Dan Patrick has wanted to Christianize America along with Texas, and screw up its universities

The biggest lie you'll hear from any Tex-ass politician is one that Dannie Goeb has been pushing hard for years — the claim that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. Per the Monthly's piece, it's like, even more than Karl Marx, he sees secularists and atheists lurking under every bush and behind every tree in Texas, as well as actually believing that Merikkka is legally and constitutionally, not just sociologically (at least now) a "Christian nation." Related, from the same piece, and indirectly, is his second-biggest lie, that he really cares about rural Texas, when in reality, his talk about "government-run schools" show he's as big of a voucher enthusiast as Strangeabbott. I am breaking out the Christian nationalism stuff for a separate piece.

== 

Speaking of Patrick, in a long-form at the Texas Monthly, Forrest Wilder talks about the wingnuts taking over tea-sipping UT. Dan-o was, and still is, a key part of that play. It first led to that playbook being copied for the A&M and Texas State university systems, etc. It then expanded to actively attack anything "woke" on campuses. A big part of the piece is the faculty exodus that is already starting, especially among people of color, marginal groups, and above all, people who fall into both categories.

Then you have what looks like a spinoff of Stockholm Syndrome:

Devin Stauffer, a mildly disheveled government professor with a scruffy beard, said his colleagues were too dour about the changes afoot. I met with him in May at his office. His desk was watched over by Plato’s visage in a nod to his area of expertise, classical and early modern political philosophy. A university spokesperson sat in on our interview, which I found strange, though Stauffer didn’t seem to mind.

Really? That said, if you're believing even one-third of the worst of what wingnuts are calling "woke," you'll be OK with making yourself a willing captive of the Austin version of the Stockholm bank robbers. 

And, fallout could indeed happen, as Wilder cites past history.

The Rainey episode did lasting damage to UT. The stain made it harder to recruit faculty, and it landed the school on the American Association of University Professors’ censure list for nine years.

Of course, you'd have to have modern collegiate oversight institutions, or non-wingnut, non-ConservaDem US presidents be part of the pushback. If there is? Current wingnut UT president Jim Davis would probably screw the pooch more under orders from state higher authority.

If it did happen? 

Compared to "up north," Texas and other Southern-like states lag in other ways. Unionism is one. Directly connected to academia is another — the number of newspapers per 100,000 people. Even as print media still declines, nonetheless, that decline is a lot slower in the Midwest and Northeast. Also, per the Kuffners who refuse to write about this issue, even in Tex-ass, at least one former prof, who called herself "right of center," was crushed by Strangeabbott and his minions crushing anti-Zionist protests on various campuses. Speaking of?

Liberal Zionist bullshit is bad enough here in the United States. Per Mondoweiss, it's far worse in Israel. 

==

Fortunately, it's too late for Dannie Goeb to go further.

Texas Ten Commandments case headed to the Supreme Court

SCOTUSBlog reported yesterday, and has more thorough legal analysis than what the Trib does.

Here's the nutgrafs:

The justices have considered a similar law before. In 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring public schools to display a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in classrooms violated the Constitution. In an unsigned opinion, the court wrote that “[i]f the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause,” which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. 

In the 46 years since the Stone decision was handed down, both the court’s make-up and its religious-freedom jurisprudence have changed significantly. In particular, the court’s ruling in Stone rested on its conclusion that the Kentucky law failed the “Lemon test” – a three-part test, outlined in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman, to determine whether a law violates the Constitution’s establishment clause. Under that test, a statute had to be found to have a secular purpose, the statute could not promote or restrict religious beliefs or practices, and the statute could not foster excessive church-state entanglement. In 2022’s Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the court ruled in favor of a high school football coach who lost his job after leading post-game prayers on the field, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for the six-justice majority indicated that Lemon had been “long ago abandoned.” Instead, Gorsuch wrote, courts should look at history and the understanding of the drafters of the Constitution to determine whether a law or practice violates the establishment clause.

Well put. 

Part of the problem is that Gorsuch and others of the "six" badly framed Bremerton, and I suspect deliberately. That said, beyond that, the Court was presented a case that was itself deliberately misframed by Kennedy and his backers, and it became a tool for wingnuts. See Wiki's summary.

The plaintiffs are saying that Stone has not been rejected, whatever the standing of Lemon is. 

That said, per SCOTUSBlog, the plantiffs have another angle:

The majority also rejected the families’ effort to rely on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 decision in which the Supreme Court agreed that a Maryland school board violated the rights of parents to freely exercise their religion when it refused to allow them to opt their children out of instruction that included LGBTQ+ themes. S.B. 10, the majority stressed, “authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children’s religious beliefs (or their parents’).”

It's been speculated by many court-watchers that the Supremes would vote to overturn the Texas law, and a similar Louisiana one, on this basis or similar. I can see a 5-4 or 6-3 coalition possibly breaking that way, in what will be a three- or four-way fractured opinion. 

Per the 9-8 Fifth Circuit ruling, it's clear that majority there rejects entirely the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" not just broadly construed but narrowly.

If five or six justices agree, we're really in trouble. 

Talafreako hypocritico — now on pulpit endorsements

James Talarico, by late July Fox polling, and other sites, continues to post a small polling edge over Ken Paxton.

Kenny Boy remains much more ethically challenged than Talafreako, but the latter is not simon-pure.

Shock me again, but he's apparently violating his pledge not to accept endorsements from church pulpits. And, though he's not a lawyer, he's doing so in Strangeabbott-type legal-Jesuitical fashion: 

The Sunday before he’d announced his Senate candidacy, he’d gone to his home church of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian, he said, where his pastor, Jim Rigby, had addressed it explicitly. 

“He said, ‘You know, the new IRS rules mean that I can now endorse candidates from this position,’ ” recalled Talarico. “And he said, ‘But I won’t be doing that, because I still believe in the separation of church and state.’ That’s exactly how I feel. I will not seek, nor will I accept, any endorsement from the pulpit anywhere, because that boundary is sacred in my mind.” 

It’s a strong statement—one on which he seems to have compromised. On Sunday morning, at the Luke Church, in Humble, Pastor Timothy Sloan brought Talarico up to the pulpit and made a strong statement of his own. “In the spirit of my pastor, Reverend William Alexander Lawson—he would always say this whenever he had an official that came to the church. He’d say, ‘Now, we don’t endorse candidates. That’s not the church’s role. However, you should know who your pastor endorses and believes in.’ And I want you to know my full, total, and complete weight is behind James Talarico.” Talarico’s team shared the clip across its social media accounts, touting the endorsement of “one of the most respected pastors in Houston.” 

Sloan’s caveat that he is endorsing the candidate in his personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Luke Church, is delivered as a knowing wink—the congregation bubbles up with laughter at his “however.” It’s a technical loophole—not that such things matter anymore, as far as the IRS is concerned—that is pretty well annulled by the fact that it is being delivered from the pulpit on Sunday morning.

