To our Jewish readers: G'mar chatima tova. We hope your fast was meaningful.

Shutdown: Nobody Knows What the Future Holds

Wednesday night, CNN posted a thought piece by Stephen Collinson with the headline "Democrats May Have Overplayed Their Hand in Shutting Down the Government." Then, on Thursday, someone apparently decided that was not an editorial position the outlet wanted to stand behind, so the headline was changed to "The government shutdown is a slow-boil political crisis." At around the same time, a new piece from Aaron Blake, with the headline "Democrats Could Have More Shutdown Leverage Than People Realize," was posted.

The point here is that nobody really knows where this is headed—not the politicians, not the commentators, not the historians, not the Washington press corps. In large part, that is because this shutdown is not really like any of the others. There's a lot of moving parts here, so we're going to put a bunch of thoughts to paper (well, to pixels), and maybe something instructive will come out of it. At this point, wrapping up the second paragraph of this item, we're going to guess we end up with 3,000 words. At the end, we'll check and see how good that estimate was:

A Couple of Corrections: To start, let us point out a couple of mistakes we've made in the past couple of days. First, we wrote that the federal employees who are currently working without compensation (which is most of them, including the military) usually get back pay once the budget is straightened out, but there are no guarantees.

As many readers wrote in to point out, after the 2018-19 shutdown (aka, the longest shutdown in U.S. history), Congress passed the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, which requires that employees receive back pay once the money spigot has been re-opened. Obviously, any law Congress can pass it can also reverse, and if any political faction was ever going to try to screw federal staffers out of their money, it would be MAGA. But that would probably be a bridge too far for at least some Republican members (and would definitely be a bridge too far for Democrats, assuming the filibuster survives this mess—more below) so barring very unexpected developments, people are going to get paid eventually.

The other error we made was writing that the vote in favor of the last-ditch effort at a can-kicking bill got the support of all the Republicans in the Senate plus two Democrats (John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada) and one independent (Angus King of Maine). That's how the Library of Congress bill tracker had it when we were writing, but in fact, there was actually one Republican who crossed the aisle, and you already know who it was without our needing to tell you: Rand Paul of Kentucky.

This bears watching, because the one thing Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is certain to do is bring up can-kicking bill after can-kicking bill, so Republicans can go on TV, social media, etc. and say "We've given the Democrats [X] opportunities to reopen the government, and they insist on keeping it shut down." And if any member of either caucus switches their votes on Thune attempt #2 or #5 or #10, this will be treated as VERY IMPORTANT and a sign that the resolve of one side or the other is weakening. And it may well be VERY IMPORTANT and a sign that the resolve of one side or the other is weakening. But keep in mind that, as Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has taught us oh-so-many times, flipping the second-to-last vote is many orders of magnitude easier than flipping the decisive vote.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Part I: There is a famous scene at the end of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly where Blondie (the good), Angel Eyes (the bad) and Tuco (the ugly) are in a triangular, three-way standoff, where none of them can risk drawing their gun and firing at one of the corners of the triangle, due to the risk of getting shot by the other corner of the triangle. For example, Tuco thinks he can't take a shot at Angel Eyes, because he might get shot by Blondie while making the attempt. As it turns out, Tuco is wrong, because Blondie has stacked the deck. But Tuco doesn't know this until the standoff is over.

Everyone knows the term for this kind of setup, especially since it's now been ripped off by a hundred other directors, especially the directors, like John Woo and Quentin Tarantino, who like to make very slick, highly stylized homages to B-movies. We can't actually use the term, because it's racist, but we think the concept might be useful. We've been thinking a lot about this shutdown, because that is what we do. And while we are open to being persuaded otherwise, we're not sure this is as simple as "Republicans vs. Democrats." It seems to us there may actually be three different chairs at this table, with none of the participants willing and/or able to yield to the others.

The most important of the three, by virtue of both his high office and his bully pulpit, is Donald Trump (and, of course, his underlings, who may be taking orders from him... or may be using him to advance their own goals). It is true that Trump loves to "own the libs" and that he certainly doesn't want to make any changes to the BBB, since it is perfect as is. But is that really his only motivation here? The shutdown is only a few days old, and yet it's clear that the answer to that question is "no." Trump, and even more so OMB Director Russ Vought, clearly want to squeeze this "opportunity" for all it's worth, in terms of gutting the government, punishing the libs, delaying things the administration wants delayed, and creating a distraction from things like, say, the Epstein files.

Anyone reading this knows, at this point, that the administration threatened to fire hundreds of thousands of federal workers. Trump has certainly been leaning into that, and into the notion that Vought is his personal grim reaper. Last night, for example, Trump (or whoever is running his social media) posted a very odd AI video that features a mediocre cover of "Don't Fear the Reaper" by Blue Öyster Cult, and images of Trum̈p and Voug̈ht as "Death." This screen capture conveys the general vibe:

We have absolutely no doubt the clip is meant to be pro-MAGA. But we also have absolutely no doubt that many people who see it are going to be reminded of one of the most famous of all Saturday Night Live sketches, where the butt of the (now-legendary) joke is... the guy playing the cowbell on the song "Don't Fear the Reaper."

