Monday was a huge news day, and many developments vied for the headline for today’s edition of the newsletter. But the Supreme Court's “shadow docket” ruling allowing Trump to deport immigrants to third countries (i.e., not the immigrants’ home country) is among this Supreme Court’s lowest points. (Dobbs and the presidential immunity decision round out the Hall of Shame for the Roberts Court.)
There are significant developments regarding Trump's War on Iran, but those developments are of uncertain significance and permanence. Fifty years hence, historians will look back to this day and say, “The US Supreme Court sanctioned the kidnapping of immigrants by deporting them to third countries torn by ethnic violence, and ruled by warlords.”
But before addressing any of these stories, it is vitally important to say to those participating in the resistance that you are on the right path. It may not feel like it after the developments on Monday, but grassroots resistance is literally—not figuratively, literally—the last bulwark holding back anti-democratic forces.
Every form of resistance matters, and we are making tremendous progress that is difficult to measure. Until we have the opportunity to win a significant number of state, local, and federal elections (and we will), the fruits of our efforts will be minimized, dismissed, and ignored. But if the 2024 elections were re-run today, Democrats would likely win a trifecta. You know it, Trump knows it, and MAGA knows it—which is why they are scrambling to cause as much damage as possible before losing power for a generation.
We must stay the course. We must not surrender to anxiety or doubt. Persistence is the key—not giving up even when we feel exhausted or dispirited. We live in a news environment that is enthralled with bunker buster bombs, explosions, violence, and the ravings of oligarchs and autocrats on tiny electronic screens that distort reality.
When the history of this period is written, what will matter is the massive uprising of concerned citizens who reclaimed democracy through millions of daily actions that went unnoticed, standing alone, but saved a nation in their accumulated heft and momentum.
We are on the right path. Do not doubt it. If you are able to do so, serve as an inspiration to others—by actions rather than words. Show them the path forward. Lead the way. Give them hope. Be the resistance that will save our democracy.
The Supreme Court approves federal kidnapping of immigrants by authorizing deportations to third countries.
On Monday, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court stay that prohibited the deportation of immigrants to South Sudan. If those immigrants are deported to South Sudan they will arrive in a nation described as follows:
South Sudan descended into a civil war from 2013 to 2020, enduring rampant human rights abuses, including forced displacement, ethnic massacres, and killings of journalists by various parties. It has since been governed by a coalition formed by leaders of the former warring factions, Salva Kiir Mayardit and Riek Machar. The country continues to recover from the war while experiencing ongoing and systemic ethnic violence.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated that the "peace agreement [between warring factions] is in shambles" and South Sudan is on "the edge of a collapse into civil war" . . . .
United States District Judge Brian Murphy described the question before him (and the Supreme Court) as follows:
This case presents a simple question: before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?
The Supreme Court’s shadow docket order—which contained no reasoning—answered that question in the negative, effectively saying, “No, the person need not be told where they are going so they can be given a chance to tell the US that they might be killed if sent to the unknown, lawless third country.”
The Court’s order is barbaric.
It is difficult to see the deportation of immigrants to a country other than their own that is on the verge of civil war as anything other than state-sanctioned kidnapping.
Even if the initial detention and deportation are legal, sending the immigrant to a country not their own is beyond the pale of civilized society. It is like lawfully arresting a shoplifter and then handing them over to the Mafia for punishment. The Constitution simply does not contemplate such outcomes—especially without notice or opportunity to object.
The reactionary majority on the Supreme Court has sunk to a new low—an ill omen for the remaining cases on its docket, which will be decided before June 30 (including the birthright citizenship case).
This is the same reactionary majority that demoted women to second-class citizens by denying them autonomy over their own bodies and reproductive decisions. Three years ago today, the reactionary majority issued an opinion that relied on ancient jurisprudence written by a judge who condemned two women to death by hanging for “witchcraft” and who ruled that rape was impossible within the confines of marriage.
Dobbs was the first Supreme Court ruling in our nation’s history that removed an existing constitutional right. It remains as a stain on the legacy, competency, and veracity of the six justices who lied their way onto the Supreme Court so they could overrule Roe v. Wade.
It was only three years ago; yet the decision and its horrific aftermath are ignored by the media, by legislators, and by most men. Women now live in fear of state bounty laws that incentivize reporting on women who skip a period or good Samaritans who transport women experiencing miscarriages to another state for medical treatment. Barbaric.
Anyone involved in the resistance movement knows this truth: The backbone of the resistance is women. More than any other group, they have risen to defend democracy, even though they have been treated with scorn, disrespect, and inhumanity under Trump.
The Roberts Court is beyond redemption. Even if the Court exhibits flashes of logic or humanity, it has inflicted too much damage to the Constitution and to the vulnerable to be forgiven. The only path forward is to enlarge the Court at the first opportunity and thereby dilute the reactionary, inhumane, indecent jurisprudence of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas. Unless we enlarge the Court soon, we are looking at three more decades of barbaric, incomprehensible decisions.