Yet more reason to either undervote the race or hope some write-in candidate is entered. And, yet one more thing that Kuff either will ignore or else put in his spin cycle. (The Monthly story was Aug. 11 and as of Aug. 18, Kuff had nothing, so it's on his ignore cycle. I know he reads the Monthly online often enough.)

And, per the next paragraph, Team Talarico immediately put it in their spin cycle:

When I reached out to the team, citing Talarico’s previous denouncement of pulpit endorsements and asking whether his position on the matter had changed, spokesperson JT Ennis pointed to the distinction. “James is honored to have the support of Pastor Sloan, a dedicated and trusted spiritual leader in Houston. As Pastor Sloan made clear, it is not the church’s role to endorse candidates—but that does not preclude faith leaders from speaking out in their personal capacities,” Ennis said in a statement. “As James travels across Texas to engage with places of worship, he will continue speaking beyond political talking points to address the deeper spiritual crisis facing our country.”

Gads. 

 

Texas Tech expands draconian "Don't Say Gay" stance

Texas Tech gets worse, officially adopting a policy that, per Erin in the Morning, is basically "Don't Say Gay," not only for profs, but for students on dissertation and paper subjects and such. And, it's not just for Tech itself, but the whole Tech System, that also includes Midwestern State, Angelo State, and two health science centers.

Here's the nutgraf:

Under the new policy, all majors, minors, certificates, and graduate degrees "centered on" sexual orientation or gender identity will be eliminated. Provosts at each university must identify every affected program and submit finalized lists to the chancellor's office by June 15, 2026, at which point an immediate admissions freeze will take effect—no new students will be allowed to enroll in or declare any of the targeted programs. Currently enrolled students will be allowed to finish their degrees through a teach-out process, but once the last of them graduates, the fields will cease to exist at Texas Tech entirely.

Yikes. 

How much will this affect their bottom line, that is, enrollment? Many public as well as private schools face enrollment problems due to already bulging college costs. Why pay to go to a censorious university that won't let you study what you think you should study, not even for one class, that unconstitutionally tried to censor your right to protest, and will be losing professors?

I mean, just tuition at Tech for an in-state student is more than $10,000 a year. Total attendance cost is $25K or more for an on-campus in-state student.

I went to a private college long ago, with approximately $6K a year paying the full freight. (It wasn't a fancy one by any means.) Even adjusting for inflation, that's $18K a year today. 

I mean, college costs in general are ridiculous today, but add this on top of that? 

Final question: who sues? This clearly strikes me as First Amendment viewpoint discrimination.

Ten Commandments in Tex-ass schools? Constitutional, per Fifth Circuit

In a 9-8 full court ruling, the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas law about cramming the Ten Commandments into public schools. Contra Kuff, I am actually kind of shocked. Wingnuts they may be otherwise, but the court has in the past generally been decent on First Amendment issues.

This quote:

“It does not tell churches or synagogues or mosques what to believe or how to worship or whom to employ as priests, rabbis, or imams,” according to the ruling. “It punishes no one who rejects the Ten Commandments, no matter the reason.”

Is bullshit.

First, it DOES tell children in public schools what they should believe. THAT is the definition of establishment of religion.

Slate notes in detail how it's coercive, riffing on the Supreme Court's support for parental rights in various rulings:

If it’s true that parental rights are so important, then the 5th Circuit has to be wrong in upholding the Texas Ten Commandments law. The court tried to downplay this point by saying that it is just a “poster” and therefore lacks any coercive effect. But posters exist in educational settings so that they can educate. This is not a photo of a kitten saying “Believe in yourself!” A reproduction of a major religious text is bound to have an impact on the classroom experience. What happens when the first student asks a question about that large poster on the wall? If the teacher answers in a manner that showcases approval of the Ten Commandments, won’t the student feel pressured to agree? Or what if the teacher tells the student, as the 5th Circuit suggests, to simply ignore the poster? Could the state then punish the teacher for showing “anti-Christian” bias?

It also notes how it defies Supreme Court precedent:

What’s most remarkable about the decision, though, is not its support for theocracy, but its direct defiance of the Supreme Court. In 1980, justices struck down a law virtually identical to Texas’, forbidding states from placing the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. By flouting this precedent, the 5th Circuit effectively went rogue, daring the Supreme Court to check its brazen disobedience.

That said, that was 1980, Slate. The Roberts Court has overridden precedent left and right. Somewhat in light of that, Slate notes:

What’s most remarkable about the decision, though, is not its support for theocracy, but its direct defiance of the Supreme Court. In 1980, justices struck down a law virtually identical to Texas’, forbidding states from placing the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. By flouting this precedent, the 5th Circuit effectively went rogue, daring the Supreme Court to check its brazen disobedience.

 You think the Blind Umpire is really that worried? The only way he and other Catholics get concerned is if the Calvinist/Baptist version, barring graven images, is the only version allowed.

Frankly, per Slate's reference to 2022's Kennedy case, the court might now be looking for a reason to explicitly junk Lemon. We shall see. 

And, even if SCOTUS overturns, the damage will have been done. 

It's a Kenny Boy Paxton newsapalooza

First, the Fifth Circuit, en banc, will hear the Ten Commandments in schools lawsuits in both Texas and Louisiana in January. A three-judge panel, the norm, had already blocked Louisiana's law. For whatever reason, Kenny Boy Paxton jumped the legal gun in a sense and asked for an immediate en banc. As the story notes, this is headed to the Supremes anyway, so it's just Kenny Boy pouting over the Fifth Circuit's panel and hoping he can get the full set of judges to vote his way. In reality, that's not likely; yes, the Fifth tilts strongly conservative in general, but it also tilts strongly pro-civil liberties.

Speaking of, who called Kenny Boy "brazen"? Or at least, a lawsuit of his? None other than Secretary of State Jane Nelson, in her response to him suing the SoS office to try to force closed primaries in the state. 

Meanwhile, in a Halloween trick for him and treat for others, Kenny Boy on Oct. 31 had a New York state district judge metaphorically laugh in his face and dismiss his attempt to get a Tex-ass civil judgment against Dr. Margaret Carpenter for remotely prescribing abortion pills legally enforced. 

Texas Progressives talk school takeovers, more

Off the Kuff produced the Q3 campaign finance reports for Texas Democratic candidates for Congress and the Senate.

SocraticGadfly noted that free speech is under attack at UNT .

It's "interesting" (repeat 11 or whatever times) that Gavin Newsom is waiting until after midterms to declare his expected presidential candidacy. Democratic midterm primaries are long done, so Zionism in the party can't be the excuse; maybe that's tied to the general, though. 

Long rumored and now official — TEA is taking over Fort Worth ISD. Another urban ISD where an Abbott flunky controls instruction. And, another big old fail on an article by the Trib, not even mentioning Marlin ISD among districts taken over by TEA in the past.

Cy-Fair has parents fighting back against the Christofascist Tim Dunn and Steve Hotze-backed wingnuts running its school board, who don't even allow textbooks. Contrast that to Solar Prep in Dallas. 

Abbott essentially admitted pushing an ideological purge in public universities. Per the piece, will this result in lawsuits? 

Kudos to Dr. Brett Cooper, deciding to stand up to Kenny Boy Paxton in a way that Dr. Mary Lau apparently decided not to. At the same time, a reminder to many liberals and many leftists that puberty blockers can indeed by overprescribed, per the May Clinic.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project says the big peaceful October 18 No Kings protest in Downtown Houston was over-policed. The real criminals are the people running the state & running the country.   

The Barbed Wire notes the drop in attendance at the State Fair.

Texas Rail Advocates examines the first ever Statewide Multimodal Transit Plan for Texas.

Steve Vladeck and Law Dork wade into all of the National Guard litigation. 

The Texas Signal reports on an effort to defeat State Proposition 15.  

The Bloggess provides some education on various scams.

And, per this piece of mine yesterday, re Ana Marie Cox being removed from the feed? I again remind you that Charles Kuffner, aka Off the Kuff, loves No Kings protests and hates pro-Palestinian ones. 

Free speech under attack at the University of North Texas

Kenny Boy Paxton is trying to gut free speech for UNT students. On the UNT story, the Denton Wrecked Chronic/KERA have the info the pablum Trib at the first link does not — Mary-Catherine Clark's original video does NOT have any "cheering" students in it, AND she is a member of the local Turning Point chapter. It's also funny to have a wingnut talk about "emotional distress," especially with her last name being "Hallmark." Frankly, given no cheering students in the vid, the way the Chronic/KERA describe it, it sounds like a set-up video. That's added to by UNT's student newspaper, which has "allegedly" on her confronting other students and adds that state Reps. Andy Hopper and Shelly Luther have now inserted themselves, with Hopper also threatening a cut in state funding. Oh, by the way, that would be a bill of attainder, unconstitutional under both Texas and U.S. constitutions.

KERA has Kenny Boy openly engaging in hypocrisy, too:

He said UNT officials have to enforce their policies regarding student misconduct, employee conduct, student absences and free speech.

Per the old "free speech for me but not for thee," I think the likes of Paxton are so blinded by ideology, political scheming or both that they may not even truly grasp that they're attacking free speech. 

There's also a lot of "alleged" statements by Kenny Boy at all links, as he's clearly trying to buffalo UNT. 

All of this is happening even as Strangeabbott names an "ombudsman" (scare quotes) to investigate higher education ethics issues.  

Viva Raunuq Alam! Fuck Brian Bolton, Phil Sorrells and a lesser fuck for Kuff

Thank doorknob a Tarrant County jury rejected a Zionist/religious right/general wingnut attempt to convict Raunaq Alam of a hate crime for graffiting a church with "Fuck Israel." (Said church was flying an Israeli flag as the main reason it was targeted during a random drive by Alam and two friends.) That said, fuck judge Brian Bolton for what at least verges on the spirit of false imprisonment. And fuck Charles Kuffner, nominal head cheese of what remains of the Texas Progressives Alliance, for not writing anything about Palestinian issues, not even here in Tex-ass. Kuff, you're a fellow traveler with the likes of Tarrant DA Phil Sorrells.

Jeff Davis County is fixing to get itself sued over First Amendment issues

That is, if recently arrested independent journalist David Flash has both the money and mind to do that.

At the same time, this:

“The profession has to police itself,” said Renita Coleman, a professor of journalism and media at the University of Texas at Austin. “Because our reputation with the public is really all journalists have. Our credibility hinges upon us doing the right thing.”

Is a reminder that independent journalists can be jackwagons. 

That said, so can members of the mainstream media.

Also, this:

Max Resnik, director of growth at Documenter Network City Bureau, a civic journalism program that has trained more than 4,000 residents across the country to document similar public meetings, said it does not matter whether Flash is a professional journalist. Every resident has the right to record, document and publish public meetings, he said.

“By preventing reporting from happening or discouraging reporting in those public meetings, it sends a chilling effect to other residents and reporters,” Resnik said.

He also pointed to the state’s open meeting handbook, which government officials and members of the public must comply with. Any person, the handbook says, “may record all or any part of an open meeting of a governmental body by means of a recorder, video camera, or other means of aural or visual reproduction.”

Reminds us that one doesn't have to call oneself a journalist to do what Flash generally does.

If Flash is harassing anybody? Let Jeff Davis County file official charges.

My personal take on what bits I glean from the story? Flash is likely not violating any laws. That said, is he glory-hounding a bit? Probably.

If "zero" represents the typical reporter or editor at the typical small-town newspaper or other traditional media outlet and "ten" represents full-on Joey Dauben, Flash is probably in the "4-6" range.

We have a second — and much better — lawsuit against the Ten Commandments in Texas

And this one is a much better vehicle than the first one, for this reason right here:

“As a rabbi and public school parent, I am deeply concerned that S.B. 10 will impose another faith’s scripture on students for nearly every hour of the school day,” said plaintiff Rabbi Mara Nathan (she/her). “While our Jewish faith treats the Ten Commandments as sacred, the version mandated under this law does not match the text followed by our family, and the school displays will conflict with the religious beliefs and values we seek to instill in our child.”

As I noted when the first suit was filed, it was primarily about personal aggrievement. This one expresses the universal First Amendment problem. (Surely, in either the House or the Senate, there's a Catholic wingnut or two, even if Catholic wingnut Drew Springer has retired, who could have reminded Protestant wingnuts that Catholics disagree with Calvinist and Anabaptist Protestants on what commandments are in those "Ten" Commandments. But, assuming I'm right, they're that chicken-shit to not argue over WHOSE Ten Commandments.)

If that doesn't do it, having someone from a non-Abrahamic religion will add to it:

“S.B. 10 imposes a specific, rules-based set of norms that is at odds with my Hindu faith,” said plaintiff Arvind Chandrakantan (he/him). “Displaying the Ten Commandments in my children’s classrooms sends the message that certain aspects of Hinduism — like believing in multiple paths to God (pluralism) or venerating murthis (statues) as the living, breathing, physical representations of God — are wrong. Public schools — and the state of Texas — have no place pushing their preferred religious beliefs on my children, let alone denigrating my faith, which is about as un-American and un-Texan as one can be.”