Trump's social media postings aren't the only clue that Vought is looking to deploy his scythe. Yesterday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) was chatting with one of the entertainers on Fox, and he said what is maybe supposed to be the quiet part (we're not sure) out loud:

It's going to harm [the Democrats] because Russ Vought, the OMB director, has been dreaming about this moment, preparing for this moment since puberty. Russ Vought has a plan, and that plan is going to succeed in empowering, further empowering, Trump. This is going to be the Democrats' worst nightmare, and it's of their own making.

Lee, who has always had a curious relationship with what seems to be the basic precepts of his LDS faith, is clearly very happy with what he's seeing.

That said, despite the threats, the White House largely has not begun swinging the axe yet. And even the threats have gone from "hundreds of thousands" to "tens of thousands" to "thousands." Maybe the administration, which is not exactly a well-oiled machine, is just getting its ducks in a row. Maybe it fears losing a bunch more lawsuits. Maybe there is pushback from Republicans in Congress. We'll have to wait and see.

Though the mass firings are not yet underway, Trump and his team have seized on the "opportunity" in other ways. For example, Vought announced yesterday that he was freezing $18 billion earmarked for infrastructure improvements in New York City, "to ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles." Because, after all, there is nothing worse than a woke bridge or a woke subway tunnel. The administration also canceled nearly $8 billion in green-energy grants across 16 states. By a truly remarkable coincidence, all 16 states happen to have given their electoral votes to Kamala Harris in 2024. We wonder if they considered cutting ¼ of Nebraska's funding.

Similarly, there is nothing that Trump loves to do more in court cases than delay, delay, delay (at least, cases in which he's the defendant). So, one of the hack attorneys he has working for him tried to secure a postponement in the case addressing whether the administration can, or cannot, keep National Guard troops in Washington, DC. Judge Jia Cobb was having none of it, however.

One other benefit for Trump, which is probably not by design, but which undoubtedly pleases him, is that the various monthly reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics aren't going to be produced until after the shutdown is over. Since those BLS reports are usually pretty grim these days, and since E.J. Antoni won't be able to muck around with them, this is a win for the President.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Part II: The second corner of the triangle is the Republican leadership in Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and John Thune, who are kind of like Switzerland right now. We don't mean to suggest that they are neutral, exactly, more like they are largely throwing up their hands and staying out of this fight. They know that neither the Democrats nor Trump are likely to back down anytime soon, so all Johnson and Thune can do is stage show votes and then tell reporters how there's nothing they can do here. The Speaker, for example, said yesterday that "I quite literally have nothing to negotiate," while Thune said that "I don't know that, you know, negotiation is going to accomplish a lot."

Johnson also did his best Baghdad Bob impersonation when asked about the White House's posture:

Russ does this reluctantly. He takes no pleasure in this. Because Russ has to sit down and decide which policies, personnel, and which programs are essential and which are not. That's not a fun task and he's not enjoying that responsibility... if they keep the government closed, it's gonna get more and more painful.

Why does the Speaker issue forth with such obvious falsehoods? If you want the truth of how Vought is actually feeling, see the quote from Mike Lee above.

Interestingly, in a moment that he apparently did not realize was being captured by cameras, Johnson may have shown more of his cards than he intended to. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) confronted Johnson outside the House chamber and, making reference to Trump's speech at Quantico, said that Johnson simply has to do some leading, because "The president is unhinged. He is unwell." Johnson's response was: "A lot of folks on your side are too, I don't control him..." Many are interpreting that as a tacit admission that Johnson agrees with Dean. We will leave it to readers to decide for themselves if they agree.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Part III: And then there are the Democrats. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (both D-NY) know full well what Trump and Vought are up to, and that damage will be done, to both federal employees and to blue states. They know that, depending on what happens, the Democratic Party could get the blame for the shutdown. And they... are OK with that.

Don't interpret that as meaning they are happy right now (they most certainly are not) or that they don't care (they most certainly do). However, politics ain't beanbag. Sometimes, when you're in the kitchen, and the heat is rising, you have two choices: (1) the bad choice and (2) the worse choice. The two Democratic leaders have decided, either of their own volition, or with the "encouragement" of their caucus, that they have to make a stand here. First, because the Democratic base wants it. Second, because none of the other checks on Trump is functioning very well right now.

Jeffries and Schumer also know one other very important thing, and it's the thing that makes this shutdown effectively unique. In past instances, the unpopular maneuver (shutting down the government) was initiated by a faction that was pushing an unpopular policy position. Remember that the first Trump shutdown was over wall funding, the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) shutdown was an attempt to kill Obamacare, and the Newt Gingrich shutdown was an attempt to ram a bunch of cuts to social programs down Bill Clinton's throat. None of those positions had majority support.

