Dem
51
GOP
49
Georgia may have been on Ray Charles' mind, but it's the Supreme Court that remains on the readers' minds.
S.G. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Other than a retirement, or "expiration," what remedies might be available to balance out the obviously lopsided power in this current SCOTUS, and would the current administration actually ever consider any of those measures, if they do exist? Also, if the court ever was redistributed, could they reverse, or vacate, any of these decisions?
(V) & (Z) answer: Unless Joe Biden is willing to outright ignore the decisions of the Court, à la Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, there is nothing that it is within his power to do.
Congress, by contrast, has all sorts of options. It could expand the number of justices to 11 or 13 or even 15. It could go further than that, and create a pool of 20 or 30 justices, with cases decided by 9 people drawn at random from the pool. It could create an second high-level court to hear certain kinds of cases (e.g., a "Constitutional Court"). It could limit the kinds of cases the Supreme Court is allowed to hear. It could create a mandatory retirement age for judges (though that one might be challenged in court). It could impeach and remove justices found wanting.
That said, none of this is going to happen unless both parties decide a particular change is beneficial to their interests, or else one party gains the trifecta and then abolishes the Senate filibuster.
And far and away the most likely way that Dobbs or some other decision would be vacated would be for someone to bring a new case that, when decided, would cancel out the previous ruling. And you can bet that if liberals somehow regain a majority on the Court, there will be a veritable avalanche of "abortion should be legal" cases for the Supremes to choose from (along with "discrimination should be illegal" cases, "Affirmative Action should be reinstated" cases, etc.).
E.R. in Loomis, CA, asks: This question is more legal than political, but clearly the boundaries of those domains have been blurred beyond recognition. How was 303 Creative vs. Elenis not thrown out by the first judge who encountered it? My understanding is that it is a fraudulent case—there is no plaintiff. The case was fabricated. How was it even possible to proceed through the lower courts before even being considered by the Supreme Court? I have yet to see a chronology of the case with dates and milestones to understand how it originated and proceeded.
(V) & (Z) answer: It's a little complicated, but courts will allow what are called "pre-enforcement challenges" if it is a near-certainty that enforcement of a particular law will affect a plaintiff adversely.
Under the circumstances of the case, it is probable it would have been allowed to go forward, even if there was no gay client seeking a wedding website. However, the alleged existence of such a client made it a slam dunk that the case would be allowed, and very possibly stopped the various judges involved from taking a close look at whether a pre-enforcement challenge was apropos in this particular circumstance.
It's not entirely clear when all parties knew that the alleged client was not real. What is clear, however, is that the U.S. Supreme Court all-but-invariably remands cases back to lower courts for factual defects like this to be rectified, before the Supremes will even consider the case. That did not happen here, obviously, which suggests a certain eagerness by the conservative majority to get the case decided.
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: Would Lorie Smith have to produce a website for an atheistic couple getting married?
(V) & (Z) answer: Nope, as long as she said her reason for refusing the job was her religious beliefs. She could also discriminate against Jews, Muslims, people who had pre-marital sex, people who were previously divorced, people who say "I want a goddamn website" and therefore take the Lord's name in vain, and people who wear eyeglasses. There is plausible scriptural support for all of those.
A.S. in Bedford, MA, asks: I thought I would be able to find this information elsewhere, but haven't: Did the recent Supreme Court decision disallow university use of race-based affirmative action, or all affirmative action (including by gender)? This might be a non-issue in most colleges where women outnumber men, but in engineering there are still shortages of women in college and beyond.
(V) & (Z) answer: It only struck down explicitly race-based Affirmative Action. Other forms of preferential admission, most obviously legacy-based, but also gender-based, class-based, etc., are still fair game. Also, if the football team needs a new quarterback, high school quarterbacks can be given preference and if the school orchestra needs a new French horn player, French horn players can be given preference.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: In your rundown of this term's Supreme Court cases, you wrote: "A Colorado man sent a barrage of thousands of unwanted, threatening messages to a female musician. She felt he was (digitally) stalking her. The man said he was just exercising his right to free speech. A lower court disagreed with him but the Supreme Court vacated that decision. Elena Kagan wrote for the 7-2 majority that the First Amendment 'requires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements' and she didn't think that was proven."
"[R]equires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements." That must mean something, but I cannot think what. It seems to me that this decision would encourage this very damaging behavior. But if Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with the decision, there must be some reasonable thought involved in the ruling. Could you tell us what that is?(V) & (Z) answer: It is long-established jurisprudence that "threatening" speech is protected by the First Amendment unless the threat implicit in the speech is credible and imminent. For example, you can say, "I'd like to shoot Joe Biden," and that would be legal because even if you are physically capable of shooting Biden, the threat is not imminent. You can also say, "I'd like to drop a nuclear bomb on Joe Biden on Thursday afternoon," because while that threat is imminent, it's not credible, as you don't command a nuclear arsenal. However, if you say, "I'm going to shoot Joe Biden on Thursday afternoon, as he gives a speech to the United Auto Workers," that is actionable, as the threat is both credible and imminent.
What this case found was that a threat is not credible or imminent, even if it's highly specific, if the person making the threat is too mentally ill to fully understand what they are saying.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: In 2022, the conservative Supremes killed Roe v. Wade. This year they obliterated Affirmative Action. What do you think will be on the chopping block for 2024? My money is on them nuking what little bit of common sense "gun regulation" we do have like, say, keeping guns away from domestic violence cases (You know the Boofer will be all over that one).
(V) & (Z) answer: As you undoubtedly know, the Court has already decided on most of the cases it will hear next term, and one of those is United States v. Rahimi, in which the Supremes will likely find that the Second Amendment rights of domestic abusers cannot be abridged. So, you answered your own question.
Also, let us note that today is D.E.'s birthday. Happy birthday to one of the most regular contributors to the weekend postings!
B.B. in Dothan, AL, asks: I have great difficulty understanding Chief Justice John Roberts' psychology. He apparently has his eye on history. However, the decisions, as you have pointed out, seem highly partisan and contrary to law. Doesn't Roberts understand that these decisions will be compared to Dred Scott? Does he not care if he can get a half-century of conservative policies in place? Does he really fail to understand the implications of discounting minority rights in a few short years when white people will be in the minority? It all seems so Alice in Wonderland. What are your thoughts in light of history and politics?
(V) & (Z) answer: Without speaking to him at great length, all we can do is guess what his mindset is. He could indeed believe that the policy wins are worth the damage to his reputation. He could have concluded that he's got five colleagues who are further right than he is, and that all that he can do is take small victories where he can find them. He could be fooling himself; denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
D.H. in Portland, OR, asks: Going back all the way to the failed Business Plot of 1933, there seems to always be a conservative fascination with fascism. Why does big business think fascism is good for business?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, in a fascist system, the workers are effectively the property of the government, and so are not able to do troublesome things like strike or demand higher wages. Meanwhile, the government is also free to regulate or de-regulate industry as it sees fit.
So, if the business interests control the fascist government, which was certainly the plan with the Business Plot plotters, then the business interests are in a position to create a capitalist's dream society. What the business interests tend to overlook is that fascist governments usually nationalize industry, which leaves both workers and management/ownership as mere cogs in the machine.
D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: If Donald Trump is the Republican candidate in 2024 and is beaten decisively for whatever reasons (his legal troubles, etc.), is that likely to mean large Democratic gains in congressional and state elections?
(V) & (Z) answer: "Large" is pretty strong, but if Trump is trounced, it almost certainly means that Democrats had a good night, because Republicans stayed home and/or infrequent Democratic voters came out in droves.
The other possibility, in that scenario, would be widespread ticket splitting by Republican voters. However, our general impression is that most Republicans who cannot stomach Trump have also taken the position that they won't vote for Republicans for any major office as long as the party is enabling Trumpism.
M.M. in Spotsylvania, VA, asks: Donald Trump, in stump speech after stump speech, insists that he has a secret plan that will end the war in Ukraine the day after he's elected. Why are his opponents—on both sides of the political spectrum—not holding his orange feet to the fire and asking why for humanitarian reasons he cannot reveal his plan to end the war now?
(I know that he has no such "secret plan" but cannot understand why his opponents don't push back harder on this subject.)(V) & (Z) answer: It is because Trump is a slippery fellow, who invariably finds ways to talk his way around situations like this. If a reporter or some other person insisted that Trump reveal his plan, he would say something like: "There is no point in sharing the plan. The only person who can implement it is me, since I have such a great relationship with everyone involved, and since I know how to make deals like nobody else."
