Newsom Understands the Incentive Structure

We have seen more caving during the first 9 months of Donald Trump's administration than all the members of the National Speleological Society combined see in a year. How come? It has to do with the incentive structure. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) seems to be the only Democratic politician who understands this (and also seems to have a good grasp of the psychology of bullies). That he is also running for president gives him more motivation to get in the spotlight, but that isn't a requirement.

He has decided to fight back by changing the incentive structure. Last week, Trump sent a 10-page letter to major universities offering them a deal: Sign a compact to effectively cede control of the university to him and he won't destroy the university right now. In fact, he may make them eligible for some ill-defined future special benefits "where feasible" (weasel words, so watch out). His demands include:

• Require admission candidates to take the SAT or ACT test.
• Ban factoring in sex, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation and a list of other things in admission decisions.
• Protect academic freedom by punishing academic units that belittle conservative ideas.
• Ban demonstrations that disrupt campus life or harass individual students or groups.
• Change hiring policies to forbid consideration of sex, ethnicity, race, disability and similar factors.
• Require all employees to abstain from speech or actions related to politics at work.
• Limit the number of foreign students.

These are just a few of the "highlights." The general idea is to forbid any effort to give any advantage to any underrepresented group. If a department has 10 white male professors and a qualified Black female has applied for a vacant position and is as good as the best male candidate, the department would be forbidden from using sex or race as the tiebreaker. Presumably they could ask each one to sing the Star Spangled Banner and use singing ability as the tiebreaker. The compact would be overseen not by what is left of the Dept. of Education, but the DoJ, which could cancel federal funding and benefits for violations. You hired a Black woman. Your funding is hereby canceled. Tough.

Newsom understands that while this "deal" seems to be more "carrot" than "stick" initially, the benefits are vague and might not materialize after the universities make all the changes demanded. So, he decided to change the incentive structure. He tweeted this in his now-famous style for mocking Trump:

IF ANY CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY SIGNS THIS RADICAL AGREEMENT, THEY'LL LOSE BILLIONS IN STATE FUNDING—INCLUDING CAL GRANTS—INSTANTLY. CALIFORNIA WILL NOT BANKROLL SCHOOLS THAT SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM.

What Newsom understands is that everyone Trump has intimidated or threatened (including dangling benefits that might never appear along with penalties for noncompliance with the deal) is faced with this choice: If we agree, we won't be damaged right now and might get some benefits later, but if we don't agree, we will be punished now. In essence, there is an upside to obeying Trump, and much less downside for obeying him. Newsom wants to create a downside (losing California funding) for obeying Trump.

Other governors could get much more aggressive about fighting back. Suppose all blue states threatened funding to universities that signed on with Trump. Or, more generally, when Trump threatens to deny law firms access to federal courtrooms if they don't kowtow to him, suppose 15 governors threatened to deny those firms access to state courtrooms if they do kowtow to him. What if making a corrupt deal to not lose (or get) federal funds means losing state funds or being banned from getting state contracts? What if lawyers who gave in to blackmail were disbarred in the 15 states where the Democrats hold the trifecta? Would this be legal? Probably not, but it could take years before the courts ruled on it and would leave the lawyers in limbo in the interim.

What Newsom seems to understand is that when faced with blackmail, the target is sorely tempted to give in because there is no (or not much) downside to surrendering. But suppose there were a big downside to giving in? Then many targets would stiffen their spines, refuse, and go to court, especially in cases where they would likely win. By creating a downside for caving, targets would have to weigh the risks of either decision and the likely outcome would be fighting the blackmail in court.

But it actually goes much further than this. Numerous federal officials at the highest level have no hesitancy in obeying Trump when he orders them to break the law because there is a downside in disobeying (being fired instantly) but no downside in obeying. Suppose there was. Suppose a group of Democratic senators and governors, including many of the likely presidential candidates, were to say that if the Democrats win in Jan 2029, their top priority should be vigorously prosecuting current federal officials who have broken their oaths and the law. They would also ask for the longest prison terms allowed by law.