By contrast, the thing the Democrats are fighting for (at least, the one that isn't inside baseball) is health care subsidies. Those, in contrast to the other policies named, are wildly popular—support is in the 70%+ range. So, Jeffries and Schumer can tell themselves—perhaps rightly, we'll see—that they may be executing an unpopular maneuver (filibuster/shutdown), but they are doing so in service of a popular cause, and that the latter factor will carry the day.

The Messaging: Since the two (or three) sides aren't negotiating, and since they are likely to be at an impasse for a while, that means it's time for everyone to crank up their messaging operations. Well, it's time for the White House and the Democrats, at least. Consistent with their Switzerland-ish approach, Republican leadership in Congress isn't really saying all that much.

The Trump administration, for its part, continues its usual sledgehammer approach. A whole bunch of federal departments now have banners on their webpages blaming the Democrats for the shutdown in highly partisan language. Here are half a dozen examples:

Not all of the departments have these messages, mind you; several of them have the very neutral sort of message we would expect to see if a grown-up was in the White House. We're not sure what the explanation is; the obvious guess would be that it's at the discretion of the department head, but that doesn't work, because Pete Hegseth and Kristi Noem are as fanatical as anyone in the administration, and their departments' sites don't have wild messages.

The White House is also endeavoring to use federal employees' out-of-office messages to peddle the administration's spin. In some cases, employees have just been given instructions as to the (extremely partisan) text they should use for their out-of-office responses. In other cases, the employees' out-of-office messages have apparently been changed without their consent. This is a very clear violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits executive branch employees—excepting the president and vice president—from politicking while acting in an official capacity. It's obvious enough that HUD Secretary Scott Turner, who is presumably responsible for the delightful message at the top of the above image, was asked about it yesterday. He said he is "not worried at all." He's probably right not to be worried; the law is certainly being broken, but its teeth are somewhat flimsy. And the teeth don't matter at all if you have a Department of Justice that has no interest in enforcement.

In addition to videos inspired by a song that was a hit... in 1976 (aka, the decade in which Trump absorbed all of his cultural references), Trump has also been leaning into pictures and videos of Democrats in sombreros. There was one with Jeffries in a sombrero earlier this week, and there were a couple more yesterday. We wondered what exactly this was about, and it turns out that the GOP thinks this is the best way to sell their message that Democrats are trying to save health care benefits for undocumented immigrants. Even if that was true, it hardly seems Christian to oppose such a notion. After all, Jesus said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." He did not add "But be clear, that sh** stops the moment you get to the fu**ing border." And, in any case, it's not true. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for either Medicaid or Obamacare.

As to the Democrats, we've seen a lot of pieces with a version of the Will Rogers critique. You know, "I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat" (see here, here, here and here for some examples). We think maybe that critique—and remember that Rogers made his joke almost 100 years ago—has become a bit of a lazy cliché, because the Democrats' messaging seems pretty clear and simple to us: "We want to save the health care subsidies." That's also fighting for something, whereas the Republicans' main message—"the radical left is shutting down the government"—is basically a slightly more verbose way of saying "Democrats bad!" Our guess is that won't persuade too many people beyond those who already believed that before the shutdown.

The two Democrats do have a couple of potential aces in the hole. First, are there any individual members of the House or the Senate who are better at communicating their side's message than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)? Yes, there are a few Republicans who get about as much attention as those two, but people like Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) tend to be rogues who speak for a party of one. Certainly, if there ARE better salespeople in Congress than AOC and Bernie, there aren't many of them. And both of them are already working overtime to get the blue team's message out there.

The other potential ace in the hole is a past president's strongly worded opinion on shutdowns:

[I]f there is a shutdown, I think it would be a tremendously negative mark on the President of the United States. He's the one that has to get people together [and] if you say who gets fired, it always has to be the top. I mean, problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top. And the president's the leader, and he's got to get everybody in a room, and he's got to lead.

That past president in question is, of course, also the current president. Trump said that in response to one of the shutdowns that took place during the Barack Obama years. The footage is already all over social media, and one could imagine it finding its way into news broadcasts and maybe even commercials, depending on how long this thing lasts.

The Polls: As we have now observed several times, everyone is going to be looking at polls for potential chinks in their own armor, or that of the other side. We noted the results of three major polls on Wednesday. Yesterday, The Washington Post added a fourth poll to the mix. Their numbers say that 47% of respondents blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown, 30% blame the Democrats, and 23% are not sure. To move into the stronger position, then, the red team would either have to win over nearly all of the "not sure" crowd, or would have to peel off some of the 47% that currently side with the blue team. Also of interest is that the poll found that 71% of respondents want to keep the Obamacare subsidies.

The Impact: If the polls ARE going to change markedly, then that will be because some segment(s) of the American public is/are affected by the shutdown, and express that by changing their position on the matter.

There are already some very significant effects being felt, most obviously by the federal workers who are already furloughed, or are about to be. There are also the various government agencies that, on the whole, won't be available to perform their usual services for people who need them.

When and if we get to October 15 or so, there will be a couple of key developments. SNAP will run out around then, and the federal courts will also begin to slow down markedly or to shut down entirely. If we get to early November, there will be a couple more key developments. First, ACA enrollment will begin, and people who are losing their subsidies and don't know it already will learn the unpleasant truth then. Second, on Nov. 4, it will become the longest shutdown in history. There will be a lot of headlines pointing that out, and a lot of headlines pointing out that Trump broke his own record, making him responsible for both of the two longest shutdowns in U.S. history.

Trump's strategy, of course, is to try to steer as much pain in the direction of Democratic states and Democratic voters as is possible. Hence, for example, the two funding freezes (the NYC infrastructure and the green-energy projects) that were announced yesterday. However, as we've already pointed out a couple of times, it's not so easy to wield the scalpel here. Remember the (accurate) line about how "There are more Trump voters in California than Texas, more Biden voters in Texas than New York, more Trump voters in New York than Ohio, more Biden voters in Ohio than Massachusetts, more Trump voters in Massachusetts than Mississippi, and more Biden voters in Mississippi than Vermont." Trump can try to hurt blue-state voters, but he's also going to hit a bunch of independents and moderate Republicans, too. Meanwhile, there are also parts of the shutdown that WILL affect his base, whether he likes it or not. For example, the Farm Service Agency has no money right now, and so cannot operate. That hurts farmers a lot, and farmers are very GOP these days.

Unless this shutdown goes on for months and months, it's unlikely that many voters will factor the shutdown itself into their decision next November. But people who are harmed most certainly could use their vote to express their unhappiness. The Democrats aren't actively trying to harm anyone right now, whereas the leader of the Republican Party most certainly is. If Trump cannot do the job of selling "This is all the radical left-wing Democrats' fault" much better than he was able to sell steaks, vodka, branded Bibles or cheesy guitars, he could be helping contribute to a blue wave next November.

The Way Out?: We've been trying to figure out how this might end and, for what it's worth, we can conceive of three basic possibilities. The first, which is probably the least likely, is that one side or the other becomes so fully persuaded that its position is weak that they basically capitulate. So, the Democrats surrender and agree to the continuing resolution (at which point we presumably do this all over again in a month or two) or the Republicans surrender and agree to put back the Obamacare subsidies.

The second possibility, which is probably the most likely, is that the Democrats agree to vote for the CR, and the Republicans promise to negotiate about the Obamacare subsidies (and maybe the recissions) during the can-has-been-kicked window. Then, we presumably do this all over again in December or January or February, except with the GOP having made commitments that won't be too easy to shake off.

The third possibility, which is probably in the middle in terms of likelihood, is that the Republicans kill the filibuster, and ram through a funding bill. If the GOP does do this, they would not strike down the filibuster entirely; they would just create yet another carve-out, either for budget bills in general or CRs in particular. There would certainly be some members of the Republican conference (e.g., Mitch McConnell, KY) who would not be happy about this. They would realize that: (1) the Democrats would be able to ram through THEIR budget bills once they have the trifecta again, and (2) yet another giant carve-out would be one step closer to axing the filibuster entirely. So, who knows if the votes would be there?

There you have it, our latest thoughts on this train wreck. And the grand total is... 4,819 words. Oh well, the best laid plans of mice and men, and all that. (Z)

Lots of Abortion News this Week

It is unbelievable how much worthy-of-our-attention news there is on a daily basis these days. So much so that it's basically impossible to keep up, and we have a massive backlog of stuff we've been trying to get to, without much success so far. As a general rule, we can only produce 5,000-7,000 words' worth of material a day. Anything more than that, and the quality slips from "Brilliant!" and "Life-changing!" to merely "Incisive!" and "Eye-opening!" More importantly, if we blow past that limit too often (like we did today, admittedly), it demands too much of the readers' time.

All of this is entrée to the note that there's been a fair bit of news on the abortion front this week that, despite it being one of the central issues in American politics, we just haven't been able to get to. We're going to rectify that now.

First up, Pope Leo XIV was very clearly elected/hired to be less openly political than his predecessor. Nobody is claiming that Francis was a latter-day Patrick Henry or Bobby Seale, but he certainly made it known where he stood on certain issues, like immigration. Leo appears to understand very well that his job is to dial it back a bit, so he's been pretty quiet in the 4 months or so since he became the Servant of the Servants of God.

This week, however, Leo managed to generate some controversy in a manner that would even make Francis proud. At issue is an award that U.S. Cardinal Blase Cupich plans to give to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), recognizing the Senator's imminent retirement and his extensive work on behalf of immigrants. Like Joe Biden, Durbin is a Catholic who has supported pro-choice legislation. Whether he is himself pro-choice, or he merely believes that he should not impose his religious views on others, is something only he knows.

Given Durbin's voting history, a bunch of prominent Catholics, including a dozen bishops, pitched a fit when they learned about the award. The squabble got loud enough that it reached across the Atlantic Ocean, such that a reporter asked Leo about it. And Leo gave an answer that, to be blunt, called out the hypocrisy that exists in many flavors of American Christianity (e.g., many fundamentalist evangelicals):

I think that it's very important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I'm not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate... It's important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the church. Someone who says "I'm against abortion" but says "I'm in favor of the death penalty" is not really pro-life. Someone who says "I'm against abortion, but I'm in favor of the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States"—I don't know if that's pro-life.

The Vicar of Christ was certainly diplomatic in his choice of words. But was he also laying down the law? He's new to the job, so maybe he accidentally said more than he intended. We tend to think, however, that he knew exactly what he was saying. In any event, he very clearly believes that if you are going to call yourself "pro-life," you have to be pro-ALL-lives, not just pro-unborn-fetuses. Naturally, his remarks caused much consternation on the right, particularly among right-wing American Catholics, and also produced some carping from the White House. Because, after all, who really knows more about Catholic doctrine—the Pope, or Donald Trump?

Moving on, California was also at the center of controversy this week (as it so often is). Back in 2023, Dr. Rémy Coeytaux prescribed abortifacient pills to a woman in Louisiana. That is now illegal in the Bayou State, and so the Louisiana AG has issued an arrest warrant demanding that California arrest Coeytaux and turn him over to Louisiana authorities.

Good luck with that, Louisiana. First, California is not bloody likely to help you enforce this particular political program. Second, it took us 30 seconds of googling to figure out that while Coeytaux went to med school in California (Stanford) and is licensed in California, he very clearly lives, practices, and teaches in North Carolina (where Gov. Josh Stein, D-NC, is not likely to be any more cooperative than Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-CA, would be). Golden State officials are already weary of this stuff, and so—and this appears to just be coincidental—the legislature just passed a law that allows physicians to mail abortifacients anonymously. Newsom, who may just be considering a presidential run in 2028, has already signed the measure into law. If he does happen to run, this subject may come up once or twice.

Our third bit of news also involves abortifacients. Literally hours before the shutdown, and all the ensuing attention to that story, the FDA approved a generic version of mifepristone made by Evita Solutions. That's the second generic for that drug; the first, from GenBioPro, was approved in 2019. Anti-choice groups are furious; spokespeople for the FDA explained that the agency has relatively little leeway when it comes to rejecting generic drugs. That's true, and probably part of the explanation. We would guess the other part is that Bobby Kennedy Jr. doesn't care about abortion, as the battles he cares about are elsewhere. So, he tried to slide this in under the radar, in the (apparently unsuccessful) hope that he could spare himself a headache.

And finally, let's talk about the Oura ring. This is a not-cheap ($400) piece of technology that you wear on a finger, and that tracks various health-related metrics. For women, that includes menstrual cycles. This means that if you had a woman's Oura data, you'd have a pretty good idea of whether or not she was pregnant... and whether she ceased to be pregnant, say, a month or two later.

The news this week is twofold: (1) Oura's single-biggest customer is the Department of Defense, and (2) key components of the Oura software are made by the company of ultra-MAGA Silicon Valley tycoon Peter Thiel. These things were not a secret before, but there were a couple of big news stories on the subject this week, and those stories spread widely on social media.

Oura, which is actually not based in the U.S. (it's Finnish), insists that it does not share data with the federal government. Some women just don't believe the company (or just aren't willing to take a chance Oura might be lying, or might be strong-armed into changing that policy). Other women simply don't want to support a company that works with the two MAGA Peters: Thiel and Hegseth. So, a bunch of Oura rings are going in the drawer, or the trash, or up on eBay.

With that, we are caught up, at least on this subject, at least for now. (Z)

Legal News: Is the Supreme Court Getting Ready to Give Trump a Big L?

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant Donald Trump's request for an emergency stay of the lower court's order prohibiting Trump from firing Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. Well, they didn't actually decline it because this Court can't bear to tell Trump "no." Instead, the request is "deferred pending oral argument in January 2026." But the practical effect is the same, and is at least an acknowledgment that the Court's immediate intervention is not warranted. So, they have effectively moved this case off the shadow docket and onto a more transparent posture, albeit an irregular one.

We have several more hints that the Supreme Court views Trump's attempt to fire Cook differently than his house-cleaning at other nominally independent boards. In the FTC case brought by Lisa Slaughter, whom Trump fired without cause, the Court granted an emergency stay of the lower court's order reinstating her. This is similar to the Court's stays of district court orders reinstating members of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Financial Protection Board and other independent agencies created by Congress. As has been noted, the Court has strongly hinted that it intends to overturn the over 90-year-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor, which affirmed Congress' ability to create agencies with Board members' terms that extend beyond the current administration. The idea was to have some insulation for these personnel from politics to ensure consistency in their work and in how the law is applied. These agencies have quasi-judicial duties and their decisions should be guided by the facts and the law, not by partisan politics. This independence gives the public confidence in the integrity of their work and provides some predictability in the process so people can plan and prepare. But when it comes to the law and politics, this Supreme Court tends to choose politics—consistency is for suckers.

Unlike those other agencies, however, Trump's efforts to remove Lisa Cook have prompted the Court to take a notably different approach, at least so far. Trump fired Cook ostensibly "for cause," though the reason, alleged mortgage "fraud" that predates her time on the Board, seems pretextual, especially given Trump's public comments about his desire to get rid of any members appointed by Joe Biden, as well as evidence that contradicts the allegations. Information has since come out that Cook never claimed any other residence as a primary residence—all the paperwork for a condo in Atlanta lists it as a vacation home or secondary home. Cook sued and a district court kept her in her position, finding that her removal would be unlawful. So, she is currently serving on the Fed board and attended its most recent meeting, where the Fed lowered interest rates. The White House filed an application for an emergency stay of the lower court's order while an appeal is pending and also asked for an administrative stay while the Supreme Court considers the emergency stay. Importantly, the Court did not grant an administrative stay. Instead, it asked for briefing on whether a stay is appropriate and has now scheduled oral argument on that question for January 2026. The Court could still ultimately grant the stay, but given that Trump was asking for intervention before the Fed met last week, the Court didn't give him what he wanted and she remains on the Fed board. It's a small, but significant, and unusual, rejection of Trump's demands. And again, that suggests the Court views the Fed very differently from other agencies.

The pieces of the argument are already in place. The Federal Reserve Act prohibits firing members except "for cause," but the law does not define that term. Solicitor General John Sauer claims that cause is whatever Trump says it is—that it's irrelevant whether the alleged wrongdoing actually occurred. Moreover, he argues that Cook is not entitled to due process other than advance notice of her firing. In other words, she cannot challenge the basis for her firing or prove that it's bogus. For that reason, Sauer argues that Trump has satisfied the for-cause requirement because he fired Cook for the "appearance" of a lack of integrity, not necessarily because the accusations of mortgage fraud are true. This is a very clever approach, because it could allow the Court to say that it doesn't matter if the reason is a pretext—there's been an accusation that paperwork was filled out incorrectly and that casts doubt on Cook's integrity. Since only Governors who are above reproach can serve, Trump had cause to fire her. In this way, the Court could preserve the for-cause requirement to remove Fed board members while also holding that Trump satisfied it. This, of course, would open the door to manufacturing other unfounded allegations against unfavored Board members to allow Trump, or any future president, to cashier them at any time. If the Court condones this method and holds that the truth of an accusation is irrelevant, then the for-cause element is meaningless, but it would give Trump the chance to smear members' reputations before letting them go. And yet the Court could presumably still console itself that it was maintaining the independence of the Fed.

Meanwhile, Abbe Lowell, Cook's attorney, is arguing that the Court should not intervene at this stage. He suggests that it would be better to deny the stay request and allow the case to be fully heard before weighing in. His reasoning could resonate with this Court: There is no emergency requiring her immediate ouster—in fact, just the opposite. Because she has continued to serve on the Fed and participated in the most recent meeting, her removal would cause instability in the financial markets and signal that the Fed is no longer independent, something that the Court has signaled sets this Board apart from the others. Crucially, he argues that Cook and the other Governors enjoy not only notice but an opportunity to challenge the alleged basis for termination, so that the for-cause requirement offers meaningful protection. This is the first real test as to whether this Court has the stomach to rule against Trump on something he clearly wants. We'll find out sometime after January 2026. (L)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Julius Caesar Was a Prodigy

Last week, we gave two pretty juicy hints. The first was "[W]e'll say that if you can't figure it out, you may never be able to forgive yourself. Yep, you'll be Unforgiven." And just in case anyone thought that was a reference to Metallica, we gave this additional hint: "we very much wanted to write a headline that included the phrase 'The Dark Knight,' but there was no plausible way to do it, except to cheat and write something like "The Dark Night.'"

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader S.K. in Ardmore, PA:

Each headline contains the name of a movie that Morgan Freeman appeared in.

• Legal News, Part I: A Legal System Under Suspicion?
• Legal News, Part II: The Power of One Person... to Screw Things Up
• Military News: Is Pete Hegseth about to Commit High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
• The Economy: Trump Takes Steps to Make Sure Shutdown Has a Deep Impact
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (aka "Glory, Glory Hallelujah!")
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Jimmy Kimmel Unleashed
• This Week in Freudenfreude: It's "The Shawshank Redemption," Redux

And, of course, Freeman was also in Unforgiven, from your hint.

I was thrown off the trail a bit at first, because for the third headline, I was thinking of the film Crimes and Misdemeanors, which did not have Freeman in it.

Yep. Of course, Freeman was also in the Christian Bale Batman trilogy, and he appeared in one of the film versions of Julius Caesar, from this headline.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY S.K. in Greensboro, NC M.L. in Tahoe City, CA I.H. in Occupied DC M.M. in Dunellen, NJ M.W. in Altea, Spain J.N. in Zionsville, IN R.S. in Pittsgrove, NJ W.V. in San Jacinto, CA J.R. in Austin, TX M.B. in Albany, NY T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts A.G. in Plano, TX A.H. in Gainesville, VA K.R. in Austin, TX S.K. in Ardmore M.F. in Norwood, MA J.L. in Sterling, MA M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada W.M. in Livonia, MI H.K. in Berlin, Germany D.S. in Layton, UT N.H. in London, England, UK B.K. in Mystic, CT R.S. in Landing, NJ

M.K. in Long Branch, NJ M.J. in Oakdale, MN J.A.W. in Queens, NY N.C. in Columbus, MS B.K.J. in San Diego, CA A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD M.S. in Poplar Bluff, MO R.D.D. in Nantucket, MA S.W. in Winter Garden, FL S.D.S. in Las Vegas, NV M.Z. in Sharon, MA E.S. in Providence, RI B.R. in Berwyn, PA P.R. in Kirksville, MO J.F. in Fayetteville, NC S.G. in Durham, NC K.F. in Berea, KY D.R. in Petoskey, MI H.S. in Lake Forest, CA N.S. in Fayetteville, NY P.L. in Skövde, Sweden C.S. in Haddonfield, NJ C.A. in West Palm Beach, FL D.H. in Portland, OR J.P. in Rowland Heights, CA

The 50th correct response was received at 6:49 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one/two words per headline, and it's in the category Music. A hint: There is one headline that actually has two correct answers, one obvious, one not.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line October 3 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Superintendent Steps Down, Presumably Because He's an Ol' Dirty Bastard

There are some very poor educators out there (like, say, whoever is serving on the "faculty" of PragerU). But it is hard to imagine a worse "educator" than now-departed Oklahoma Superintendent of Education Ryan Walters (R). The "education" part of that was just for funsies, because he had no interest at all in doing the job he was hired for. No, he used his post, and the privileged access it afforded him, to engage in vulgar political activism.

Walters made many a headline with his "reforms." He required the state's schools to add the Bible to the curriculum, unconcerned about that whole "separation of church and state" foolishness. He tried to require students to prove they are U.S. citizens before they would be allowed to enroll in school. He announced plans to scrutinize every teacher in the state, and to fire any who are too "woke." After Charlie Kirk was killed, Walter instructed every school in the state to establish a chapter of Turning Point USA.

Regardless of the underlying politics, any educator, any public official, and, frankly, every parent should be horrified by this sort of self-serving opportunism. And, indeed, even Walters' colleagues in the Oklahoma state government were disdainful of him. State Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R), for example, blasted Walters (and Gov. Kevin Stitt, R-OK):

Ever since Gov. Stitt appointed Ryan Walters to serve as Secretary of Education, we have witnessed a stream of never-ending scandal and political drama. From the mishandling of pandemic relief funds that resulted in families buying Xboxes and refrigerators to the latest squabbling with board members over what was or wasn't showing on TV, the Stitt-Walters era has been an embarrassment to our state.

Even worse, test scores and reading proficiency are at historic lows.

Drummond is plenty conservative, but he's not a loony bird.

Although nobody is saying it openly, what brought about Walters' demise is surely the incident that Drummond obliquely refers to in his tweet. The State Board of Education was meeting in the same building where Walters' office is (well, was) located. There was a TV in the office. And when the members arrived for the meeting, there was (allegedly) porn on the TV. Walters denies it, but who would make that up? In any event, he only survived for a few weeks more before "voluntarily resigning."

Walters will now run a right-wing activist group whose focus is getting rid of all teachers' unions. Undoubtedly, since it's oh-so-easy to get rid of an established, entrenched union, he will have enormous success at that. If he can find enough time, that is; after all, the porn doesn't download itself. Meanwhile, Oklahoma has rid itself of a real pip of a public official, and the odds are nobody will ever hear from him again. Wins all around. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Bad Bunny Knows How to Play The Game

Bad Bunny is one of the most popular musicians in the world, and is fresh off a wildly successful residency in the place of his birth, namely Puerto Rico. It is also no secret that he disdains Donald Trump. In part, this is because of the cruel things Trump has said about, and the cruel things he has done to, Puerto Rico. In part, it is because of ICE and the overzealous immigration enforcement. Indeed, part of the reason for the Puerto Rico residency was that the artist was leery of a proper U.S. tour, since his fanbase is heavily Latino. Dates were actually scheduled, but then they were canceled. In an interview, he explained: "[T]here was the issue of—like, fu**ing ICE could be outside [my concerts]."