So, pressing Trump would produce no plan (since one does not exist), and also no embarrassment for him, while at the same time conveying a general impression that he's a serious policymaker with serious policy ideas.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: You noted that donations to Trump in Q2 were nearly double his Q1 haul, and it was likely due to his supporters responding to his legal troubles and his begging for money to cover his legal fees. I don't understand this, Trump claims to be a billionaire and his supporters believe that. While he's clearly not as rich as he claims he is, he probably makes more money from his investments per year than most of his supporters will make in a decade.
I know it's a grift on Trump's part, but why do his followers happily give money to a man they think is a billionaire to cover his legal fees, when he shouldn't need it?(V) & (Z) answer: Trying to make sense of the psychology of Trump voters will provide fuel for generations of dissertations, books, and journal articles. In other words, the answer to your question is surely complicated, and probably won't be entirely clear for a long time.
That said, we can point out a few things that are undoubtedly relevant. The first is that part of Trump's image as "dealmaker" is that he passes his costs (and his losses) on to others, which is what makes him strong/smart/savvy. So, his fans expect him to stick someone else with the bill for his political career, even if they are the ones being stuck.
The second is that many Trump supporters approach their fandom like he's a sports team. Contributing money to him makes them feel like part of the team, in just the same way that people buy NFL jerseys or MLB caps.
And the third is that, if you look at Trump's fundraising pitches, he never asks for money directly. He is always, always, always selling some sort of product. That product might be something tangible, like a copy of The Art of the Deal or a Trump pin or a Trump flag, or it might be something less substantial, like membership in the "Trump MVP Club." Either way, his donors don't feel they're donating so much as they feel like they're buying something valuable.
M.O. in Syracuse, NY, asks: I understand that the "two/three/five times matching!" ploy to increase campaign contributions is suspect and appreciate you calling that out, but is its use by other organizations, say NPR or PBS during a pledge drive, likely to be legitimate?
(V) & (Z) answer: We will start by making sure that readers understand that when the Biden campaign or Trump campaign claim that your donation will be matched two/three/five/ten/fifty times, they are not lying, per se. If you donate $100 to Biden today, his campaign will definitely collect $200, $300 and $500 after you've made your donation. The shady part is the implication that the campaign would not have collected that $200, $300 or $500, but for your donation. Needless to say, they would have gotten that money either way.
The way that we can be certain that there's no actual "matching," at least in the way the campaign solicitations imply, is that it would be impractical to set up such an arrangement without violating campaign finance law. That is to say, if someone like Mike Bloomberg or Richard Uihlein or George Soros decides they would like to maximize bang for the buck by matching the next day's/2 days'/3 days'/week's worth of donations, they can't do it because they will quickly run up against contribution limits.
When PBS or NPR or other organizations like that claim that donations will be matched, it's entirely possible it is legitimate, as there are no limits on donations to them, and various individuals/foundations like the use of matching as a way to maximize the impact of their gift. In those cases where it is legit, the organization soliciting the funds will generally say where the matching funds are coming from (e.g., "for the next 2 hours, the Rockefeller Foundation has agreed to match all donations") so that donors know it's not a sleazy word trick.
B.C., Walpole, ME, asks: I just wanted to mention that I got your "All the Way with the Anti-Gay" headline as a reference to "All the Way with LBJ" from the 60's, so you know the readers are paying attention. What is your point here? Are you saying that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is to gays as George Wallace was to Black people? That DeSantis will take the 2024 role that Wallace took in 1968? You also predict that Trump's recklessness will get a rival killed. Are you suggesting that DeSantis, due to Trump's rhetoric, could end up shot and Casey DeSantis would take the role of Lurleen Wallace? How far are you going to take this analogy?
(V) & (Z) answer: As with music lyrics, our headlines are often crafted so as to suggest many possible interpretations, without necessarily committing to any particular one.
Y.A. in Newton, MA, asks: I've seen a number of profile stories on Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) recently, and some items about how she's very popular but "is not running because she fully supports Biden." Do you think something is up?
(V) & (Z) answer: Something conspiratorial? Probably not. However, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has pretty effectively assumed the mantle of Democratic-candidate-in-waiting should Biden be unable to run in 2024, which in turn also gives Newsom a step up for 2028. Whitmer has undoubtedly taken note of that, and wants to make sure her name remains a big part of both the 2024 and 2028 conversations.