For good measure, a secularist, or at least a "none" of some sort, is part of the suit:

“We are nonreligious and don’t follow the explicitly religious commandments, such as ‘remember the Sabbath.’ Every day that the posters are up in classrooms will signal to my children that they are violating school rules,” said plaintiff Allison Fitzpatrick (she/her).

So, yes, this is "the vehicle."

That said, this secularist doesn't even fully accept the "second table" of the commandments.

Is an "open marriage" non-adulterous if everybody is in full disclosure? Wingnuts will call abortion murder — and a few are targeting pregnant women, not just doctors. Will people who oppose covetousness oppose the capitalism behind it? And, will they speak out against the ancient language that considered women property, as well as the slaves who are more than "manservants" and "maidservants"? 

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod President Matt Harrison is full of hypocritical crap

And yes, family and friends still in that denomination, President-for-Life of the LCMS Matthew Harrison, fresh off putting "lutefash" in a containment box without actually taking it out tot he dumpster, is full of crap — hypocritical crap — in his response to Trump surrogate and general nutter Michael Flynn.

Flynn, per that link, attacked Lutheran Immigration Refugee Services for getting large federal grants for ... uh, helping immigrants. That's even though the LCMS, unlike Rome, can't see its way to doing social justice while remaining theologically conservative.

Flynn, one of Elmo Musk's DOGE-y minions, is of course peddling twaddle. 

So is Matty in his response.

Here's the start of that hypocrisy. Matty says:

We don’t say much to or about the government.

Then goes on to talk extensively about the government indeed.

We have suffered formal legal action and much more as we have watched as DEI philosophy (formally rejected by our church body along with white supremacy) has pervaded nearly every aspect of government activity, even as the U.S. government has burgeoned beyond all ethical and rational propriety, in effect stealing the future from our children.

Talking about the size of government in general is talking about government in general. The "taxation is theft" that appears to be in the background of that last line is bigger bullshit, as it's Trump who has run up large parts of the federal budget deficit, Reagan who started it, and Dick Cheney in between who said "deficits don't matter."

Matty doubles down later, while claiming it's "just me, not the LCMS":

Let me just note (and this is NOT an official position of the LCMS): I’m personally pleased with DOGE. The federal government is bloated beyond all rational limits. It can’t fund its activities without accumulating debt. And it’s failing in its basic tasks.

Please.

First, Federal spending ticked up during COVID, yes, but since then, has returned to close to its historic 60-year norm. See the St. Louis Fed. St. Louis, where you are, Matty. Let's add that, in 1998-2001, we actually ran budget surpluses. Gee (with carryover to fiscal 2001) what party controlled the presidency then, Matt? Arguably, you're violating the Eighth Commandment (Lutheran-Catholic-Anglican-Orthodox numbering) by bearing false witness against a political party.

In fact, Trump himself, on Super Bowl Sunday, just blathered to Bret Baier about $36 trillion in national debt without admitting his first term, he was responsible for one-quarter of that. 

Matty also ignores that the Slickster, Bill Clinton, had a balanced budget at the end of his second term. (He didn't push for cutting military spending more, though.)

And again, this is talking about government.

And, because the devil supposedly loves a bible-quoting secularist, now would be the time for Romans 13, I believe:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment

There you are, Matt.

As Jesus said at the end of the tale of the Good Samaritan? Maybe you should "go and do likewise"? 

DEI? Most of it is a capitalist pile of junk. (See above about Rome and social justice, vis-a-vis at least excessive capitalism.) And, no, Matt, even if there is a god, he, she or it didn't invent capitalism. When done rightly, as Costco knows, it's good for business and its good ethics as well.

You didn't mention critical race theory, but I'll but you at least have personal, if not official, thoughts about it. Well, they would be wrong; of that I have no doubt. 

I can say that with confidence for two reasons. The first is that most White wingnuts blather about critical race theory without knowing what it is. The second is that I've read "Silent Covenants" by Derrick Bell, one of the developers of critical race theory, and thus DO know something about it directly, and found it informative and more good than bad.

Let's next do a gotcha call-out, Matt. You say at the end:

At the same time, a well-regulated border, sound immigration policy, and welcoming space for persecuted refugees are all fundamental parts of a God-pleasing answer to the question:

OK, what's your answer to the genocide in Gaza? I already know. Your denomination hasn't called it a genocide, AFAIK, and has basically ignored it and the countless refugees Israel has created. (The LCMS is fundamentalist in its own way, but not evangelical millennialists, so it has no reason to expect Israel to bring on Armageddon.)

For that matter, since we're talking primarily about Hispanics, and you ARE talking about the government, what's your personal — and denominational leadership — take on the United States' history of coups and other meddling in Latin America that destabilizes countries and creates refugees?

But, then let's get to the rhetorical question that follows.

Who will contribute to this marvelous and blessed American experiment?

THAT, my "dear sir," is clearly untheological. The "United States of America" is not in Christian scriptures, and to claim the "American experiment" is "blessed" as an implication that it is, and so is a theological lie. It's about as much a lie as the drivel from the Gun Nuts for Luther group which out of thin air implies there's a biblical, god-given right to gunz. It also is a violation of at least the spirit of the First Amendment you claim to love.

As for the German immigrants you say founded the LCMS?

It should also be noted that German-Americans broke harder for Trump than any other white ethnic group, apparently driven in fair part by their liking in 2016 his claims to breaking with the neoconservatives within the GOP and having a more isolationist stance in his "America First," and the LCMS' roots are primarily in German-Americans. 

Many of these people are "alt-white" types. And, let us note that Harrison is palling around with racists. And he knows this.

I said on my original piece about the Lutefash that Harrison was enough of a political chameleon to largely stay above the fray. To the degree he thinks it's too much heavy lifting, he'll ignore the underground network of pastors and congregations, of which I only scratched the surface in that initial piece.

That may or may not still be true. But, on secular politics, I guess he just can't help himself.

Beyond the above, Harrison has big financial fish to fry, namely the Hot Chalk lawsuit and others over the LCMS' abrupt closure a couple of years ago of Concordia University Portland. Harrison's mixing of secular politics and church governance was a factor in how the pooch was screwed in its closing, too, further showing what a hypocrite and liar he is. (Let's not even count the timing on Portland's close blocking easy student transfers that academic year.) So, too, was his eye on the dollar signs CUP was generating with Hot Chalk.

Add this to Matty's political chameleon behavior, too. The Boy Scouts of America a couple of years ago voted to accept gay Scouts, but not leaders. So, Harrison went down the Bill Clinton route of 30 years ago and saying it's "don't ask don't tell" on gay Scouts at troops affiliated with LCMS congregations, and beyond that, in a legal memorandum of understanding, individual congregations still have the right to boot Scout troops. And, contra Rev. Bart Day, no, sexuality was always an issue in the BSA, until it decided to do its split-the-difference bullshit, presumably on grounds that gay Scoutmasters would be "groomers." (This ignores the BSA's long history of tolerating sexual abuse by Scoutmasters, of course, with Harrison and his LCMS predecessors aiding and abetting that.)

==

Updates of various sorts:

First, in response to an old college friend on Facebook? It IS my business because, per that neocon Lutheran political pundit (and moderate ex-LCMS theologically), Richard John Neuhaus, Harrison is operating in the public square, per a famous Neuhaus phrase, and influencing members' political views in the process. So, Keith, if you or some other LCMS member want to vote Trump on bad political information, that's your choice. But, when the peddler of bad information is operating in the public square, calling them out is my choice.

Second, per the ex-Lutheran subreddit, Harrison is also lying about current LCMS membership levels. 

So, Matt Harrison is a serial liar.

==

I would say "Here I stand, I can do no other" as a bit of additional mocking, but of course (OF COURSE!) Luther never actually said that. It's just another part of 24-karat gilt Luther legend. FAR more of that legend is exposed here.

From that second link, this observation of mine:

The "yes I'm right" stance of Luther himself, not only vis-a-vis things where he clearly was, but other issues, such as versus the Reformed on the Eucharist, versus many Reformed and other Lutherans on the issue of adiophora and more, seems to still run strong in much of the conservative wing of Lutheranism. (Let's not forget that Luther thought he was competent to condemn Copernicus' heliocentric theory of the solar system, and rushed to do so when his book was published.)

Is quite pertinent to the situation at hand.

Enforcement by private suit OK in Tex-ass but not California?

In the case of Tex-ass, I'm talking about its pre-Dobbs law that allowed private residents to sue over abortion and abortion assistance, still being used by a few wingnut ex-boyfriends who are almost certainly being bankrolled by people with some connection to Farris Wilks and Tim Dunn. That was the law that SCOTUS essentially punted on pre-Dobbs and has never, in reality, done a final revisitation.

Well, California passed a similar law over "election deepfake" videos, but a federal district judge struck it down as unconstitutional. Per John A. Mendez, maybe the law is "a hammer instead of a scalpel," but maybe more than a scalpel is needed. Frankly, this is just another example of how the federal judiciary is behind the curve, and arguably falls further behind the curve all the time, in matters related to the online world.

Christopher Kohls, the plaintiff? His deepfake that was among those that prompted the law is so nutters that Elmo signal-boosted him on Twitter.

As for First Amendment worries? The laws in question include an "actual malice" standard and a "materiality" standard. Is it borderline? I'll agree. Is it way out of bounds? I'll disagree. And, maybe First Amendment scholars, stalwarts and activist groups aren't all that much ahead of the federal judiciary.

Hegar, Paxton, sued over "ESG" Senate Bill 13: thoughts

Kenny Boy and the under-the-radar semi-nutter, Comptroller Glenn Hegar, are being sued for the state's law requiring "divestment" from companies that themselves have divested of fossil fuels. The lawsuit by the American Sustainable Business Council (the Trib, to which I'm not linking, said "Coalition") claims this is viewpoint discrimination and violates both First and Fourteenth Amendments. Also, members of the coalition claim, and rightly, that the economic harms of climate change make this a legitimate business decision. It also claims lack of due process and other reasons for hauling in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Odds of success? Per the old cliché, probably "slim," but yet, definitely more than "none."

First, this is a federal lawsuit, not a state one. Right there, that. increases the odds of success.

Related to that? Contra some BlueAnon that want to paint the Fifth Circuit as a monolith on all wingnut issues, many cases over the past few years have shown it's sympathetic to First Amendment cases.

Second, these are folks with deep pockets. They can and will fight.

Related to this? They want to cut off at the pass similar ideas in other states.

Third, they make sound business decision arguments as well as First and Fourteenth Amendment ones.

So, the likely course?

They win the preliminary injunction request at district. State appeals.

They possibly win at Fifth Circuit. Win or lose, somebody appeals.

IF SCOTUS grants the injunction, Hegar and Paxton are before next year's Lege, asking for follow-up legislation, knowing that this trial is going to take a few years.

The on the merits issue?

I think they can win on lack of due process, on that portion. Assuming the suit's various claims can be considered as severable, the First Amendment angle will be harder to fight. Federal law allows lower governments, I think, some leeway on state investments, and certainly, Texas state law does.

Julian Assange, the US government and "weasel words"

Per The Guardian's report on the assurances the US government has offered Julian Assange, they could be, in actuality, "weasel words," per his wife Stella. That is, they could be promises broken after he is extradited.

But, I'm going to unpack them at face value. Here we go:

On Tuesday, details emerged of the assurances given by the US, which stated that he “will not be prejudiced by reason of his nationality with respect to which defences he may seek to raise at trial and at sentencing”. 

It referred specifically to him having “the ability to raise and seek to rely upon” the first amendment but also said that its applicability “is exclusively within the purview of the US courts”. The assurances also state: “A sentence of death will neither be sought nor imposed on Assange.”

First, no death penalty is good. That said, Assange, who probably hates on Joe Biden about as much as Bill and Hillary Clinton, should find someone besides Russia's SVR, or Internet Research Agency, to do some pro-Biden fake email leaks. Because, despite Assange's gullibility in 2016, Donald Trump views a relationship with him as purely transactional, and Donald Trump is clearly pro-federal death penalty.

Second, I believe the government's stance on the First Amendment is correct. That's because I don't believe Assange is a journalist. I didn't even before the 2016 leaks. I especially didn't after he goosed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.

As for her claim that the prosecution says Assange has no First Amendment rights because he's not a US citizen? He generally will have (dependent on exact judicial ruling) access to other clauses of the First Amendment. They also do NOT offer blanket protections against behavior that would be criminal without invoking the First Amendent, and let us remember that Assange would be facing criminal not civil trial. Let us also remember that neither the UK nor Assange's native Australia have anything that close to the First Amendment. And, the Russia to which Assange lured Edward Snowden (he did and shut up) has no such protection at all. And, at Counterpunch on this issue, Binoy Kampmark does some overreading.

Were I the philosopher-president of the USofA, any plea deal with Assange would require him to admit responsibility for his role in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Period and end of story. Should he make a non-weasel words confession, and should he, especially per what I said about Snowden above, admit to any direct contacts with the SVR, the FSB et al, I would give Assange the equivalent of deferred adjudication — for 10 years, to keep a Sword of Damocles over his head. That would satisfy Aussie calls for non-prosecution, satisfy the spirit of "he's suffered enough," but also satisfy the spirit of what he's actually done. Speaking of the first clause in the previous sentence, Australia is a member of the "Five Eyes," but I suspect US security agencies have shared little information with it.

Self-righteous idiots at PRO Gainesville appeal to CCA; self-righteous idiots at ACLU Texas abet them

There's no other way to put it than the headline. 

The PRO Gainesville saga has been going on for three-plus years now. And, not content to lose a Class A misdemeanor case locally, a trio of PRO Gainesville leaders, charged arrested and convicted in trial for, to use the everyday term, "jaywalking" on a state highway when leading a protest march WITHOUT a parade permit (an important issue) appealed to the Texas appeals court system.

And, lost again, and pretty summarily, as noted in detail here, much of which is quoted below.

I thought that MAYBE they would stop there, while also noting snarkily there, AND a bit in media commentary for my day job, that maybe they wouldn't.

Sadly, my snark is right and they've appealed again to the Court of Criminal Appeals, egged on by an ACLU of Texas who apparently is either:

• Ignorant of the facts on the ground;
• Ignorant of ACLU National's pamphlet on what's allowed and not allowed with, and especially WITHOUT, a parade permit, or;
• Doesn't care, believes that beliefs make law, or similar.
• Related: Going beyond the three above, or a mix of them, to straight lying.
  

I'm going to reference items from ACLU Texas' news release, the second link, before posting details from the first link, of my previous blogging.

Here's the biggie to unpack:

“This is a pivotal case for free speech rights in Texas,” said Savannah Kumar (she/they), an attorney with the ACLU of Texas. “It concerns whether protesters can move along public streets without facing jail time and whether organizers of peaceful protests can be held criminally responsible for the words and actions of other participants. We are asking the highest criminal court of Texas to take this case and reaffirm that Texans cannot be convicted for simply walking in a street.”

Wrong in several ways, Savannah. 

First, per what I said above about not having a parade permit, and extracting from my previous post at the first link?

The ACLU national, which I cited in my first post-arrest discussion of the trio's plight, would also like a word with both you and original county court at law case defense attorney Allison Grinter's understanding of protests and permits.

I quote from the ACLU pamphlet:

You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don’t have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.

Pretty clear. Note that that applies to ANY street. It applies in spades to a state highway, whatever the state.

And, if you don't do that, especially after warnings? They can arrest you as necessary. Period and end of story. 

So, it is NOT NOT NOT "a pivotal case for free speech rights in Texas,” contra Kumar. And, per the law, yes, they have the right to be arrested.

As for why these three? They're the organizers. Whether the "rank and file" knew that PRO Gainesville did not have a parade permit, or not, these three did. They're the ones who applied for one, and were denied it. And, with organization and leadership comes responsibility. (I await Kumar claiming, as Grinter did, that "they're just kids.")

Next? This:

A few days later, they were issued arrest warrants for “obstructing a highway or other passageway,” a misdemeanor under Texas law, even though they had not caused an obstruction.

Is simply untrue, spoken by someone who has seen the video, was in the area at the start of the march and read the county court at law trial testimony. It's why I added the fourth item to the original three bullet points up top.

Next? Whichever one of the four bullet points, or all of them to some degree, is correct, Kumar and the rest of ACLU Texas roped in Emerson Sykes from ACLU national, who apparently is also a mix of uninformed about facts on the ground and/or functionally illiterate about ACLU national's own pamphlet.

So, we quote him for refutation:

“Since our country’s founding, public streets and sidewalks have always been a place where people can march and exercise their First Amendment rights,” said Emerson Sykes (he/him), senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “It is unconstitutional to arrest and jail protesters just because they momentarily walk in a street, and it conflicts with Texas state law and precedent recognizing the importance of the right to protest.”

First, obviously, uninformed about the pamphlet. I mean, the whole unstated background premise of the pamphlet is that, if you don't comply with police order to stop walking in the street and hindering traffic, whatever the applicable laws of a state or municipality are, they can be enforced. Period.

I will again quote from that pamphlet, were elsewhere that premise is indeed stated:

Police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety.

Pretty clear in my book. Emphasis added to get at the heart of this issue.

Let's quote elsewhere from that, like an opening paragraph:

Your rights are strongest in what are known as “traditional public forums,” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for.

Pretty clear in my book. (Emphasis added.)

Second, the "momentarily" shows him uninformed about the facts of the matter.

And, that's why the "self-righteous" is in the header. 

Related to this is that this seems to be another example of a critique of the ACLU first raised about a decade or so ago. That is that it is becoming more and more a progressive justice organization and not just a civil liberties outfit.

===

Per my previous update, and referencing those facts of the matter on the ground? Having been dumb enough not to accept a presumable plea deal from County Attorney Ed Zielinski on the misdemeanor charge of obstructing a major passageway, the PRO Gainesville leadership trio of Torrey Henderson, Amara Ridge and Justin Thompson got a $2,000 fine and seven days in the county slammer as their penalty upon jury conviction.

Rather than cut their losses, the trio got the ACLU of Texas to help them on appeal. And emphatically lost that appeal last Nov. 16. Will they go to the Court of Criminal Appeals next? Try to bump that to federal court on their First Amendment claim that this is First Amendment protected speech? I was halfway snarking, but with an update, a response to the Register, received uncritically by it, it sounds like I shouldn't have been.

That said, why wasn't this dude (I heard it on that video too) charged?

At one point in the video, the cameraman could be heard saying, “[The police] are telling us to get out of the road and we’re not listening. I like it.”

Can't the police finger him? (The state statute for obstruction of a major roadway says "willingly" or "knowingly," and Gainesville's police chief said at the time they didn't think most the rank and file knew the leadership had not gotten a parade permit. BUT? What if the cameraman DID know?)

Meanwhile, why did PRO Gainesville go all the way down to Dallas to land Alison Grinter as their legal beagle, especially if she either doesn't understand the First Amendment or thought she could buffalo the Gainesville yokels with stuff like this:

Dallas attorney Alison Grinter’s defense relied on First Amendment protections and the right to protest. She said she believed the legal system was trying to make a point by having the charge be an obstruction of traffic on a major passageway, when if the charge had been on any other street in the area the charge would have been a ticket for jaywalking at most.

Ms. Grinter, come now. Courts have ruled for hundreds of years that the actions of public protest under freedom of assembly can be regulated by government permit requirements. If PRO Gainesville had asked you to sue the city of Gainesville on its claims of unfair treatment of issuance or denial of permits, that would be another thing.

The only thing I agree with re this actual case is that jail time beyond the fines is overkill. But, 7 days is FAR less than the maximum of 180 days.

BUT!

Maybe Zielinski offered that, something less than 7 days, in plea talks and you rejected it? Maybe he didn't, either. Grinter Allen (her actual last name, Grinter her maiden, see below) didn't talk to the Groansville folks, but told the Denton Wrecked Chronic, which also reported on the case, that Zielinski was determined to go to trial. Well, he no-commented, since she's appealing. 

(I asked her point-blank on Twitter if Ed offered a plea deal or not. We'll see if I get a response. I also told her in my Tweet thread that I'm a non-duopoly actual leftist.

As for your claim re the specific road and that Gainesville PD was "targeting" PRO Gainesville? It IS a state highway. This would probably fall under the "duh" category. (Before we go further, I'm a non-duopoly voting actual leftist.) 2/x

— TheRealSocraticGadfly (@real_gadfly) August 26, 2022

We'll see if she responds. A year later, she hasn't. Shock me. Zielinski was determined to go to trial ... rather than dismissing all charges, is what it is. Or rather, Ms. Grinter, YOU and PRO Gainesville were determined to go to trial rather than accept his plea deal. If that IS bad legal counsel, well, the ACLU of Texas is providing more of the same.)

In their story, Thompson claims the commissioners court was in on the effort to deliberately punish them. Uhh, wrong. They don't micromanage Zielinski.

Thompson also claims that a group of Trumpist MAGAts types were so upset over local coverage they started an alternative newspaper. News to me. Never seen a copy at, say Quick Trip. Seriously, knowing how far right Gainesville tilts? And this isn't publicly circulated?

Thompson also has a different story for the Wrecked Chronic about not hearing the police than he did for the Register, where he said he did, thought the warning was originally for a bicyclist, then realized it wasn't, then told people to get back on the sidewalk. 

To update my original piece? "Goes to motive, your honor," per the old legal phrase.

This is one of several reasons, but the biggest recurring reason, that, while I have made civil liberties donations to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU hasn't gotten a dime from me for, I think, 15 years and counting now.

The ACLU stanning for the NRA

I heard about this more than a week ago, but wanted to offer something up anyway.

First, some apologists may say this is like defending the Nazis in Skokie 50 years ago.

No it's not.

The NRA may not be as flush as it tries to make out being, but it's much more flush than the National Socialist Party of America was or is. Or, as Students for Justice in Palestine is today. In short, it doesn't need the ACLU's help.

And help it is.

This is NOT an amicus brief. ACLU is serving as counsel for the NRA.

And, per the link, I don't see this as an attempt to silence the NRA, whether it needs civil-liberties organization help or not. Therefore, this is NOT "a controversial First Amendment issue." It's a semi-controversial NON-First Amendment issue, per the Second Circuit's ruling.

And, it's not like it needs to goose its membership. Trump's election, and its aftermath, did that, unless it had humongous churn. So why?

The "both sides" angle like too much of mainstream media still does too often? Churn, after all? An expectation of a Trump re-election?

And, let's not forget then-and-now Executive Director Anthony Romero, hand-in-glove with then board prez Nadine Strossen, working to gag other board members like Wendy Kaminer 15-plus years ago, when they protested about ACLU staff teaching people how to COMPLY with the Patriot Act.

Let's also not forget that, just a few years later, Romero wanted to pardon torturers.

Finally, per Wiki's page on it? Don't forget that while the ACLU "courageously" defended Nazis in the 1970s, it "cowardly" refused to defend alleged Communists in the 1950s. AND, it supported anti-First Amendment legislation, too.

The ACLU may have apologized for being lax in defending Communists. I don't know that it's ever apologized for the Patriot Act shit.

And, yes, it does a lot of good. But, it does its share of not so good, and needs to be kicked every few years.

The fascist hell in Marion, Kansas

Eric Meyer, owner and publisher of the Marion County Record, speaks in more detail about last week’s police raid on his newspaper, which included seizure of ALL newspaper computers and other items.

The big new takeaway? Besides the story already printed about restaurateur Kari Newell booting Record staff out of a meeting she was having with Congressman Jake LaTurner, and beyond information provided by an anonymous source to both her and the town’s assistant mayor about a previous DUI that might, indeed, have affected her application for a special event liquor permit?

The paper had been investigating information from anonymous sources about newly hired Police Chief Gideon Cody about him possibly leaving his previous policing position rather than face fines and/or demotion over sexual misconduct issues.

That would, of course, be the same person who led and organized this raid, and who would have assisted in getting the warrant for it, and who might have known that federal law requires a subpoena in such cases — and who now claims the Privacy Protection Act’s subpoena requirement does not apply in criminal cases. Per its Facebook statement, there is a HUGE conflict of interest when the Marion PD sets itself up as judge, jury and executioner on deetermining when an alleged loophole on the Privacy Protection Act exists when its own chief is under investigation.

And, Chief Cody (no hiding behind “police department statement,” since you ARE the police department in a small town — Marion is just under 2,000 and probably has three-five cops max outside the chief) is STILL wrong. The PPA notes that when a newspaper or other First Amendment-protected institution faces a warrant without subpoena it is STILL supposed to be given adequate opportunity to file an affidavit of objection. That CLEARLY did not happen.

Let us also add, contra claims by Newell and allies, that the Record is "twisted" or "out to get people" or whatever, that the Record did NOT run a story on her DUI, suspecting it came from her soon-to-be ex-husband and that, per Meyer, "We thought we were being set up." Also, the Record had NOT run any stories so far about Cody's background or hiring, but it DID contact the city with what it had heard, and, according to Meyer, the city LIED about having already contacted the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department.

This is more than just prior restraint, although that’s part of it. It’s also clearly an illegal, authoritarian attempt to uncover anonymous sources.

As a newspaper editor myself, I hope the Record’s federal lawsuit names individuals, not just the city of Marion.

Texas Progressives jump into the middle of summer

A state district judge has ordered DPS to release Uvalde shooting records. While DPS head and Strangeabbott flunky Steve McCraw didn't comment, contra the mush of the spox that did, this will surely be appealed. It is a good ruling and let's hope it stands on appeal.

Off the Kuff looked at the new laws that are likely to result in lawsuits over various constitutional issues.

SocraticGadfly took a look at the escalating dust-up at TSHA.

Politico gives a long profile of Democratic state legiscritter James Talarico, including the buzz that he's likely to run against Strangeabbott in 2026 AND the scuttlebutt that he had considered taking on Havana Ted next year but decided not to when Colin Allred jumped in.

The Texas Supremes said Greg Abbott's blocking of local COVID masking regs was constitutional. And, of course, this gives ammo to today's Lege continuing to erode local control.

The Trib wonders if, in the wake of the national Supremes gutting affirmative action as part of college admissions, if other states will adopt some version of Texas' Top 10 percent plan. The Trib ignores that his applies to public universities in Texas only, and that, in general, public universities don't have class-based and luck-birth-based legacy admissions. It also admits that Top 10 is itself only a partial, and only a modest, semi-solution.

The Monthly remembers John Goodenough, who, if he did not "perfect" the lithium ion battery, certainly made it good enough to kick off today's electronics world, and above all, hybrid and electric cars, as well as consumer electronics.

Meet the Bushman of the Riverwalk.

What's worse than ROTC or active-duty military recruiting captive kids on on high school campuses? TDCJ doing the same, whoring for prison guards.

Brandon Rottinghaus collects a list of issues the next Mayor of Houston will be facing.

One urban demographics and economy site ranks Dallas 53rd most expensive city in the world. Believable, indeed, with soaring housing prices, the Lege's electric surcharges + disconnected grid, swinging temps to drive electric use, and more.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project posted the Project's weekly report on the pre-trial hearings for the horse hockey Harris County Republican election-denial lawsuits. 

The San Antonio Report reports on the initial construction of a new and long-envisioned bus rapid transit system in that city. 

Michael King ponders the "bookends" of the 88th Legislative session, Bryan Slaton and Ken Paxton. 

Charlotte Clymer catalogs Lance Armstrong's many transgressions.

Independent Political Report is often good, though its third-party reporting is massively Libertarian. That said, George Phillies appears to have jumped into the deep end of an empty pool with his recent First Amendment fear-mongering.

Corey Robin claims 303 Creative was NOT about religion. Oh, in a technical sense, he's right. The plaintiff (besides having a fake basis for the suit) cited Freeze Peach, but it was ultimately free speech in the service of religious issues. Wiki gets that right, Corey.

Smoke on the US East Coast from Canadian wildfires, mainly in Quebec, will probably last until the end of summer.

Reason 1,074 I'm not a Dem/am not voting for Joe Biden? Warmonger Joe wants to name convicted felon and Henry Kissinger Jr. level neocon Elliott Abrams to an inside-baseball diplomacy committee.

Thomas Knapp, who has left me semi-hot and definitely cold in the past, is running for prez as an "independent." Unless he's repudiated his Boston Tea Party Veep run, what he's really running as in as a Ron Paul-tard. Beyond being an idiot on "fiat money," by being radically anti-abortion and other things, Paul was and is not an actual L/libertarian. And, per the announcment, Knapp also worked for the campaign of the late, not-so-great, drive without a license Michael Badnarik.

The unbelievable daftness of Corey Robin (and James Surowiecki)

And, yes, I do love bad pun headlines!

For whatever reason, Corey Robin claims 303 Creative was NOT about religion. Oh, in a technical sense, he's right. The plaintiff (besides having a fake basis for the suit) cited Freeze Peach, but it was ultimately free speech in the service of religious issues. Wiki gets that right, Corey. And you apparently don't read analysis of past or present Supreme Court decisions. Shit, your own piece has Smith saying she didn't BELIEVE in gay marriage. In a quote-tweeting, Robin stands by his statement. I referenced the immediately above, plus the Hobby Lobby angle, in a reply.

Robin, in a later quote-tweet, chides me for not having read the 303 Creative ruling. Maybe I didn't read every word, but I did read Sotomayor's dissent, per my original blogging on this, where she nails it.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” She was joined by the court’s two other liberals, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Sotomayor said that the decision’s logic “cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” A website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple, and a large retail store could limit its portrait services to “traditional” families, she wrote.

Nothing about Freeze Speech there, not as the "ultimate cause." So, here's MY quote-tweeting Robin. (I added the Sotomayor as D in a second threaded Tweet):

A. Taking SCOTUS wingnuts at face value?
B. As the TNR fake complainant background story makes clear, this was about religion. As does free speech IN THE SERVICE of religion.
C. Informal Logic 101: Proximate cause? Free speech. Ultimate cause? Religious rights.
Off to blog. https://t.co/cD8kMchx1Q

— TheRealSocraticGadfly (@real_gadfly) July 2, 2023

What else is there to say? Well, let's start with quoting the AP piece from whence Sotomayor's dissent, the link above the pull quote up top:

The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs.

The TNR story speaks for itself. If you can't believe that is strong circumstantial evidence for this ultimately being seen as a religious rights case, Corey, dunno what to say, other than the above plus "Hobby Lobby" and all points in between, per ZZ Top.

Well, yes, I'll cite Amy Howe from Howe on the Court and SCOTUSBlog, writing IN HER LEDE:

The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday.

Ye gads, Corey.

Yes, Gorsuch talked about "speech" but again, Informal Logic 101. But wait, per SCOTUSBlog, let's go back to Sotomayor:

Sotomayor’s 38-page dissent argued that the Constitution “contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.” Colorado’s public accommodations law, she contended, only bars business owners from discriminating against members of the public based on (among other things) their sexual orientation. It does not regulate or compel speech at all. If a business owner like Smith “offers [her] goods or services to the public,” Sotomayor suggested, she “remains free under state law to decide what messages to include or not to include.” But what Smith can’t do, Sotomayor stressed, is “offer wedding websites to the public yet refuse those same websites to gay and lesbian couples.”

Again, Corey, you always take winger majority opinions at face value? In his own piece, he actually kind of disses on Sotomayor.

Robin had probably been declining a bit in my opinion for some time. I know the late Leo Lincourt loved him some Corey Robin. That said, Leo was a left-liberal, not a leftist, IMO. (Left-libs, in my US political geography, reject neoliberalism but believe the existing liberal project is certainly capable of reform, rather than needing at least partial rejection. Already in 2018, trying to reduce "socialism" to "freedom," he raised my eyebrows.

His "The Enigma of Clarence Thomas," while good, was not blindingly good; it got four stars from me (expanded version of Goodreads review). See the end for why. "The Reactive Mind" got five, but it's more a 4.5. Per this blog post, based on part on the book, with more hindsight, the idea of American political cycles is either now broken or else in the political science version of a frozen war. I still wouldn't call Trump a full fascist, but after Jan. 6, semi-fascist, or faux fascist, or fascist on the cheap? Yeah, that I would. I don't know, and don't really care a lot, if Robin's thought has emerged.

And, I forgot that a full decade ago, Robin came off as a semi-apologist for Thomas Jefferson. I also note that Robin way back then claimed I had misread him. This is "fool me once ... fool me twice" territory, Corey. I didn't misread you. Nor did I misread your stanning for Dear Leader. (Both that, and the Jefferson, were while Leo was still alive; not sure what he said about either.)

And, on the Jefferson, I referenced that to James Surowiecki when he butted in on the Twitter convo. Of course, he's a neolib at the Atlantic, so he's going to say that. He's as stupid and literalist as Robin. He's also an elitist from the neolib Eastern Establishment, modern version; you are, if you go to Choate, chud. You're also muted.

After THAT, Sunday night, I picked up another buttinski, jumping on Surowiecki's tweets after I muted him. I told Laurie McKenna, in my first comment, about Wiki, SCOTUSBlog, Sotomayor, and then to backread and not comment again until she'd done so.

Oh, elitist Surowiecki and academic Robin? If I'm not high-enough profile for you, Ronald Brownstein, referencing Sotomayor's dissent, says "religious beliefs."