Dumocrats," to use his word.

Trump, of course, was delighted by the late birthday gift, and got on his social-media-platform-for-the-shortsighted to gloat:

To show the importance of the Slaughter Case, 90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Trump does not care, and the six conservatives on the Supreme Court apparently don't care, but this will obviously result in "independent" agencies that are run in partisan fashion. One has to assume that, for example, Trump is about to pack the Federal Elections Commission with Republicans, and probably the Federal Communications Commission, as well. It is worrisome to think about the harm that might be done in the short term. But, of course, the shoe will be on the other foot someday, and then we will see what an all-Democratic Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will do.

Meanwhile, according to SCOTUS, there is one independent agency that is still independent, and that is the Federal Reserve. The second decision of the day, and Trump's first setback, came in Trump v. Cook. By a vote of 5-4, with Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberals, and Roberts writing for the majority, the Court said that Fed governor Lisa Cook, who Trump tried to fire, can remain on the job while her case plays out.

The basis of Cook's case is that fed governors can only be fired for cause, and Trump failed to demonstrate any cause before terminating her. That would seem to be a dead argument, given the Court's ruling in Slaughter, but Roberts stands on his head to explain why the Federal Reserve is different from other independent agencies. His argument boils down to two things. First, that in the legislation creating the Fed, Congress very clearly intended that agency to be independent from politics. How Roberts can tell that the legislature really meant it in this case, and not with the other agencies explicitly described as "independent" in their enabling legislation, he did not explain.

Roberts' second argument is that it's always been the position of the government that fiscal policy must be insulated from politics; a position that pre-dates the Fed, and goes all the way back to the two Banks of the United States. This is true, and is even sensible. However, it's also a red herring. The reason that there is no 19th century history of the FCC being independent is that there was no broadcasting in the 19th century, and therefore no need for an FCC. The same basic dynamic holds for nearly all independent federal agencies, and it's rather disingenuous to claim that an agency can only be independent if people alive at the same time as George Washington happened to see a need for it. It's also not too hard to notice that Roberts and his colleagues are not too likely to be affected by limits on gas-powered cars (FERC) or a labor dispute (NLRB), but the justices' stock portfolios could take a beating if Trump stocks the Fed with a bunch of pliant lackeys.

Trump has made remaking the Fed a centerpiece of his agenda. He thinks that if the governors answer to him, then he'll be able to implement lower interest rates (good for real estate developers like... Donald Trump), or he'll be able to get rid of inflation by fiat (though he has no idea how), or both. However, this project has been an epic failure for the President. He did not get the right to fire governors, and he probably won't be able to get rid of Cook. Jerome Powell is hanging around, at least for now, and may linger until a Democratic Senate is seated, in either 2026 or 2028. Even the new, Trump-appointed Fed Chair Kevin Warsh has been acting like an independent governor and not a Trump stooge.

Moving on to the third decision from yesterday, Watson v. Republican National Committee was decided 5-4, with Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals in the majority, and Barrett writing the opinion. The case was triggered by a Mississippi law that allows ballots, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day, to be accepted up to 4 days later. The argument made by the RNC was that Congress sets the date of Election Day, and states are not allowed to develop their own "interpretation" of that date. The five justices in the majority decided that states are responsible for running elections, and are entitled to accept cast-on-time-but-received-late ballots.

In the short-term, this is a loss for Donald Trump, who did much grumbling about the decision, and a win for Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) in particular, who did some crowing. In the medium-term, this is also a loss for Trump, since much of his carping about the midterms, not to mention the bulk of the SAVE Act, involves the federal government assuming the election-running responsibilities of the states. In the longer-term, however, Republicans may end up praising the Watson ruling, while Democrats may end up regretting it. That is because SCOTUS agreed yesterday to hear Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, which addresses whether states can refuse to register voters who do not provide proof of citizenship. Given that yesterday's ruling was based on the proposition that states have wide latitude to decide how to run elections, and given the makeup of this Court, the RNC figures to win that one.

Finally, the fourth decision yesterday was in Chatrie v. United States. The vote was 6-3, with Roberts, Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch joining with the three liberals, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority. The question here was whether a government subpoena for cell phone location data (in this case, to determine whether a person was near a bank before it was robbed) constitutes a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes. The majority ruled that it does indeed constitute a search, which means that the courts must then determine if such searches were reasonable. Put another way, if the cops have good reason to think you robbed a bank, and they use cell phone data to supplement their case, that's probably OK. But if the cell phone data is just a fishing expedition, then that's not OK.

Chatrie is nowhere near as big a deal as the other three decisions. However, it did make libertarians very happy.

Of course, we can't forget the two cases the Court declined to hear. Alan Dershowitz had much to say during and after Donald Trump's first impeachment trial. CNN reported on Dershowitz's comments, and he felt their reporting was inaccurate, and so sued for defamation. The problem, which the Court briefly (and unsignedly) reminded Dersh of yesterday, is that if you are a public figure, there has to be actual malice behind the incorrect reporting. So, his suit is dead. While this is not directly a loss for Trump, the President really wants to sue any and every news outlet that says mean things about him. SCOTUS just warned him that's not going to fly.

The Court also advised that it will not hear an appeal of the $5 million jury verdict rendered against Trump for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and defaming her. Their brief and unsigned order contained no information as to why they chose not to hear the case. To nobody's surprise, Trump went ballistic at the news:

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to "review" a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!). I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength. This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be! New York State created a Law, for an instant speck of time, going back many decades, in order to wrongfully "nab" me. It was tailormade, and this Injustice cannot be allowed to stand! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Trump's posturing is cute and all, but it's one, two, three appeals and you're out in this particular ball game. And as a condition of filing the appeal that was rejected yesterday, Trump had to put the money, plus interest, in an escrow account. So, he can't even play games with withholding payment. Carroll should get her cash in the next week or two. Perhaps worst of all for the President is that his best chance of beating the larger, $83 million judgment was winning this case. That is because his guilt in case #1 made him automatically liable in case #2, per Judge Lewis Kaplan, leaving the damages as the only issue for the jury to decide. If Trump had managed to reverse case #1, it would have made case #2 much more tenuous.

Today is going to be another big day, as the Supremes will hand down decisions in the three remaining undecided cases for this term: The first is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, which is the RNC challenging rules that govern coordination between PACs and candidates. The second is West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, which are about trans girls' right to play high school sports. And the third, and the biggie, is Trump v. Barbara, which is Trump trying to overturn birthright citizenship. We will, of course, have write-ups of all three tomorrow. (Z)

Keep an Eye on Today's GOP Gubernatorial Primary in Colorado

Yesterday, we wrote up the Colorado primaries, keeping our focus on the candidates who might actually end up being elected to office. We also pointed out that if one or both of two progressive candidates for the House ultimately triumph, then Fox, et al. will try to make those people (and the Squad and the Mamdani trio) the face of the Democratic Party.

We will, of course, have a write-up of the Colorado primaries tomorrow. And we expect to have a piece on this "face of the Democratic Party" business, if time and space allow. For now, however, let's take a look at an election we only briefly mentioned yesterday, and one that could well produce a "face of the Republicans" effect detrimental to that party.

Because the Republican nominee for Colorado governor is not going to win, polling of that race has been limited. Very limited. In fact, there is just one poll, from Cygnal. The poll is almost 2 months old (May 7-8), and Cygnal is only a middling pollster, so the numbers have to be taken with a few grains of salt. However, here is how they have the GOP primary:

Candidate	Percentage
Victor Marx	42%
Barbara Kirkmeyer	13%
Scott Bottoms	7%

Again, not the most solid data point in the world. That said, with Marx leading his nearest competitor by 29 points, it's not crazy to think he could win this thing.

And now, with that possibility in mind, let's play a few rounds of the old party game "Two truths and a lie." We'll give you four sets of statements about Marx; you have to figure out which one is the lie:

1. Marx brags he's the "world's fastest weapon disarmer," which means he can knock a gun out of someone's hand.
2. Marx claims to be a black belt in Cajun Karate, which was developed by his father... Karl.
3. Marx also says he has a black belt in "Pain."

1. Marx says his abusive stepfather made him kill another man when he (Marx) was 7 years old.
2. Marx refuses to answer questions about how many people he's killed as an adult.
3. Marx was nearly shot in cold blood, by one of his employees.

1. Marx's humanitarian work includes distributing stuffed animals that play a Bible verse when their paw is squeezed.
2. Marx's campaign announcement video features he and his wife, in black-tie attire, beating the daylights out of two people in an elevator.
3. Marx is about to publish an autobiography, with foreword by Stephen Miller.

1. Marx says he has rescued more than 45,000 women and children from abusive households
2. Marx boasts that he, as a civilian, called in an airstrike that killed 70 ISIS fighters.
3. Marx says he has exorcised at least six demons from other people.

Make your picks—which one is the lie, in each case?