C.B. in Charleston, SC, asks: Unless I missed it, there was absolutely no mention on this site about cocaine being found in the White House. I have been reading this site for about 4 years now. If cocaine was found in the Trump White House (or any Republican politician's office) it would have been the lead story the next day with multiple follow-up articles as the days follow.
(V) & (Z) answer: Your presumption about our coverage decisions is simply not correct.
First of all, a lot of people have used cocaine. It's illegal, yes, but the use of cocaine is largely a victimless crime (excepting the user themselves), and not problematic in the way that sexual harassment, or stealing classified documents, or lying about finances are. Barack Obama and George W. Bush are both known cocaine users (in their youths), and clearly it's not disqualifying for voters.
Second, the cocaine was found in a closet used by White House visitors while the Bidens were at Camp David. There is absolutely no reason to believe it has any connection to the First Family, and it's likely that when and if the owner of the coke is discovered, it will be someone you've never heard of.
What this means is that, at the moment, this story is just sensationalistic gossip, and has no real bearing on politics. That would be just as true if Donald Trump was the current president. The only way we'd give this attention would be if the coke was linked to the First Family (since having the drugs, and then losing them, would speak to very bad judgment), or if it was learned that decision-making took place while under the influence.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: In your reply to B.S. in Miami, you noted that Democrats could not embrace "law and order" without alienating Black and brown voters. How about a different approach, like "fair justice for all?" With that they could make it clear they support fair law enforcement, but not the unfair practices that "law and order" has always promoted. They could talk about holding officers accountable for mistreating people, regardless of their skin color and requiring training all officers thoroughly in de-escalation practices. Passing legislation to stop police training officers to think of everyone as an enemy would help a lot, too. After all, even white people dislike cops getting away with literal murder without punishment. It wasn't all Black and brown people protesting the deaths of George Floyd and others that cops murdered.
Is there potential in this idea? Or would this still turn off Black and brown voters?(V) & (Z) answer: This is, to a greater or lesser extent, what "Defund the Police" was about. And look what happened there.
It's true that the slogan was not very good. However, it's also true that a sizable subset of voters regard any talk of changing/reorienting the police as translating to "let's make everyone less safe." It is similarly true that politicians, most commonly Republicans but also some Democrats, encourage that way of thinking, since there are points to be scored in doing so.
What it amounts to is that there is no combination of words that will reach the people who think law enforcement should be very strong so as to protect people's safety and those who think law enforcement needs to be reformed. If that combination of words existed, centrist politicians would already be using it.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, asks: Is there any mechanism that would enable a national (federal) plebiscite for either the purposes of enacting a law—such as freedom of choice rights, or standardizing access to democracy for federal elections across the nation, or changing the Constitution?
I note that other countries sometimes put changes to their constitutions to the vote. I wondered if something like that were possible in the U.S. in order to override a Congress in impasse?(V) & (Z) answer: The United States has no system for national initiatives or referenda. If one was to be adopted, it would probably require a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution does allow for a new constitutional convention to be called for purposes of altering the document. However, that provision has never been invoked, nobody is entirely clear how things would proceed if it was invoked, and invoking it is a potential Pandora's Box that could have very unexpected consequences. So, it is likely that there will never be a new constitutional convention.
J.D. in Sarasota, FL, asks: Can you explain the history and reason(s) why Senators and Representatives can change party affiliations while they're in office? It seems unfair and/or unethical, like a bait-and-switch. I think they shouldn't be allowed to do so until they next run for election/reelection.
Also, is it possible, likely, etc., that a president and/or vice president could switch parties while in office?(V) & (Z) answer: There are two ways to answer your first question: (1) politicians in office can change parties because there's no rule against it, and (2) politicians in office can change parties because "party membership" has no formal meaning. The latter answer is the more important one; in contrast to many European countries, an American does not have to pay dues/fill out forms/do anything to "join" the Republican or Democratic Party. Yes, in some states, people indicate a party preference on their voter registration form, but that's not joining a party, it's just telling the state in question which primary ballot it should provide.