To the women of the resistance, thank you! You are working to save democracy for all of us!
The Status of Trump's War
As I write on Monday evening (9:30 pm Pacific), Iran and Israel are exchanging missile and air strikes. The attacks continue despite the fact that Trump declared that the two nations had agreed to a permanent ceasefire. Although an Iranian spokesperson seemed to confirm the agreement, Israel has not confirmed Trump's claim. Trump's claim of a cease fire surprised his own advisers—suggesting that Trump was exaggerating or lying (again). See NYTimes, Trump’s Cease-Fire Announcement Catches His Own Top Officials by Surprise - The New York Times
Per the Times,
The announcement, made minutes after 6 p.m. Eastern time, caught even some of Mr. Trump’s own top administration officials by surprise. Israel has not yet confirmed the cease-fire, and within three hours of Mr. Trump’s announcement, there were fresh attacks from Israel against Iran, raising questions about whether all parties had agreed to it.
Adding to the confusion, over the last forty-eight hours, Trump has shifted his position from supporting regime change in Iran to thanking Iran for its limited counter-attack on US bases in Qatar, saying, “God Bless You Both”, referring to Israel and Iran.
I won’t attempt to keep up with the minute-by-minute changes. Here are the important points:
As of Monday evening, it is not clear whether the US destroyed Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. The weight of evidence suggests that Iran loaded enriched uranium onto cargo trucks before the US bombs fell at the Fordow nuclear processing facility. If true, there are eight cargo trucks driving through the Kavir-e Markazi desert, each with enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.
The risk of moving eight truckloads of enriched uranium through a nation that may be teetering on collapse is obvious. If the current regime falls, the question of who gains control of that uranium is open. For a detailed—and sobering—discussion of the pitfalls of an unstable Iran, see Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark, Fallout.
As Jonathan Last notes, the US airstrike may have been a limited tactical success with no strategic value. Indeed, the air strikes may have increased the risk to every country in the region. After the strikes, Iran may be motivated to accelerate the creation of at least one nuclear weapon, copying the North Korean model. See Newsweek, Iran lawmakers eye page from North Korea nuclear playbook after US strikes.
Lost in all of the back-and-forth about the “success” or “failure” of the mission is that Trump acted unilaterally—in violation of the Constitution. One reader commented that presidents have long been ordering strikes without first seeking congressional approval. That is partially correct, but many US strikes have taken place under congressional authorizations known as Authorized Use of Military Force. Most presidents cite to existing AUMF’s in justifying their use of military power. Moreover, in the case of the Iraq War and Gulf War, Presidents George W. and George H.W. Bush obtained congressional authorization.
Trump sought no authorization. Instead, he contends that, as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to order the US military into action. That legal position flouts the plain language of the Constitution.
Although Trump has given Congress notification under the War Powers Act, that notification is deficient and does not justify the strike on Iran. The War Powers Act requires meaningful advance consultation with Congress, meaningful information regarding the details of the planned attack, and citation to legislative authority. Trump failed on all accounts. See generally, Congressional Research Service, The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice.
Trump ignores and violates the Constitution every day. That is why the violation of the Constitution in this instance is all the more worrisome and egregious. Even if you agree with the result, that does not justify a violation of the Constitution. If we start ignoring the Constitution using the “The ends justify the means” argument, the Constitution is meaningless.
Trump's War is not over, and the outcome is still in doubt, particularly if the Iranian regime collapses—as Trump encouraged forty-eight hours ago. The American people do not want war, do not support Trump's actions, and know that Trump is lying about his motivations and the outcome. We must protest his unilateral violation of the Constitution as part of our effort to defend democracy.
Senate Parliamentarian strikes provision requiring plaintiffs to post a bond to ensure that preliminary injunctions are enforceable
Republicans included a provision in the reconciliation bill that would require plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions to post a bond in order to ensure the enforceability of an order granting a preliminary injunction. Said differently, in the absence of a costly bond, the president could simply ignore the preliminary injunction and not be held in contempt.
The proposed provision clearly violated the Byrd Rule, which requires that provisions in a reconciliation bill relate directly to raising revenue or appropriating funds. The “bond requirement” violated the Byrd Rule—and the Senate Parliamentarian said so on Monday. See Talking Points Memo,
Crucially, [the Senate Parliamentarian] determined that Republicans could not include their provision to require litigants suing the government to post bond in order to seek emergency relief. If such a provision became law, it would forever shield the Trump administration from the sorts of lawsuits that have proven to be some of the sole checks on his naked power grabs.
As a result, the provision cannot pass on a majority vote; instead, it would require 60 votes to pass. Majority Leader Thune has already said he will not seek to overrule the Parliamentarian on this matter (which would require only 51 votes, but which would spell the end of the filibuster). See Politico, Thune vows not to overrule parliamentarian on megabill.
Opportunity for Reader Engagement
Join BigTentUSA on Wednesday, June 25 at 7pm ET when we host a conversation with Connecticut Attorney General William Tong(D-CT) and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D-CA), moderated by Michael Waldman, the president of The Brennan Center for Justice.
As threats to democracy grow bolder—from voter suppression laws to authoritarian legal maneuvers—state attorneys general have become the last, and often strongest, line of defense. Learn how state legal leaders are standing up to Trump-aligned extremism and building a firewall to protect civil rights, rule of law, and the will of the people. Come hear from the front-line of democracy what is happening, and how we can help defend against MAGA extremism.
Please use this link to register.
Concluding Thoughts
About two months ago, a purported Facebook post by Liz Cheney went viral on the internet. It is a screed against the Democratic Party, outlining what Democrats must do to earn the author’s support. (“What I need from Democrats is . . . .”)
The post is a hoax. Cheney did not write it. But Robert Reich received it over the weekend and published it on Monday—acknowledging that it was not an authentic statement by Liz Cheney. Although I responded to the fake post nearly two months ago, I am now being deluged with copies from readers of this newsletter who also read Robert Reich’s newsletter.
Clearly, Reich’s tardy publishing of a two-month-old internet meme is resonating with readers, so I will make another attempt to explain why the post is counterproductive and unhelpful.
First, let’s be clear about the central fact: The Democratic Party is not the problem. The Republican Party is the problem. Sure, Democrats have faults, but they are the only party in a two-party system that is seeking to defend democracy. So, please, take all of your ire directed at the Democratic Party and channel it in the appropriate direction—at the party that is actively seeking to overturn constitutional order and refusing to hold Trump accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.
Second, the author of the piece appears to be unfamiliar with the extensive grassroots work that takes place every day among Democrats. Some of the author’s prescriptions for what the “Democratic Party” should be doing are being done every day by millions of engaged Democrats. It is insulting and offensive to ignore those efforts while whining that “This is what I need from the Democratic Party before it can earn my support.”
Third, the author's prescriptions are laughable, simplistic, or already exist.
For example, the author suggests that the Democratic Party “Join the International Criminal Court.” Really? The International Criminal Court is an international body established by a treaty among 150 member nations. And the Democratic Party—which is not a nation— is supposed to join the International Criminal Court? The level of ignorance and naivete is so bad it hurts.
The author suggests that Democrats “Form an independent, civilian-powered investigative coalition.” I thought that institution already exists; it is called “a free press.” If Democrats are supposed to form a civilian investigative commission, what authority would the commission have? It couldn’t issue document subpoenas or compel testimony. Again, the suggestion is a pie-in-the-sky tough-guy talking point that is nonsensical.
The author suggests that Democrats “Fund state-level resistance infrastructure / Don’t just send postcards. Send resources.” This suggestion is both insulting to the millions of grassroots volunteers and is a dead giveaway that the author is a white male political consultant who is p*ssed that he isn’t making as much money on consulting as he would like. It is also a dead giveaway that the author has never lifted a finger to volunteer for any resistance efforts.
I could go on, but I have tried your patience. The “message” is an anti-Democratic screed by someone who wants the world delivered to him on a platter before he will lift a finger to help the Democratic Party save democracy.
To be clear, just like many readers, I am frustrated and angry with many aspects of the Democratic Party. But it is waste of everyone’s time to whine about what’s wrong with Democrats when Republicans are destroying our democracy, raiding Medicaid and Medicare, giving away public lands to corporate interests, using armed thugs to hunt productive members of society for the crime of being an immigrant, denying minorities equal representation at the ballot box, and demoting women to second class citizens.
So, if Robert Reich succeeded in making you mad at the Democratic Party with a hoax written by a political consultant, take that ire and direct it in the right direction—at the party seeking to destroy democracy, not the party fighting to preserve it.
Daily Dose of Perspective
Many readers sent me the image below taken by the Vera C. Rubin Observatory of the Lagoon Nebula. Thank you! It is a beautiful and important image that reveals new details of the nebula. The image was taken over seven hours and shows an astounding amount of detail, including thousands of stars and clouds of interstellar dust.
Below is my image of the Lagoon Nebula, taken from my backyard using my Celestron Origin telescope. My image is a one-hour exposure that reveals less detail but is nonetheless beautiful (in my opinion!).
The photo below of a pipe in the mud is in response to reader requests. Many readers watched the video below, which shows me digging a hole to locate a water leak alongside a private road in our cabin community. The riveting video of me digging a hole is here:
I did not fix the leak in the pipe because I exhausted my plumbing skills by digging the hole. Two neighbors fixed the leak three days later. The repair took about 3 hours with two skilled plumbers. The photo below shows the repaired pipe.
From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed