#convicted murderer Daniel Perry

[filosofablogger]

But I Wasn't Finished ...

Gee, I thought I had gotten most of the snarky out of my system yesterday, but it seems I must have left a crumb or two that grew into full-blown snark.  So … put the seatbelts back on and hold onto your hats again … Yesterday, I wrote about Florida governor Ron DeSantis signing a bill that would roll back many environmental regulations, putting people at greater risk.  Today, it’s North…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Tayo Bero

This month, the Texas state parole board unanimously recommended the pardon and release of convicted killer and former US army sergeant Daniel Perry, along with the restoration of his firearm rights. Perry had been working as an Uber driver in July 2020 when he shot and killed Garrett Foster, a white man who was attending a Black Lives Matter protest with his Black fiancee. Perry was later indicted for murder, tried, convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison by an Austin jury.

Almost a year from the date of his sentencing, Perry’s pardon was granted by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and he now walks free. As terrifying as the initial incident was, this pardon sends a chilling message: that politically motivated killing is OK, and that politicians are more focused on pandering to political pressure than protecting people’s lives.

During Perry’s trial, it emerged that in the weeks before he killed Foster, he had shared white-supremacist memes and talked about how he “might have to kill a few people” who were demonstrating outside his house in 2020. He also compared the Black Lives Matter movement to “a zoo full of monkeys that are freaking out flinging their shit”. And days into nationwide protests sparked by George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, Perry sent a text message saying: “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”

Perry described shooting Foster as an act of self-defense. Yet according to trial testimony about the day Foster died, Perry had seen the predominantly Black group of protesters gathered across the street from him, ran a red light and drove his car right into the middle of the protest. When Foster – who was legally carrying a firearm but had not, according to some eyewitnesses, threatened Perry – approached Perry’s car, he shot him dead and sped away.

In rehashing this horrendous incident, the question on my mind is: how do you justify “pardoning” a person like this? Condemning Perry’s release isn’t about believing in carcerality or wanting to keep people in prisons, mind you; it’s about how we get to this point as a society, whom we grant permission to kill, and how we treat the people involved in a tragedy like this in its aftermath.

Abbott – who rarely issues pardons, and has generally only pardoned low-level, nonviolent offenders – had faced pressure from conservative media figures to grant Perry one. Rightwing pundits like former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and even Texas GOP chair Matt Rinaldi squeezed him publicly about Perry’s conviction. It doesn’t seem like Abbott needed much convincing, though, seeing as he directed the parole board to review Perry’s case just one day after he was convicted.

There’s also the question of how we got here. Foster’s death and his killer’s subsequent pardon are the direct result of a government that’s more beholden to wealthy gun lobbyists than concerned with commonsense legislation that literally saves lives. Foster’s death was, in part, the result of a tragic meeting of Texas’s notoriously loose stand-your-ground self-defense laws, which Perry’s supporters claim he was upholding when he shot Foster, and the state’s “open carry” laws, which Foster was legally exercising when he had his rifle slung over his shoulder during the protest.

Alan Bean, the executive director of the Texas-based civil rights advocacy group Friends of Justice, summed up the implications of Perry’s case succinctly.

“If one guy with a gun feels threatened by another guy with a gun, murder is permissible. If both men felt threatened, the resulting tragedy would technically be ruled a no-fault double-homicide,” he wrote after news of the pardon went public.

Even Texas police aren’t blind to the ways that open-carry laws are exceptionally dangerous and nonsensical. “We were completely opposed to ‘license to carry’ because anytime there’s more guns, there’s a problem,” Ray Hunt, executive director of the Houston police officers’ union, said back in 2021.

If there was any doubt that Abbott doesn’t care how problematic these laws are, even after what happened to Foster, consider that he used his pardon announcement to reaffirm that “Texas has one of the strongest ‘stand your ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney”.

These are scary words to hear from your elected official after a tragedy that could have been avoided with better gun laws. Abbott continues to signal to gun-toting rightwingers that they can go around murdering people they don’t agree with, and that they will have the full force of the law to back them up.

Foster’s mother, Sheila, spoke to the New York Times after the pardon, and her words are haunting in their truth. “It doesn’t make sense,” she said over the phone. “It seems like this is some kind of a political circus and it’s costing me my life.”

[odinsblog]

“Covid, pregnant women bleeding out, submerged wire on the border, psychos with guns – if people are needlessly suffering and dying in Texas, Greg Abbott is always there to throw the full weight of his office in support of whatever is killing them.” —Matt Hinton

More than a year after a Travis County jury convicted Daniel Perry of murdering a protester in Austin, Gov. Greg Abbott pardoned the former U.S. Army sergeant on Thursday shortly after the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended a full pardon.

A Texas state district court judge sentenced Perry in May 2023 to 25 years in prison for shooting and killing U.S. Air Force veteran Garrett Foster during a 2020 demonstration protesting police brutality against people of color.

One day after a jury convicted Perry, Abbott directed the parole board to review the former U.S. Army sergeant’s case.

The Board of Pardons and Paroles announced their recommendation on Thursday, stating that their decision came after a “meticulous review of pertinent documents, from police reports to court records, witness statements, and interviews with individuals linked to the case.” Governor Abbott quickly approved the recommendation, emphasizing Texas’ strong “Stand Your Ground” laws in his statement. “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney,” Abbott said. “I thank the Board for its thorough investigation, and I approve their pardon recommendation.”

Abbott approved the board’s recommendation, which included restoration of Perry’s firearm rights.

(continue reading)

[mojave-pete]

[vague-humanoid]

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott delivered a ringing endorsement of racist, right-wing vigilante violence last Thursday, when he extended a rare state pardon to a bigoted killer who was duly convicted for the murder of Garrett Foster, a protester at a 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstration.

Daniel Perry, who strongly opposed the nationwide protest movement against racism and police violence, and posted violent fantasies about murdering leftists and minorities on social media, ran a red light and drove into a crowd of protesters in Austin in July 2020. He shot and killed Foster, a white Army veteran who was legally carrying an assault rifle, after Foster approached his car.

[corporationsarepeople]

This pardon demonstrates two issues very clearly:

Black lives do not matter to Governor Abbott. The killer was a racist intent on killing a protester, and that’s exactly what he did.

Stand Your Ground laws are intended by their supporters to protect premeditated killers. The determining factor in rulings of this type is usually whether or not the victim died, if not simply race. Dead victims cannot argue in their own defense, leaving shooters with the ability to claim they were the only ones present who feared for their life.

Both issues are at play here. The shooter, who had a history of racist rhetoric, drove into the crowd of protesters specifically to cause injury. When he was confronted by the anger of people he tried to injure, he shot one of them, and later claimed self defense.

This was a ludicrous claim, and a jury understood just how ludicrous it was. Abbott and the pardons board, on the other hand, were determined to show us that the Texas Stand Your Ground law exists to protect cowards with guns, who deliberately seek out fights.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

William Melhado at The Texas Tribune:

More than a year after a Travis County jury convicted Daniel Perry of murdering a protester in Austin, Gov. Greg Abbott pardoned Perry, 37, on Thursday shortly after the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended a full pardon.

A Texas state district court judge sentenced Perry in May 2023 to 25 years in prison for shooting and killing U.S. Air Force veteran Garrett Foster during a 2020 demonstration protesting police brutality against people of color. One day after a jury convicted Perry, Abbott directed the parole board to review the former U.S. Army sergeant’s case. “Among the voluminous files reviewed by the Board, they considered information provided by the Travis County District Attorney, the full investigative report on Daniel Perry, plus a review of all the testimony provided at trial,” Abbott said in a statement announcing the proclamation that absolved Perry. “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney.”

Abbott approved the board’s recommendation, which included restoration of Perry’s firearm rights. Whitney Mitchell, Foster's common-law wife, said that she had expected to grow old with Foster before Perry murdered him. In a Thursday statement, she said Abbott's pardon made Texans less safe. “Daniel Perry texted his friends about plans to murder a protester he disagreed with. After a lengthy trial, with an abundance of evidence, 12 impartial Texans determined that he carried out that plan, and murdered my Garrett,” Mitchell said. “With this pardon, the Governor has desecrated the life of a murdered Texan and US Air Force veteran, and impugned that jury’s just verdict. He has declared that Texans who hold political views that are different from his — and different from those in power — can be killed in this State with impunity.”

[...] Perry was driving for Uber at the time he encountered protesters a few blocks from the Capitol in downtown Austin. He stopped his car and honked at protesters as they walked through the street. Seconds later, he drove his car into the crowd, Austin police said. Foster was openly carrying an AK-47 rifle at the time and during the trial, each side presented conflicting accounts as to whether the protester raised the gun to Perry who was also legally armed. Perry shot Foster and then fled the area, police said. He then called police and reported what happened, claiming he shot in self-defense after Foster aimed his weapon at him.

[...] Abbott rarely issues pardons, which the board must recommend before the governor can act. Abbott granted three pardons in 2023, two pardons in 2022 and eight in 2021 — most for lower-level offenses. Shortly after Perry’s conviction, unsealed court documents revealed he had made a slew of racist, threatening comments about protesters in text messages and social media posts. Days after George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer prompted nationwide protests, Perry sent a text message saying, “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.” Both Perry and Foster are white. Perry, a U.S. Army sergeant, also sent racist and anti-Muslim messages before and after Floyd’s death. In April 2020, he sent a meme, which included a photo of a woman holding her child’s head under water in the bath, with the text, “WHEN YOUR DAUGHTERS FIRST CRUSH IS A LITTLE NEGRO BOY,” according to the state’s filing.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) made a politically-motivated pardon of racist murderer Daniel Perry, who killed Garrett Wolfe at a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest.

See Also:

The Guardian: Texas governor pardons man who killed Black Lives Matter protester in 2020

[uboat53]

Well, Texas' governor just decided that white bigots should legally be allowed to kill people in his state. Don't believe me? Look at his pardon of Daniel Perry.

Daniel Perry wrote to his friends about how he wanted to shoot Black Lives Matter protesters or run them over. He even talked to one friend about "[catching] a negro daddy". Then he drove to a BLM protest in Austin and ran a red light, slamming into the crowd. When a man in the crowd who was openly and legally carrying an AK-47 approached his car, he shot him.

Witnesses and even Perry's own initial testimony confirmed that the man had not aimed the gun at him and a jury rejected his stand-your-ground defense and convicted him of murder.

No new facts have come out since then, but conservative media have made then-Sgt. Perry (US Army) a cause using an incomplete and often deliberately misleading story of events. Gov. Abbott has now pardoned him based on only his word that he saw the gun lowered at him (again, a claim that is inconsistent even with his own initial testimony).

Abbott's position and the MAGA position writ large on guns can basically be summarized as:

"Every person needs a gun on them at all times to defend themselves and others against crime because only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

But also, a person merely having a gun, even legally owned, is a threat and any person is legally justified in shooting them at any time."

If you think that that's a bit of a confusing position, you're missing the subtext. What is unsaid here is the racial and political meaning that politicians like Gov. Abbott have made clear by their words and actions. Here, I'll put it in for you:

"Every [white, Christian, conservative] person needs a gun on them at all times to defend themselves against crime because only a good [white, conservative, Christian] guy with a gun can stop a bad [probably minority or liberal] guy with a gun.

But also, a [liberal and/or minority] person merely having a gun, even legally owned, is a threat and any [white, Christian, conservative] person is legally justified in shooting them at any time."

To everyone in Texas who isn't a white bigot, you have my sympathies.

[filosofablogger]

Tales From An Alternate Universe ... I Wish

It doesn’t take a whole lot to raise my hackles and make me growl these days.  Here are just a few of the things that succeeded in doing both within about an hour yesterday … {this is the stuff ulcers are made of} Say WHAT???? I want you all to hear this statement made by South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem speaking of her grandchildren at the NRA convention yesterday … make sure you’re sitting…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Democratic attorneys general call for federal probe of Greg Abbott pardon | Chron.

By Brooke Kushwaha

Texas Governor Greg Abbott's recent pardon of convicted killer Daniel Perry is now the target of 14 Democratic Attorneys General who are calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the pardon.

The letter penned by New York Attorney General Letitia James and signed by 13 other Democratic Attorneys General urged U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to open a civil rights investigation into Perry, who was convicted of murder and later pardoned after killing Garrett Foster at a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin.

Governor Abbott vowed to pardon Foster before he was even convicted last year, citing Texas’ “stand your ground” laws permitting certain instances of armed self-defense if an individual feels threatened. Both Perry and Foster had been armed in the altercation, but Perry fatally shot Foster. Within a year, the governor-appointed Texas parole board recommended Perry’s pardon and Governor Abbott acted swiftly to approve his release. Perry walked free within an hour of the announcement.

In the absence of state intervention, James called on the federal government to bring Perry to justice, characterizing Perry's actions as racially motivated acts of hate.

“The facts of the case were egregious,” James wrote, noting that a jury of 12 had voted to convict Perry of murder after the discovery that he had posted online advocating for vigilante murder of racial justice protestors.

James cited the Dept. of Justice’s history of taking on civil rights cases superseding local and state justice systems, and expressed concern that Texas' "stand your ground" laws as enforced by Abbott could encourage others to commit further acts of violence against protestors.

“At the time of his murder, Garrett Foster was exercising his First Amendment right to protest, as a part of broader protests against police brutality and racial injustice in the summer of 2020,” James wrote. “Texas law does not prevent a federal prosecution for Mr. Perry’s act of killing someone for racial reasons in order to prevent him from exercising constitutional rights.”

Governor Abbott's office did not respond to request for comment.

[soberscientistlife]

In Texas it is legal to kill Black Lives Matter protestors. Greg Abbott is sending the wrong message!

[inkandguns]

Texans are nothing but a shitload of liberal loving cucks. You mean to tell me there aren’t 4 guys with some combat experience that are willing to sacrifice their lives to save their brother?

Texas is all talk on Facebook and social media, they have no balls anymore at all. This state is on my “do not travel to” list just the same as Illinois.

This veteran had a rioter point a rifle in his face and he defended himself - life in prison no help from ABBOT.

Biggest group of cucks in the country. A lot of big talking rednecks who never do SHIT. They just let the fentanyl pour in and the Mexican cartels traffick little kids. FUCK TEXANS.

The Floridamen have y’all beat by a fucking country mile when it comes to pretty much anything.

[vague-humanoid]

Less than 24 hours after a jury in Austin found Daniel Perry guilty of shooting to death a protester, Gov. Greg Abbott announced on social media Saturday that he would pardon the convicted killer as soon as a request "hits my desk."

@nerdymouse @socialistexan @el-shab-hussein @chrisdornerfanclub @ubernegro

[reasonandempathy]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott pardoned Daniel Perry, a former Army sergeant who was convicted of killing a Black Lives Matter protester in Austin in 2020. He had been sentenced to 25 years in prison. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: A Texas man walked out of prison after being convicted of murdering a Black Lives Matter protester back in 2020. Governor Greg Abbott pardoned Daniel Perry. Andrew Weber from our member station KUT in Austin has been following the story and joins us now. Andrew, good morning. ANDREW WEBER, BYLINE: Good morning. INSKEEP: I want people to know that you covered some of the protests back in 2020 that led up to this shooting. So what were they like? WEBER: I did, yes, sir. It was - you know, it was July 2020. It was in the wake of George Floyd's murder, and there were a lot of those protests that summer around the police headquarters here in downtown Austin and around the state Capitol. And Garrett Foster was at a lot of those protests with his fiancee. She uses a wheelchair, and Foster sort of helped her get around protests. And every time I saw him, he was armed with a rifle, and he wore military fatigues. He was an Air Force veteran. And he was legally carrying that gun. And that July, he was walking down Congress Avenue downtown. He got into an altercation with Daniel Perry. And he was driving for Uber at the time, and he was also legally armed. And after that altercation, Perry shot Foster multiple times. He was later indicted by a grand jury here in Austin and convicted of murder.

Former US Army Sergeant Daniel Perry, convicted of killing armed protester Garrett Foster at a 2020 Austin demonstration, was pardoned by Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Abbott issued the full pardon following a unanimous recommendation from the Texas Parole Board.

Perry, who shot Foster during anti-racist protests, had his firearm rights reinstated after the decision.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Trump sycophants parroting attacks on justice system risk further provoking MAGA extremists

+

+

Defending the Judiciary in 2024

May 17, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Events on Thursday highlighted yet another reason Democrats must vote in record numbers in November to defeat MAGA extremism. Republicans are undermining the institution of the judiciary in every way imaginable. Eroding the legitimacy and authority of the courts is textbook fascism. Indeed, in fascist states, courts are co-opted or replaced, becoming instruments of totalitarian rule.

Every American should be concerned about the coordinated assault on the judiciary by MAGA extremists.

It is difficult to identify Thursday’s most egregious attack on the legitimacy of the courts, but it seems appropriate to begin with Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Alito displays a “Stop the Steal” flag on his front lawn.

As a Supreme Court justice, Alito has been unapologetic in his efforts to defend Trump's lawlessness. He has risen to Trump's defense with gleeful spite and unveiled resentment against those seeking to hold Trump accountable under the Constitution.

On Thursday, the New York Times revealed that Alito’s home displayed an upside-down US flag during the fraught days after the January 6 insurrection. At the time, flying the US flag upside down was a symbol calling to “Stop the Steal” of the 2020 election from Trump. It was a call to insurrection—proudly displayed by a US Supreme Court justice sworn to defend and protect the Constitution. See New York Times, At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display. (This article is accessible to all.)

In response to an inquiry from the Times, Alito said,

I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag.

Notably, Alito did not deny the veracity of the photograph of the flag flying upside down on his lawn. He did not deny the symbolism of the upside-down flag. He did not deny that he was aware of its continued presence in front of his house. Instead, he blamed his wife, whom he claimed flew the “Stop the Steal” banner in response to anti-Trump signs in the neighborhood.

Alito’s response to the Times is a lie. He owns the flag. He owns the flagpole. He owns the property on which the flag was displayed. He permitted it to remain on display on his property. He, therefore, did have “involvement” in “flying the flag.” It does not matter that it was his wife who physically raised the “Stop the Steal” banner on the flagpole. Alito’s hair-splitting denial is misleading and incomplete—and therefore false.

All of this leaves us with a second justice on the Supreme Court whose spouse was a booster of the effort to overthrow the Constitution and prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

Those justices—Alito and Thomas—are currently considering Trump's presidential immunity defense to the indictment alleging that Trump attempted to subvert the election. Under any reasonable reading of Code of Conduct that applies to Supreme Court justices, Alito and Thomas should have recused themselves long ago (under Canons 2 and 3).

The fact that Alito and Thomas have failed to do so is an open wound on the Court, oozing pus and bile every time they take the bench in a matter involving Trump's coup and insurrection.

Ultimately, the feckless Chief Justice John Roberts is to blame. He has allowed a sprawling and continuing scandal to consume the dwindling legitimacy of the Court. He has allowed that scandal to fester in order to provide cover for the most corrupt president in our nation’s history—which is a fitting epitaph for Roberts’ squandered legacy.

Texas Governor Abbott nullifies jury’s conviction of racist who killed Black Lives Matter protestor.

In the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, Daniel Perry shot and killed a protester who was carrying a gun (which is legal in Texas). A jury heard the evidence—including Perry’s claim of self-defense—and convicted Perry of murder. Perry was sentenced to 25 years in prison. After the verdict, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said he wanted to pardon Perry.

On Thursday, the Texas pardon board gave Abbott the recommendation to pardon Perry. Abbott issued an immediate pardon, and Perry is now back on the street—with his right to carry firearms restored. See Texas Gov. Greg Abbott pardons Daniel Perry, Army sergeant convicted of murdering protester in 2020 (nbcnews.com).

In pardoning Perry, Abbott issued a statement that denigrated the jury’s verdict and consideration of the evidence of self-defense. Abbott wrote,

Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury . . . .

 When a jury hears the evidence and concludes “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty, notwithstanding claimed self-defense, that verdict is not a “nullification” of the law; it is the application of the law. But in Abbot’s MAGA extremist administration, jury verdicts that run contrary to MAGA orthodoxy can be disregarded.

Overriding the justice system to advance partisan political ends is dangerous. If some Texans believe that the law does not apply to them, they will act lawlessly—exactly as Daniel Perry did when he shot a protester who was trying to make the point that Black lives matter to the same degree as white lives. Today, Governor Greg Abbott told Texans that is not true in Texas—and he did so by attacking the integrity of the jury trial system. The message and the means are antithetical to democracy.

New parade of GOP representatives appears at Trump trial

The “red tie” brigade was back in force at the Trump trial in Manhattan. About a dozen Republicans (mostly from Congress) appeared outside the courtroom to bash Judge Merchan, his family, and prosecutors. They filed into the courtroom as a phalanx, interrupting the cross-examination of Michael Cohen.

Why was Thursday’s spectacle worse than those on previous days? Because those who rose to show their support for Trump included Trump's indicted co-conspirator, Jeffrey Clark, as well as outcasts of the Freedom Caucus Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz.

In a particularly appalling statement, Gaetz posted a picture of Thursday’s parade of GOP officials at the trial alongside the caption, “Standing back and standing by, Mr. President.”

To be clear, Gaetz’s statement is a threat of violence against the judiciary if Trump is convicted. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the picture and caption in the context of the statements made outside the courtroom. See HuffPo, Matt Gaetz Parrots Trump’s Call To Proud Boys At His Trial.

The continued spectacle by Republican lawmakers is a clear violation of the gag order. The government officials are escorted into the courtroom and seated in seats reserved for Trump's defense team. As visible members of Trump's defense team, their statements are made on behalf of Trump. Judge Merchan should find Trump in contempt for those statements and order Trump to be detained. The failure of Judge Merchan to do so further undermines the authority of the judicial system.

While I am not criticizing Judge Merchan, it is clear that the willingness of Republican officials to break every norm of the rule of law has overwhelmed the ability of the judge to enforce the rules against Trump. And with the overlay of Gaetz’s threat of violence, Judge Merchan’s reluctance to apply the rule of law to Trump is understandable—though disappointing.

Here's my point: Thursday brought to the fore multiple examples of the MAGA effort to undermine the judiciary in the US. The only way to stop the attacks is to defeat Republicans up and down the ballot. The 2024 election is important for many reasons, not merely because we will re-elect Joe Biden. We must reverse the retrograde, reactionary MAGA movement to destroy one of the most important guardrails in democracy—a fair and independent judiciary.

Justice Alito dissents in case that would have triggered a Great Depression

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In so holding, seven justices rejected a theory that would have declared two-thirds of federal funding unconstitutional and eliminated regulations that control the banking and financial markets. The banking industry was so alarmed that it begged the justices to save the CFPB and the regulations that instruct the industry on how to conduct business lawfully. See Ian Millhiser in Vox, The Supreme Court decides not to trigger a second Great Depression.

The case is notable because it represents another defeat for the rogue judges on the reactionary Fifth Circuit who are hellbent on destroying the federal system of regulation that is responsible for the orderly operation of the world’s largest economy. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Supreme Court CFPB: The judicial arsonists went too far for the conservative justices this time.

But justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented, arguing that Congress must continually re-authorize and fund federal programs that are permanent fixtures of the American system of regulation. As Mark Joseph Stern notes, Alito cited to English history under King James to bolster his contention that the Supreme Court can strike down congressional appropriations:

To side with the 5th Circuit, Alito had to fixate on a somewhat random period of English history in the 17th century—from James I to Charles I—to assert that the Constitution empowers courts to strike down appropriations that they dislike.

Alito and Gorsuch are dangerous radicals whose voices must be overwhelmed by expanding the Court.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

WaPo's Philip Bump: State-endorsed violence is triumphing over left-aligned protests

Philip Bump at Washington Post:

I was in Florida in May 2021 when I saw a white Mini Cooper with two seemingly incongruous bumper stickers. One said, “I WILL NOT COMPLY” — a then-vogue sentiment as governments sought to mandate vaccines to fight the coronavirus pandemic. In a rear window, though, the car displayed a monochromatic American flag with one of the stripes rendered in blue. This, of course, is the graphical representation of the “Blue Lives Matter” mantra, an expression of support for the police that emerged as law enforcement began facing new criticism about the killing of Black civilians a decade ago. I will not comply … but I support our men and women in law enforcement.

It’s easy to carve out a realm where these sentiments are not at odds. The driver won’t comply with vaccine mandates but stands with the police as they do the hard work of subduing the real criminals. Or, to define the space where the sentiments are not at odds more simply: The driver adheres to a right-wing worldview in which state power is properly deployed against the left. For the driver, the law protects but doesn’t bind, as the saying has it. That was three years ago. In the period since, state power has gained a lot of ground against its long-standing adversaries’ criticism and protest. Last week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) took the unusual-for-him step of pardoning a man who was convicted of murder in a shooting death in Austin. The shooter, Daniel Perry, was driving in the city in July 2020 when he came across a protest criticizing the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis. Garrett Foster was part of the crowd and was carrying a rifle, which is legal in the state. Perry claimed that Foster aimed the weapon at him and that he fired in self-defense.

Others in the crowd denied that Foster raised his weapon. A jury determined that the killing was not justified and sentenced Perry to prison. They did so without even seeing some of the most striking evidence: text messages from Perry in which he expressed racist views and talked about shooting people who engaged in looting in the wake of the Floyd protests. (Foster, like Perry, was White.) But Abbott decided a pardon was in order, arguing that the state’s stand-your-ground law “cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney.” Foster’s killing was rebuked by Texans but sanctioned by the state. In the wake of the protests in 2020 — an underrecognized challenge to state power from the left — other states attempted to build laws specifically to increase the costs of those protests. In Florida and Oklahoma, for example, the state legislatures passed and governors signed laws absolving drivers of some penalties if they struck protesters blocking roads.

[...] One of the widest partisan divides, meanwhile, was on “disrupting public events.” That divide was about as wide as the one on “establishing encampments.” Since the protests that unfolded in the summer of 2020, the largest widespread protest movement seen in the United States has been centered on the establishment of encampments on college campuses to protest Israel’s military incursion in Gaza. Most Americans expressed skepticism of those protests in polling released this month. In recent Fox News polling, though, a majority of Democrats expressed support for the protests while Republicans opposed them by more than a 5-1 margin. [...]

At many colleges, including New York's Columbia University, administrators agreed with the Republicans. Law enforcement was brought in to disrupt and remove encampments. That was true at Columbia, where the New York Police Department swept the campus more than once. The second and final sweep resulted in several students being hospitalized. Over the weekend, the NYPD again violently disrupted a protest. Officers were seen striking protesters participating in a pro-Palestinian event in Brooklyn, with police arguing that the response was needed because protesters were blocking the streets. The neighborhood’s City Council member told the New York Times that “from my vantage point, the response appeared preemptive, retaliatory and cumulatively aggressive.” [...]

The violent crackdown on the protests were sanctioned by the state. It is possible that the bumper sticker on that car I saw in Florida in 2021 was harrumphing not about an unwillingness to comply with the coronavirus vaccine but, instead, with the advent of a Democratic president. After all, the weeks after the 2020 election were awash in right-wing refusal to comply with the state power manifested in recognizing Joe Biden’s electoral victory. On Jan. 6, 2021, rioters supporting Donald Trump overwhelmed law enforcement and overtook the Capitol in a failed effort to redirect power back to the sitting president.

The response from Trump’s allies and the broader right has been illuminating. There was an immediate effort to rationalize the violence by comparing it to the protests that unfolded the previous summer, like the one at which Garrett Foster was killed. Or like the one after which teenager Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two men. (“Those who help, protect, and defend are the good guys,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) wrote on social media once Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder. “Kyle is one of good ones.”) Over the longer term, though, the right’s Capitol riot narrative — led by people like Greene — focused more heavily on the purported injustices those rioters had faced. Those who are incarcerated have been presented as “political prisoners,” rather than as violent criminals and, often people who’ve pleaded guilty to their offenses. In the vernacular of that Mini Cooper, these were honorable people refusing to comply, not criminals engaged in an unacceptable denial of how much blue lives matter.

Washington Post’s Philp Bump wrote a solid article on why left-leaning protests (pro-Palestine, pro-Black Lives Matter, etc.) are more likely to face state-sanctioned violent crackdown responses than right-leaning protests (anti-COVID mitigation measures, etc.)