Ok, now the answers. In each case, #3 is the lie. However, all of the #3s are slightly modified versions of things Marx has actually done or claims to have done. To wit, he claims he has a black belt in "Weapons"; he was nearly shot in cold blood by his brother-in-law; he has already published an autobiography, with foreword by Charlie Kirk; and he actually claims he's exorcised over 100 demons. For the "truths," they are truths in the sense that Marx really has said/claimed those things. Most of those "truths" do not actually stand up to scrutiny.

The point here is that Marx is pretty wacky. And this doesn't even cover the fact that he has a long history of apparently corrupt behavior on his ledger. For example, his organization has raised, and spent, millions, and yet there's little paper trail speaking to where the money went, and the organization has only Marx, his wife and his son as employees. Similarly, his campaign donations, which total nearly $3 million, and which he burns through as quickly as they come in, appear to be screwy, with lots of cases of donations coming from the same person and same address, but in many different (sometimes dozens of different) cities.

As we will write in the piece planned for tomorrow, we are somewhat doubtful that a couple of lefty candidates in one state can substantially derail candidates hundreds or thousands of miles away, Fox propaganda notwithstanding. However, it is absolutely the case that a screwy candidate at the top of a party's ticket can cause people to stay home, and can hurt the party down the line. Republican political operative Dick Wadhams, among others, agrees with us, writing that if Marx is nominated, he "will drag down every Republican candidate in every competitive statewide, state legislative and congressional race." Actually, Badham feels the same about Scott Bottoms, a wild-eyed conspiracist who insists that pedophile rings are operating everywhere in Colorado, and have total control of the state government.

So, even if the Republican candidate for governor has little chance of winning in November, that primary is still worth watching. (Z)

California Billionaire Tax Measure Has Enough Signatures...

The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West proposed a one-time 5% tax on anyone who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026, and had net assets of $1 billion or more. The group proceeded to collect signatures to get it on the November ballot. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber has now announced that the ballot measure has reached the required 875,000 valid signatures and has thus qualified for the ballot. Gavin Newsom opposes the measure (most likely because he is hoping billionaires will contribute to his 2028 presidential campaign). It is expected to raised $100 billion in revenue.

Since the measure taxes billionaires who lived in the state on Jan. 1, 2026, billionaires can't escape the tax by moving to another state now. So they are collectively working on their own measures to counteract the measure. One would ban retroactive taxes. Google billionaire Sergey Brin and his buddies have pooled over $100 million to fight the tax. If two contradictory measures pass, the one with the most votes wins. Current polling shows that 54% of Californians are in favor of the tax.

Some politicians, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), want to implement annual wealth taxes, the way a number of European countries do. These are much lower than 5% but they cut in at lower amounts than $1 billion, so they hit moderately well-off people, not just billionaires. A federal wealth tax would probably not pass constitutional muster, but states are free to tax anything they want. Opponents of the annual wealth taxes claim that billionaires would just flee to Florida or Texas or some other low-tax or no-tax state.

However, experts in tax flight say that this is often just idle talk. Although billionaires dearly love their money, state laws could require them to really move out, not just buy a house in some other state. This would include selling all local property (triggering federal and state capital gains taxes), closing bank accounts, returning license plates, and not being in the state more than a certain number of days per year. In many cases, spouses might not want to move, causing (expensive) divorces. It would also mean moving away from friends, family, business associates, preferred bankers, golf buddies, favorite restaurants, beloved cultural institutions and more.

In some cases, it would mean running their businesses from out of state, which could mean being less hands-on, thus hurting their businesses. Alternatively, moving a tech business from Silicon Valley would mean giving up the immense talent pool there, the steady stream of Stanford and Berkeley graduates, the venture capitalists, and the whole tech ecosystem. In addition, many employees might quit rather than relocate to Texas or Florida.

Moving would also mean finding a suitable secluded home in a state whose climate they like and finding and hiring trustworthy staff to run the property. Austin does not have the attractions of San Francisco; Miami does not have the attractions of Los Angeles. In the end, many billionaires might well decide that while a move would save money, it would also seriously mess up a lifestyle they like and which would take time to reproduce elsewhere, even if it is possible. A billionaire leaving the state might trigger very intense tax audits of previous years since that would be the state's last chance. Finally, a fake move or failure to sever all ties with the state could result in years of litigation and uncertainty. (V)

... While Newsom Proposes a Different Tax on Centimillionaires and Billionaires

As we note in the previous item, Gavin Newsom opposes the California wealth tax. This is likely because: (1) He is trying to convince moderate 2028 Democratic presidential primary voters that he is not nearly as radical as he pretended to be these past 8 years and (2) He hopes some of the billionaires will toss very large chunks of spare change into his 2028 campaign pot.