And so, to say "I'm a Republican" largely just means that the person identifies with the general program of the Republican Party, and to say "I'm a Democrat" largely just means that the person identifies with the general program of the Democratic Party. Forcing politicians to stick with their party until their term expires would surely run afoul of the First Amendment. On top of that, it would be impractical. A Strom Thurmond, to take an example, would just keep saying things like "Well, as you all know, I'm a 'Democrat' for another 651 days" (wink-wink).
And presidents/VPs have already switched parties while in office. John Adams went from nothing to Federalist while he was VP. His son went from Democratic-Republican to National Republican while serving as president. John Tyler went from being a nominal Whig as VP to being a Democrat when he succeeded the deceased William Henry Harrison. Abraham Lincoln officially became a member of the Union Party during his first term, so he could run on a "national fusion" ticket with fellow Union Party member Andrew Johnson in 1864. When Johnson became president on the death of Lincoln, he dispensed with the Union Party shtick and went back to being a Democrat.
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD, asks: Expanding on the question from F.I. in Philadelphia, regarding disqualifying Donald Trump specifically (and anyone more generally) from the ballot for being a felon, could a game Democratic state secretary of state from a large and/or strategically important state (I'm thinking any combination of AZ, CA, IL, MI, NC, NV, NY, PA, and WI) disqualify him on the basis of constitutional ineligibility under the terms of the Twenty-Second Amendment?
Given the numerous public statements made by the former president that he won the 2020 election, could the SoS take these statements at face value and keep him off the ballot since the amendment says in part that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"? If nothing else, contesting the disqualification will require signing a "penalty of perjury" statement affirming his loss; at worst, litigation with a live deposition. Would this be a feasible action?(V) & (Z) answer: No state secretary of state would ever try this. What the Constitution very clearly says is "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." It does not say "No person shall THINK they were elected to the office of President more than twice." In other words, Trump's delusions have no relevance here, and any lawsuit would be kicked instantly, long before he might be forced to take the stand and commit to a position under oath.
It is far more likely that an ambitious state SoS would try to disqualify Trump under the Fourteenth Amendment. There's no guarantee that any secretary will try it, since that would feed into Republican narratives about Democrats undermining democracy, stacking the deck against Trump, doing the bidding of the deep state, etc. However, there will also be a lot of temptation, since a secretary who tried it would immediately become a figure of national prominence.
J.E. in Manhattan, NY, asks: How many signers of the Constitution and/or the Declaration of Independence did NOT own slaves or trade them? (John Langdon, for example, was involved in the slave trade). I was attempting to find out but many of the short bios on Wikipedia (Nicholas Gilman's for example) don't mention it one way or the other.
(V) & (Z) answer: This is not an easy question to answer in a satisfactory way. First, as you have discovered, there are numerous signers about whom relatively little is known. Second, not all slave owners are created equal. For example, Benjamin Franklin owned slaves as a young man, but he eventually manumitted them and became an outspoken abolitionist. George Clymer inherited a slave when he was seven years old; that person was freed shortly thereafter. Does it really seem proper to lump Franklin and Clymer in with an unrepentant slaver like, say, Langdon?
That said, the general consensus is that 41 of the 56 men who signed the Declaration and 11 of the 39 men who signed the Constitution were slave owners or slave traders at some point in their lives. Note that the 41 and the 11 overlap; there were five slave owners/slave traders who signed both documents. There were also slave owners present for both conventions who did not sign the final documents, two or three such individuals for the Declaration and about a dozen for the Constitution.
D.P. Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You alluded to, "shades of 40 acres and a mule." Is there any evidence that any Black person ever received the fabled promise of 40 acres and a mule? Was it simply a promise given or was there an actual executive order, act of congress, or program of the Freedmen's Bureau?
(V) & (Z) answer: There was a field order from a Union general, specifically Special Field Orders No. 15, by Gen. William T. Sherman. That document ordered that qualified Black residents of South Carolina's Sea Islands be granted "a plot of not more than forty acres of tillable ground" carved out of land seized from Southern plantation owners.
There was hope, among freedpeople and among their supporters in the Republican Party, that this policy would be extended to the entire South and to all of the millions of former slaves. It was during this hopeful period that the mule entered into the conversation; that's not mentioned in the original order. Of course, the policy was not extended to the entire South and, in fact, the original beneficiaries of Sherman's order were eventually compelled to surrender their land.
So, the answer to your question is: some freedpeople in South Carolina got temporary possession of (up to) 40 acres, but that's the extent of it. And nobody got a mule.
G. W. in Oxnard, CA, asks: I'm a little confused. The man in the picture, Justin Nash, is wearing a red hat with a capital "T." My first inclination is to think this stands for "Trump." Almost all I know about sports was compulsory in school, so perhaps this commemorates a sports team in Colorado I don't know about?
(V) & (Z) answer: Your guess is correct. It's a Texas Rangers cap. Well, unless you're watching M*A*S*H, in which case it's a Toledo Mud Hens cap (the producers of the show could not lay hands on a proper Toledo Mud Hens cap).
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, asks: I just returned from a long trip and the last two days was able to listen to Morning Edition for the first time in almost a month. On both Thursday and Friday they featured interviews with "experts" from USC. So, is NPR now hopeless? Have they completely jumped the shark?
(V) & (Z) answer: Depends. Were either of the experts also Canadian?
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
N.S. in Los Angeles, CA asks: What historical cases are there where the people and groups fighting to ban books, works of art, films, musical compositions, etc. ended up being on the "right side of history"?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
T.G. in Memphis, TN: The Lancet repudiated Andrew Wakefield's reprehensible article about his "study" showing that vaccines cause autism, and banned him from ever appearing in their pages again.
A.J. in Baltimore, MD: If you think of public memorials of the Confederacy as "works of art," my personal opinion is that people fighting to ban them are on the right side of history.
M.S. in Topeka, KS: Quite a few cities banned Birth of a Nation when it came out, thanks to its glamorizing of the KKK and vigilantism.
A.L. in Rutgers, NJ: The ban on Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, enacted by the state government of Bavaria. I had a surreptitious look at it in high school and Hitler makes a pitch for racial hierarchy-based segregation that would have appealed as "common sense" to uneducated grievance-bearing masses as much in the racially charged 1950s as it did in the 1930s.
The book just recently passed into the public domain, but the ban kept it out of general circulation for the decades after World War II while the science of DNA and genome mapping, not to mention the widespread acceptance of organ donation showed homo sapiens is, if anything, too damn closely related. Now that this understanding has seeped into general understanding, Hitler's musings have lost their power to inflame the masses. The ban served its purpose.
M.M. in San Diego, CA: Well, I admire the post-war German authorities who wisely banned all things National Socialist. No swastikas, no lightning bolts, no Nazi symbolism of any kind, no titles authored by Nazis... for once something genuinely obscene got tossed on the rubbish heap where it belongs.
B.J. in Houston, TX: It is illegal to buy or sell the September 1984 issue of Penthouse magazine in the U.S. This is far and away the most famous and most notorious issue of that publication, because it's the issue that includes (unauthorized) photos of Vanessa Williams, which led to her having to resign as Miss America. That said, the Williams pictures are not why the issue is banned. No, it's because there are also photos of Traci Lords, who turns out to have been underage when they were taken.
W.F. in Chicago, IL: This may be stretching things a little, but for those who remember the show Mythbusters, they once tested the claim that a powerful explosive could be made with commonly available chemical substances. The claim was correct, and the producers of the show were deeply concerned with how easily the materials were obtained and how powerful the explosion was. So, not only did they decline to air that segment, they destroyed all the footage so it couldn't end up on the Internet in pirated form.
D.H. in Lisbon Falls, ME: Johann Goethe's 1774 novel The Sorrows of Young Werther created a fashion fever, where many young began to dress like young damaged and fatal Werther. But it also led to an explosion in copycat suicides in Europe. Many nations banned the book to stop future suicides
Also, Stephen King's Rage. Once King realized that several high school shootings were connected to his book, he pulled it out of future publication. As he stated in 1998, "My book did not break (them) or turn them into killers; they found something in my book that spoke to them because they were already broken. Yet I did see Rage as a possible accelerant which is why I pulled it from sale. You don't leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it."
G.M.L. in Alexandria, VA: I would say anyone who pushed back against most of the recent Lucasfilm/Disney cinematic films, especially Solo.
R. C. in Des Moines, IA: Ummm... none?
Here is the question for next week:
J.B. in Hutto, TX, asks: If we could magically bring the Founding Fathers to modern America, what about our current politics and government (aside from the altered status of women and people of color, obviously) do you think would surprise them the most?
Submit your answers here!