Quite a few folks, from Gavin Newsom to Jimmy Kimmel, have demonstrated that if you don't like Trump, it is possible (and, presumably, very satisfying) to enrage him by poking him in the eye. Newsom, of course, has his Trump-mocking tweets on eX-Twitter. Kimmel has his monologues. And Bad Bunny has his own little bag of tricks.

For example, if there is a TV show that gets more space in Trump's head, rent-free, than Saturday Night Live, we do not know what that show is. First, he's a native New Yorker, and it's the quintessential New York show. Further, it launched in 1975, the decade in which most of his cultural references were formed. And perhaps most importantly, it's yet another situation where he wants so badly to be accepted and loved. This is why he's hosted the show two times (April 3, 2004 and November 7, 2015). Despite this, he's been absolutely savaged by SNL, in a way almost without parallel among politicians (Sarah Palin comes close). This is why he's sent nasty tweets/Truths about the show, and how it should be canceled, close to a hundred times.

Bad Bunny has become something of an artist-in-residence on SNL, sometimes hosting, sometimes serving as the musical guest, sometimes popping in for just one sketch. The same holds for Justin Timberlake, Paul Simon and Paul McCartney, among others (though Macca has never hosted). And if you know Trump is watching (and you better believe he is), and you want to push his buttons, what would be the best way to do so? Yes, you could do a mocking impersonation of him, but cast member James Austin Johnson currently has a monopoly on that. As an alternative, we might suggest the following elements for a sketch:

• Multiple Latino performers
• Significant amounts of dialogue in Spanish
• Drag

If that sounds like just the ticket, then we give you Bad Bunny, Pedro Pascal and Marcello Hernández (along with Chloe Troast) in "Protective Mom 2":

That same episode also had a sketch called "Age of Discovery." It's entirely in Spanish (though with subtitles), and features a buffoonish leader (King Ferdinand of Spain, played by Bad Bunny) reacting like a narrow-minded moron when exposed to a bunch of new things from other cultures:

Tough to figure out the subtext on that one. Very tough, indeed. Anyhow, Bad Bunny will be hosting SNL again this weekend, so expect some more... subtext. And maybe some more drag.

Of course, the big Bad Bunny news this week (and that's a sentence that would have read very differently, say, 10 years ago) is that he will headline the halftime show of the Super Bowl, which will be entirely in Spanish. If you want an even bigger poke in the MAGA eye than an SNL sketch involving Latino performers wearing drag and speaking Spanish, a Latino performer doing an all-Spanish show at the Super Bowl is probably it. One can only hope he comes out in drag, too.

MAGA world predictably went ballistic, slurring the artist as "shameful," "a Trump hater," "not really American," "an anti-ICE activist," etc. Hey, two out of four is not a bad batting average. Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski, who seems to have more lives than all of the Aristocats combined, said this week that ICE would be deployed to patrol during the Super Bowl.

We wrote it once already today, and we will write it again: Good luck with that, Trump administration. As a practical matter, this is not the World Cup, where there are millions of tickets available, putting them within reasonable reach of most people. Super Bowl tickets are very, very expensive, and go mostly to sponsors, people affiliated with the NFL, and very wealthy people. Bad Bunny may be performing, but that is for the fans at home, not the ones in the stadium.

Meanwhile, the NFL did not choose him as a shot across the bow of MAGA. The management of the NFL is actually a mix of apolitical and semi-MAGA, and would not do that. In fact, the management of the NFL really doesn't have anything to do with producing the Super Bowl halftime show. They contracted that job out to Jay-Z and his company Roc Nation. It was Jay-Z and his team who made the choice, and they did so because: (1) Bad Bunny is one of the relatively few artists of the appropriate stature who has not already done the Super Bowl halftime show; (2) the point of the halftime show is to attract eyeballs, especially young eyeballs, who might not otherwise tune in; and (3) Taylor Swift turned them down.

But just because the NFL/Jay-Z aren't making a political statement doesn't mean Bad Bunny isn't making a political statement. He clearly is, just like with his appearances on SNL. In fact, it's probably not wrong to guess that he's baiting the White House, not only by performing, but by sticking to Spanish. The administration would be wise to just look the other way, although that is not what they will do. Remember that the Republicans are really hoping that Latino voters and young voters really are moving in their direction. Well, if that process is indeed going on, maybe the single best way to interrupt it would be to take the most popular young Latino entertainer in the world, and to slur him on social media (maybe with a dumb AI video), or to engage in shenanigans/violence while he gives one of the highest-profile performances of his life.

In any event, we appreciate someone who plays their hand with great skill, and Bad Bunny has, so that's why he's the subject of this item this week. Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

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