On the other hand, he also wants lefty voters to vote for him despite his dumping on a ballot measure they really like. What's a candidate to do? Newsom, clever fellow that he is, has now proposed an alternative. Call it a new, improved alternative minimum tax. That tax, enacted in 1978, is a hideously complicated tax that is effectively a parallel tax system that hits people who use certain deductions or credits that allow millionaires and billionaires to pay less tax. What it does is negate some of the most odious loopholes—instead of doing the obvious thing, namely abolishing the loopholes in the first place. But that was politically impossible due to the objections of the millionaires and billionaires being targeted. Newsom's proposal is to require anyone earning $100 million or more to pay a certain minimum tax rate. It won't work. Neither would a national wealth tax of the kind proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

The problem with Newsom's tax is that not a lot of people actually make $100 million/year. ProPublica discovered that only 400 Americans (one fifth of them hedge fund managers) make $110 million or more, so maybe a couple of hundred people would be caught by Newsom's tax. Only 11 people made $1 billion, generally from selling stock, which is taxed at about half the top rate for earned income. Taxing a couple of hundred people 15% of $100 million may feel satisfying, but it won't come close to raising enough money to pay for the Democrats' pet projects. A scheme that would generate much more revenue would be to go back to the Eisenhower-era top marginal tax rate of 91% and have it cut in at, say, an income of $10 million.

So why did Newsom make this proposal? Well, it makes him look like he wants to tax the rich without actually doing very much. Actual proposals that would matter are too complicated for the average voter to understand. He knows that.

What then? Many billionaires use the "buy, borrow, die" strategy. They buy stock that appreciates in value (rather than stock that pays high dividends). Then, using the stock as collateral, they borrow lots of money and live off it. Loans are not taxable income. When they die, there are no capital gains tax for their heirs due to a provision of the Internal revenue Code called the "stepped-up basis." Suppose someone buys some stock at $50 and it is worth $500 when they are dying. If the person sells the stock on his or her deathbed, there is a capital gains tax on the $450 profit. However, if they don't sell the stock, their heirs get it with a basis of $500. If they sell it immediately, there is no tax at all. Eliminating the stepped-up basis would prevent millionaires and billionaires from passing on fortunes to their kids, who didn't earn any of it. In addition, the estate tax exclusion could be reduced and the rates drastically increased.

Newsom did address this in his proposal. He also wants to put corporate tax rates back where they were in 2016 and close loopholes international corporations use such as assigning patents to subsidiaries in low-tax countries and then having those subsidiaries charge the mother company outrageous fees to use the patents, thus shifting income from the U.S. to the low-tax countries. (V)

Notes on Fascist Architecture

The Arc de Trump and the space for Donald Trump's balls face an uncertain future. Trump is going to push to bring them to fruition, but the various ongoing lawsuits are a problem, and funding is a problem too. It's also not clear how much he really cares about building these things, as opposed to raising some "donations" to build these things, and then pocketing that money.

That means that the first exemplar of Trump architecture that is sure to be built is actually the new federal courthouse in Chattanooga, TN. This is the first project to be announced by the federal government's Public Buildings Service since Trump issued his executive order titled "MAKING FEDERAL ARCHITECTURE BEAUTIFUL AGAIN." Here's the preliminary design for the new building:

Not surprisingly, Trump hates modern styles. He also rejects the (common) modern-day idea that courthouses should be made of glass, so as to emphasize transparency. Clearly, he got what he wanted here.

Of course, what he also got is a building that is intimidating and speaks to the government's power, that has 1920s and 1930s art deco flourishes, and that otherwise recalls classical architecture (from white, European civilizations). Indeed, the general style of the building is referred to as Greco-Deco. And if you picked up this structure, and transported it to Germany, circa 1938, it would be right at home. It might be that the average person might not pick up on this, at least not consciously, but the people who know architecture are certainly picking up on it.

How about another example? Yesterday, Trump posted a bleat that implies he's about to make an addition to the Truman Balcony of the White House. Here's the picture he shared:

Whoops, wait. That's not it. How did that picture of the Reich Chancellery get in there? Here's the actual image Trump posted:

Trump has been roundly mocked on social media for the gaudy design, so hopefully, if he really did plan to make this "gift" to the American people, he won't go through with it. If he persists, on the other hand, then we'll know what the subject of the very first executive order from the next Democratic president will need to be.