Further suppose they supply specific examples, naming officials and laws they have clearly broken, saying indicting these people and putting them on trial for their crimes would be a top priority. Violations of the Hatch Act come to mind here, as a bare minimum. That would change the incentive structure. As it is now, federal officials believe that Republicans will punish them if they DON'T break the law but Democrats won't punish them if they DO break the law. Democrats need to make it abundantly clear that they are no longer Mr. Nice Guy and they will come down extremely hard on officials who break the law while in office as soon as they get the chance. Are Pete Hegseth and Kristi Noem willing to risk years in prison to keep their $246,400/year jobs? Are they really as brave as they pretend?

But there is still more blue-state governors can do, especially if the 15 of them in Democratic trifecta states work together. That is a huge bloc, with money, power and law-enforcement officials. Suppose that when an ICE agent tries to arrest someone, state and local officials demand to see their identification and the warrant for arresting that person. If the agent fails to provide one, the state law-enforcement officer could say: "Since you are apparently not working for the federal government and have no arrest warrant for this person, I have to assume you are a common criminal trying to kidnap someone. Kidnapping is a state crime. You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent, etc." Then the ICE agent is handcuffed, taken away and charged with kidnapping. ICE agents who break down doors to gain entry to buildings and can't prove they are federal agents following lawful orders could be arrested for burglary or breaking and entering under state laws. Having states aggressively enforce their own laws against individual agents and doing their best to not have them released on bail changes the incentive structure for wanting to work for ICE. How many headlines do there have to be saying: "ICE agent arrested for kidnapping and held without bail" before many agents start looking for other jobs?

In short, Newsom is starting to change the incentive structure around blackmail. Blue-state governors aren't helpless if they band together and start enforcing their own laws. Federalism is a two-way street. The supremacy clause in the Constitution applies only to lawful actions. It does not protect federal employees at any level who are violating federal law and committing state crimes. Of course there will be lawsuits, but the lower courts, at least, have not been sympathetic to lawbreaking by federal officials, even at the highest level (keep reading). But the law isn't the only factor here. So is raw power and the states have considerably more than they have used so far. Governors can also mobilize the National Guard. Faced with opposition, bullies often turn out to be cowards. (V)

Another Appeals Court Has Ruled That the Words in the Constitution Actually Matter

The Fourteenth Amendment begins with the text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It seems fairly straightforward except for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part, which was intended to exclude Natives living on reservations and the children of foreign diplomats born on U.S. soil. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made Native Americans living on reservations citizens, so now only foreign diplomats' children are excluded. Note that there is no requirement about the nationality or immigration status of a baby's parents. If you are born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen. Since he is not a constitutional scholar, Donald Trump doesn't know this and signed an XO stating that babies born to undocumented immigrants are not citizens. Of course there were court cases instantly.

The lower courts have been unanimous in ruling that the XO is unconstitutional. The first case to make it to an appeals court was in the Ninth Circuit, headquartered in San Francisco. In July, Judge Ronald Gould, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote for the majority: "One power that the President was not granted, by Article II or by any other source, is the power to modify or change any clause of the United States Constitution." That seems pretty clear.

Now the First Circuit Court, in Boston, has chimed in. On Friday, a three-judge panel issued a 100-page ruling basically saying the same thing Gould said in one sentence. However, U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, a Barack Obama appointee who graduated magna cum laude from the Harvard Law School and who wrote the opinion, specifically noted that the length of the opinion should not be mistaken for a sign that the fundamental question was difficult. He wrote: "It is not, which may explain why it has been more than a century since a branch of our government has made as concerted an effort as the Executive Branch now makes to deny Americans their birthright." The other two judges, both Democratic appointees, agreed with him.

The case will certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court. Everything is. A birthright citizenship case made it to the Supreme Court earlier. The Court didn't rule on the actual issue before it then. Instead it took the opportunity to ban district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. Most of those have followed the same pattern. Trump issues an XO that is patently illegal or unconstitutional. Somebody sues. Then a district judge enjoins the administration from carrying out its illegal order until the case can be decided on the merits.

Once in a very rare while it goes the other way, as when anti-abortion groups brought a case in Amarillo, where they got Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk (because he is the only judge there) to suspend the FDA approval of mifepristone. His ruling was later overturned.

When two circuit courts make contradictory rulings, the Supreme Court usually takes the case to make a single nationwide ruling. The First and Ninth Circuit rulings are the same (except one is a wee bit longer than the other), so the Court doesn't have to take up the case. However, the XO so blatantly contradicts the words in the Constitution, it has decided to do so anyway. (V)

Judge Gives Georgia 2 Weeks to Replace Fani Willis

Our original thought for the headline of this piece was "Stupid DA Blows Case against Trump." But we changed our mind—but only because the actual news right now is a consequence of that, not the original story. In case you have forgotten, Donald Trump organized an alleged criminal conspiracy to try to steal Georgia's 16 electoral votes in the 2020 election. He tried to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to "find" 11,780 votes for him, helped organize a slate of fake electors, and more. Trump and 18 co-defendants were charged with violating Georgia's RICO law. Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis began vigorously prosecuting the case.

One of Willis' first moves was to hire her then-boyfriend, Nathan Wade, to prosecute the case, even though her own office had plenty of experienced prosecutors ready to go. To make it worse, Wade had no prosecutorial experience other than a year of handling traffic citations in Cobb County. If Willis had been dating Andrew Weissmann or Jack Smith, she might have been able to make a case that he was the best prosecutor in the country, but Wade was a lawyer in private practice specializing in divorces and contracts. It was a blunder of enormous proportions. How could she have been so careless, given how high profile the case was? And she wasn't even doing Wade a favor. He said Georgia doesn't pay prosecutors all that well and he was making more money in private practice than the state was paying him.

Needless to say, the defendants asked the judge, Scott McAfee, to throw the case out due to conflicts of interest. He excoriated her for incredible stupidity, even though she hadn't broken any laws, and ruled that either Wade had to quit or Willis had to drop the case. Wade resigned immediately. The case was appealed and the appeals court ruled that it was a really bad look and Willis had to get off the case as well. She appealed. Three weeks ago, the Georgia Supreme Court denied cert, meaning they would not take the case and the appeals court ruling was final. Friday, McAfee ordered the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys Council to assign a new prosecutor to the case within 14 days or he will dismiss.

The Georgia RICO statute is pretty broad. Basically, if two or more people plot to break one or more laws, they are in violation. Willis had a pretty strong case against Trump, especially since four of the defendants flipped and were prepared to rat on Trump to save their own necks. Willis had Trump dead to rights and she blew it. It is said that love is blind. She has proven beyond a doubt that love is also foolish beyond belief. How could she expect that, in an unbelievably high-profile case the entire world was watching very intensely, she could put her totally inexperienced boyfriend in charge and nobody would notice?

What happens next depends on whether a new prosecutor is appointed and what he or she decides to do now that Trump is president again. One option could be to drop the charges against Trump and continue the prosecution of the other defendants. Since this is a state case, Trump can't pardon them. Having them be convicted would definitely send a message to future plotters that you can be caught and punished, even if Trump gets off scot free. (V)

Apple Caves

While we are on the general subject of caving, bullies, and folks doing stuff they shouldn't be doing, Apple is back in the news (after promising it would invest $500 billion in the U.S. over the next 4 years to prevent Donald Trump from throwing his iPhone in the Potomac in a fit of rage). This time, all Apple had to do was remove an app that Trump doesn't like, ICEBlock, from the App Store. The app allows anyone to report the presence of ICE whenever The ICEman Cometh.

By crowdsourcing the location of ICE raids, people who feel vulnerable to potentially being arrested and deported, even if they are U.S. citizens who have committed no crime, can see places they should avoid for the time being. Trump didn't want Apple (or Google, which removed the app from its store, too) to make it possible to get information about where ICE raids were ongoing. Trump didn't call Apple CEO Tim Cook directly. He outsourced the work to AG Pam Bondi, who proudly took credit for giving the order.

The creator of the app, Joshua Aaron, went on MSNBC to explain why he wrote the app. Here is his explanation:

He said he sees the country becoming like Nazi Germany with government officials arresting people on the streets without probable cause and detaining them without a trial. He felt people needed a way to protect themselves so he created one. He also likened it to apps like Waze that allow users to alert drivers to the presence of police on the road. Waze is not blocked. (V)

Project 2029

The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last (JVL) often thinks out of the box. One recent idea of his is that Democrats should stop saying their condition for ending the shutdown is restoring health-care subsidies. Instead, they should say their only condition is releasing 100% of the Epstein files, unredacted except for blacking out the names of Epstein's victims. Most Democrats, independents, and even Republicans would probably support this. It would put the Senate Republicans in the unenviable position of saying: "We would rather shut the government down and cause untold hardship for millions of people rather than let Americans know who Epstein's accomplices, helpers, and fellow criminals were." We suspect that would be a tough position for even the hardest-core Trumpists in the Senate to defend.

JVL also has another pet project, Project 2029. He even has a cover photo ready to go (with a bit of help from Midjourney's AI program):

Here are the main items in JVL's Project 2029:

• Make D.C. a state, remove federal control of it, and have it elect its senators as quickly as possible.
• Expand SCOTUS. Is this ideal? No. An Amendment can come later, but action is required now.
• Aggressively prosecute everyone who broke laws during Trump 2.0, from the top down to the lowest ICE agent.
• Eliminate the Dept. of Homeland Security, distributing essential functions to other Depts.
• Pass laws curtailing the president's authority during emergencies.
• Pass laws requiring financial transparency from presidential candidates.

JVL invites readers to add their own items. OK, here are some of ours:

• Clean House. Fire all Trump agency heads then institute new rules for the future.
• Pass the For the People Act.
• End gerrymandering, possibly by electing representatives statewide with proportional representation.
• Give election administration over to independent civil servants, not partisan politicians.
• Establish a constitutional right to vote for all citizens over 18 except those currently imprisoned for felonies.
• Pass a new and stronger Voting Rights Act.
• Strengthen the Posse Comitatus Act (e.g., no troops doing law enforcement unless the governor also approves).
• Pass a law stating that the president can be indicted after his term for violating federal law while president.
• Allow Congress to punish presidential misbehavior short of impeachment; maybe a short suspension or fine?
• Abolish (super) PACs and make it illegal for corporations to donate to campaigns, even indirectly.
• Public matching of campaign contributions up to $200 for all federal offices at a ratio of 5:1.
• Require all donations to candidates and measures be reported in public and in real time.
• Amendment to allow a president to name a SCOTUS justice after each victory plus mandatory retirement at 65.
• Pass a law making the heads of agencies truly independent (e.g. require Senate approval to fire one).
• Name impounding congressionally appropriated funds as an impeachable offense; ban recissions.
• New antitrust laws. Make controlling >10% of a sector a reason for a forced breakup.
• Ban politicians from owning stock except ETFs in the S&P 500.
• Ban right-to-work-laws nationally and strengthen unions.
• Make social media platforms liable for defamatory postings they publish, same as newspapers.
• Raise the estate tax to 95% for estates above $10 million.
• No more acting (cabinet) officers; No. 2 takes over until the Senate has confirmed a new No. 1.
• Make declaring emergencies require Senate approval and then only for 30 days.
• Repeal all laws giving the president congressional powers (e.g., levying tariffs).

In our view, the main things are strengthening democracy and returning power to where it belongs: Congress. Economic issues, like the minimum wage, can certainly be included, but the first priority is making sure there will never again be an authoritarian president because Congress will hold most of the cards. That was the founders' intention, actually (which is why it is in Art. I of the Constitution and the president is in Art. 2). The three branches are coequal but it was never intended to make them copowerful.

In particular, the Supreme Court has far too much power that was never intended. It simply took it in Marbury v. Madison and it stuck. How about a law embedding judicial review in a statute, but with restrictions? For example, the Court can declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional, but only by a unanimous vote of all the justices? No more contentious 5-4 or 6-3 rulings throwing out laws passed by the people's representatives. (V)

Now Democrats Have a Candidate Quality Problem

In past election cycles, no matter how much the Turtle-in-chief tried, Republicans kept nominating Senate candidates with "candidate quality" problems. Think: Kari Lake, Kelly Loeffler, Roy Moore, Blake Masters, Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell, Dr. Oz, Herschel Walker, Matt Rosendale, and on and on. They all lost, often to newbies who might not have been able to beat a stronger candidate. Once in a while, one of them won in a one-party state—ahem, Sen. Football (R-AL)—but it is rare. Deep-red states generally have plenty of ambitious conservative politicians for the voters to choose from and they aren't forced to go with a complete turkey.

So far, there don't appear to be any races where the Republicans have a "candidate quality" problem. The cycle is still young, so one could yet pop up, but so far, so good for the red team. As far as close observers can see, Republicans are not about to throw away any winnable seats by nominating a fire-breathing wacko who can't win a general election. A lot of the credit goes to Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who is quietly working behind the scenes to prevent wacko candidates from getting any traction in Republican primaries. Roy Moore's loss in Alabama shows that no state, no matter how conservative, is immune to having a truly awful candidate be dispatched.

This time, it is the Democrats who may have a "candidate quality" problem. Fortunately for them, it is for Virginia AG, not the Senate. The problem candidate is Jay Jones. His problem is that a string of text messages from him musing about political violence toward a political rival has come to light. This is an especially bad time for a candidate to be the top cop of a state to be talking about shooting the then-speaker of the Virginia House, Todd Gilbert. One of the messages read: "Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head." That is a clumsy version of an old joke about how person one is so horrible, you'd rather make absolutely sure they end up dead (two bullets) as opposed to getting rid of two horrible people (one bullet each).

Jones' problem has become the problem of gubernatorial candidate Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA). Republicans up and down the line are demanding that she call for his ouster from the ticket. Yesterday, Donald Trump joined them in demanding that Jones exit the ticket. So far, Spanberger has condemned the messages but not called for Jones to quit. This ought to be a no-brainer for the Democrats. Every Democrat from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on down should be screaming that political violence is totally unacceptable and Jones must leave the race immediately. The Virginia Democratic Party can surely find a replacement. Besides, this one race isn't so important.

The (unspoken) problem is that Jones is Black, and the Democrats don't want to aggravate Black voters. They are going to need those votes in November. Spanberger's refusal to demand that Jones quit the race could hurt her. Her luck is that she has a weak opponent, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (R-VA). Roughly 100% of Earle-Sears' ads attack Spanberger for refusing to toss trans people under the bus and then run the bus back and forth over them three or four times. This is apparently working, since Earle-Sears has managed to come back from being down by double digits to being down by mid-single digits. Maybe this will be a magic bullet for Republicans for years to come.

The 2024 Trump campaign spent $65 million on a single ad about how in 2019 when Kamala Harris ran for president she said she was fine with prisoners getting gender reassignment surgery at taxpayers' expense. The tag line was: She's for they/them. He's for you. Susie Wiles is smart enough to have run polls out the gazoo before spending $65 million on one ad. We have to assume the ad worked for Trump and is working for Earle-Sears. Democrats don't know what to do. What do you do when a sizable majority of voters intensely hate something you support? Henry Clay famously said: "I'd rather be right than be president." He may have been right but he was never president. (V)

The Supreme Court is Back in Town

The Supreme Court justices think R&R is important, so they give themselves a 3-month vacation every year. For a job that pays $303,600 (with the chief getting an extra $14K) it's not bad work, if you can get it. But starting today, they will have to earn their $300K salaries. They have to read long briefs from plaintiffs, defendants, and amici, as well as listen to hours of boring oral arguments, then ask Donald Trump how he wants them to rule. It's tough.

There are many controversial cases on the docket this term. Many of them deal with the scope of presidential power and whether they are willing to come out and say point blank to Trump: "You cannot do what you want to do. That violates the Constitution." Chief Justice John Roberts is a keen follower of politics. He understands that the Court derives all of its power from the public believing that it is fair. This may mean saying "no" to Trump on a few issues, so Roberts can say he is just calling balls and strikes. However, starting in 2026, Major League Baseball will be introducing robotic umpires to call balls and strikes. Maybe in 2027, Roberts can be replaced by a robot, since they are better at calling balls and strikes than humans.

Here are a few of the hot-button cases that will have to be decided before Robo-Roberts is booted up.

• Birthright Citizenship: This is actually an easy case. The Constitution is crystal clear that anyone born in the U.S. except foreign diplomats' children is a citizen. If Trump's XO is overruled, he will grouse a bit but he doesn't really care about this so much. However, talking heads and pundits will be ecstatic if the Court rules against Trump, saying: "Look, the system works just fine. Nothing to see here." This will be an easy way for the Court to look impartial: A 9-0 vote against Trump. "See, we are not in the tank for him!"
  
  
• Tariffs: This one is very big. Trump declared an emergency and then used his new emergency powers to levy tariffs left and right, despite the Constitution explicitly granting Congress the power to levy tariffs. It has a separation-of-powers aspect as well as a huge economic aspect. Trump's tariffs are one of the biggest tax hikes in history, and Congress played no part whatsoever in imposing them. If Trump wins this one, James Madison will roll over in his grave. Hawley and Smoot will be pretty happy, though, as they will no longer be responsible for the least popular tariff in American history.
  
  
• Independent Agencies: The federal government has something like 400-800 agencies, depending on what counts as an agency. In many cases, when Congress created the agency, it stipulated that the head had to be approved by the Senate, was to serve for a fixed term, and could be fired only for malfeasance in office, in order to isolate the agency from politics. For 90 years, presidents of both parties have accepted this and not fired agency heads unless they had done something truly heinous. Trump maintains that as head of the Executive Branch he can fire anyone in the Executive Branch at any time for any reason or no reason and Congress does not have the power to restrain him.
  
  The most profound test case will soon be in front of the Court: the Fed. Trump fired Fed governor Lisa Cook because he doesn't like Black women he wants to replace her with some flunky who will obey him. The Court will have to decide whether Trump can fire Cook. If it decides that he can, the markets could nosedive as they have always taken it as an article of faith that the Fed does what is best for the economy, not what is best for the president's approval rating. It is a monumental question. Also, if Trump can fire someone on the Fed Board, surely he can also fire every agency head since none of them are as important as a Fed governor. A possible decision is that he can fire anyone in the Executive Branch except the vice president and members of the Fed board. Everyone else is fair game. It would be a truly horrible decision, but the six conservative justices might see it as a "compromise."
  
  
• Due Process: Another biggie is immigration. Trump (actually Stephen Miller) has ordered ICE to go on raids in places where immigrants are often found, arrest everyone, and then ship them off to a foreign gulag without ever even having the chance to see a judge. Some of the arrestees are actually U.S. citizens. Is the government required to follow the law here and give everyone arrested due process, Miranda warnings, a lawyer, and the whole democracy business? Inquiring minds want to know.
  
  
• Foreign Aid Payments: The now-almost-defunct USAID gave out contracts to nonprofits and others to perform certain services. In some cases, the work has already been performed and the group that did it has sued for payment according to the contract. Trump has said he doesn't like foreign aid, so no, he is not paying. Can he do that?
  
  
• The Voting Rights Act: Louisiana legislators drew a congressional map with one of the six districts having a Black majority, despite over one-third of the population being Black. The courts said "Nope!", so the legislature drew a new one with two majority-Black districts. Some white folks sued, claiming racial discrimination against white folks. We don't know how Roberts will vote on this one but we can predict with some certainty that if there is a way to stick it to Black people, Clarence Thomas will find it.
  
  
• Trans Athletes: The practical impact on whether trans girls can play on girls field hockey teams in high school is roughly nil, but this is the most emotionally charged case on the docket. If the justices say "Who cares?" the answer will come roaring back as "EVERYONE!" One way out could be to punt (as they did on abortion) and say no one has a constitutional right to play girls field hockey, so the matter is up to the elected representatives in each state.
  
  
• Conversion Therapy: Colorado law bans people from giving "therapy" whose goal is to convince gay people that they shouldn't be gay because then they will go to Hell. A Christian therapist says this law violates her First Amendment rights and wants the Court to strike down the law. The state will argue that it wants to protect vulnerable teens from quacks like the therapist who is suing it.
  

It is hard to predict what the Court will do. Of the 22 cases on the emergency docket so far, Trump has won 18, lost 2, and 2 were mixed. Trump has (temporarily) won on banning trans soldiers, allowing the DOGEys to access sensitive Social Security data, and cutting $800 million in NIH grants and contracts that were already signed. Probably the six conservative justices would really like to let Trump win every case, but they know that giving him wins all the time will cause the public to think of the Court as the D.C. chapter of the Republican Party. They might not really care about that, but a greater danger is truly enraging the Democrats and discovering that they have 12 new colleagues by the summer of 2029 if the Democrats win the trifecta in 2028. That they really don't want.

Another thing to watch for, besides the actual decisions on the cases, is the tendency of the Court to overturn precedents all in the same direction. This makes it look ideological. When one edition of the Supreme Court says: "[X] is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution" and somewhat later another edition says: "Nah, that was just their personal opinion," it greatly reduces the respect the country has for the Court's decisions. When stare decisis is no longer a thing, the public is going to come to see the Court as just nine unelected politicians in robes. (V)

---

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