Oh, and by the way, the Arc de Trump is also pretty fascist—non-modern, imposing, emphasizing military glory, referencing (in this case) the ancient Romans.

A person might inadvertently blunder into fascist style once. But when it keeps happening like this, there's got to be something going on. We can think of three basic explanations:

1. Trump is coming from the same basic place, philosophically, that the fascists of the mid-20th century were, and so it's no surprise he ends up at the same destination.
   
   
2. Trump has seen some quantity of fascist architecture and design in his life, and he subconsciously internalized it as the "right" way to do things.
   
   
3. Trump, either of his own volition, or at the urging of someone like Stephen Miller, is consciously and deliberately embracing a fascist aesthetic.

In any event, it is a subtle (but not that subtle) clue as the headspace that Trump is in these days. (Z)

Never Forget: Buffalo Soldier

Today's memory was shared by reader J.C. in Kirkwood, MO:

My dad, John H. Anderson, served in the 92nd Infantry Division, 370th Infantry Regiment—the segregated group known as the "Buffalo Soldiers." I'm told that his was the only Black Division that saw infantry combat in Europe during World War II. By serving our country in a fight for democracy, even as a teenager, dad also helped support his mom.

As I came of age during the 1960's Civil Rights era, I've found my dad's service especially interesting. He enlisted in February 1943 and completed basic training at Fort Huachuca, AZ, the historic home of the all-Black Buffalo Soldier Cavalry Corps active during the 1800's Apache wars. Fort Huachuca became the primary training ground for the Army's all-Black infantry divisions during World War II.

Dad didn't talk much about the war, but he landed in Naples, Italy, and marched to Rome where an Italian artist sketched his portrait as a gift:

The Italians were excited to have liberators and most had never seen Black soldiers. My dad carefully rolled up the sketch and kept it in his field sack during his tour of duty.

Dad was a sergeant, heavy-machine-gunner and squad leader. He fought campaigns in Italy's Po River Valley and Apennine Mountains. Because of mountainous terrain, World War II Buffalo soldiers were sometimes forced to rely on pack animals for supplies and were terribly under-resourced. He told me about spending a cold Christmas Eve 1944 hunkered down on the mountainside as the ground shook under heavy artillery fire through the night.

White leadership during that war largely refused to acknowledge Black soldiers' leadership, courage and fighting abilities. Every action by Black troops was second-guessed through the lens of racism. Dad's division and his squad fought fiercely and persevered through engagements where he saw many fellow soldiers die in battle during enemy assaults.

Interestingly, Dad once refused an order that would have meant certain death for him and his squad. If he hadn't refused that order, my siblings and I would never have been born. He was "busted" for refusing the order but quickly regained his stripes because he was otherwise known as a soldier committed to getting the job done and doing it right. No excuses. Dad was trusted by his squad and everyone else who was willing to recognize his competence and courage.

Dad was once injured in action and returned to battle. But then, on the morning of April 5, 1945, the first day of the Allies' final European offensive, he suffered injuries when he and his squad took out a German tank and captured its crew near Lucca, Italy. This second injury marked the end of the war for Dad.

Many Black World War II soldiers who served abroad returned to the States to face continued race discrimination. Like Dad, most were not recognized until many years later for their feats of bravery and success in action. My parents searched for and eventually located records that led to Dad's service recognition with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, delivered by an Army colonel on the day Dad retired from the U.S. Postal Service:

I learned a lot from my dad. At the top of the list are the importance of hard work, perseverance and always doing one's best. He preached the importance of knowing what's going on in the world and the value of being able to connect with people around the world.

During his war service, Dad gathered reconnaissance, using Italian to speak with people in the various towns and villages. At the age of 8, I discovered his Italian handbook and began to learn Italian and teach my 4-year-old brother, who was named after one of my dad's comrades who died in battle. To be sure, we didn't get very far. But throughout my life, Dad provoked my interest in foreign language study. I've intensely studied three and have dabbled in others.

Dad demanded that my siblings and I appreciate the importance of following orders and being on time... during the war, that was a matter of life or death. He was also willing to speak truth to power. My siblings and I were raised by the same rules by which Dad served this country: "Get the job done. Do it right. No excuses." I've taken from Dad the importance of knowing who I am, staying grounded in my values and knowing when to think for myself and act by my own convictions.

Thanks, J.C. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger