#overturning it infringes on that right

[fandom]

Things We Care About

Well, Tumblr, 2022 was another big year for speaking up and supporting each other. In the past year, you took action, turned art into activism, and made your voices heard, often in support of others. We’ve analyzed your top tags and posts to determine what mattered to you in the last year.

When Ukraine was invaded, you showed your support. You continue to #stand with Ukraine, create for Ukraine, and honor Ukrainian artists caught in the crossfires.

Throughout the year, you shared many messages of body positivity and encouragement, held 5,879,971 private exchanges with @kokobot (yes, you and kokobot rlly r bestiez), and sent an inconceivable amount of anonymous, personalized messages of reassurance to each other.

You celebrated Pride with plenty of wholesome artistic offerings and showed solidarity with your peers all over the world. You stood up against the Don’t Say Gay bill in Florida and informed each other on how to vote against trans-exclusionary policies across America. When Rebel Wilson and Kit Conner were both pressured into coming out, you supported them, commiserated with them, and came to the defense of anyone who's ever been pressured to do so.

When Mahsa Amini was killed, you spoke out and posted in support of protests in Iran, learning about and spreading awareness of what women, girls, and protestors endure in the name of tradition in Iran. 

When Roe v. Wade was overturned, you shared countless resources for those affected by reproductive rights infringement in the US, again turning to art as a means to share stories and ignite action. You commemorated the victims of the Uvalde shooting, saying enough is enough when it comes to gun-related violence in America. You turned your rage into art that inspires and nudged others to make their voices heard at the US polls. 

You reminded users that the “civil rights movement isn’t as “ancient” as we’re taught in class,” that Black lives still matter, and always will matter. You celebrated Black Joy and Black Excellence, illuminating stories of resilience in the face of racial injustice. 

You celebrated your Indigenous culture and took a stand for the preservation of Indigenous lands.

You continued to be planet-conscious by sharing ideas, resources, and knowledge of mending and making, and celebrated conservation efforts along the way. 

And finally, under the continued stresses of COVID, you looked to the future with resilience, turning pain and uncertainty into hope and connection.

And that’s definitely something to be proud of. What will you stand for in 2023?

[waitmyturtles]

This is INCREDIBLY EXCITING news, as South Korea lags behind many other Asian countries on public viewpoints about LGBTQ+ rights. Well done, South Korea’s Supreme Court, on equal public healthcare rights! Also note, at the end of the article, how fast attitudes are changing about same-sex marriage in South Korea over the last 24 years. Keep the upward trend going! (I’m calling for more South Korean BLs, obviously.)

Paywall-free paste below:

In a landmark ruling for gay rights in South Korea on Thursday, the country’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples qualify for the national health insurance’s dependent coverage, a decision that rights activists hoped could pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage in the country.

The decision would allow same-sex couples in the country to register their partners as dependents in national health insurance coverage, as married couples or couples in a common-law marriage can. Numerous other benefits are denied to same-sex and other couples living outside the traditional norms of family in South Korea.

In its ruling on Thursday, the country’s highest court ruled that denying a same-sex couple national health insurance dependent coverage “just because they are of the same sex” constitutes a serious discrimination that infringed upon citizens’ “dignity and values, their rights to pursue happiness, their freedom of privacy and their rights to be equally treated by the law.”

The plaintiff, So Seong-wook, filed the legal complaint in 2021. Mr. So wanted to register in the national health insurance program as a dependent of his partner, Kim Yong-min, arguing that their union should be treated as a common-law marriage. But South Korea’s health insurance service rejected his request and told him to pay a separate monthly insurance premium — a decision later affirmed by a district court.

But in February last year, an appeals court overturned the lower-court ruling. It said that although Mr. Kim and Mr. So’s union could not be considered a common-law marriage under South Korean laws, they should still qualify for the national health insurance’s dependent coverage.

In its final say on the case on Thursday, the Supreme Court endorsed the appeals court ruling. It said that same-sex couples formed an “economic cohabitation tantamount to” married and common-law couples.

“I hope today’s ruling will serve as a steppingstone toward enabling sexual minorities to gain equality in the system of marriage,” Mr. So said in a news conference on Thursday.

Mr. Kim said while he describes himself as Mr. So’s “husband” and “companion,” he has never been able to enjoy those titles legally in South Korea.

“I am so happy that the court recognized some of that today,” he said.

Borang Jang, an East Asia researcher at Amnesty International, the rights group, described the ruling as historic.

“The court has taken a significant step towards dismantling systemic discrimination and ensuring inclusivity for all,” she said in a statement. “The case itself is a sobering reminder of the lengthy judicial processes that same-sex couples must endure to secure basic rights that should be universally guaranteed.”

There is no official data on how many people live together in same-sex unions in the country. But between 2016 and 2022, the number of people who live together in “non-kin households” — people living together outside legal marriage — doubled to 1 million, according to government data.

Conservative Christians in South Korea have long campaigned against legalizing same-sex marriage or introducing an anti-discrimination law that protects people of any gender, age, sexual identity or physical ability. But attitudes are changing. At the turn of the century, only 17 percent of South Koreans were in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, according to Gallup Korea, a survey company. By May of last year, that figure had grown to 40 percent.

By Choe Sang-Hun

[odinsblog]

🗣️ Please pay attention

Amazon argues that national labor board is unconstitutional, joining SpaceX and Trader Joe’s

Amazon is arguing in a legal filing that the 88-year-old National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional, echoing similar arguments made this year by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and the grocery store chain Trader Joe’s in disputes about workers’ rights and organizing.

The Amazon filing, made Thursday, came in response to a case before an administrative law judge overseeing a complaint from agency prosecutors who allege the company unlawfully retaliated against workers at a New York City warehouse who voted to unionize nearly two years ago.

In its filing, Amazon denies many of the charges and asks for the complaint to be dismissed. The company’s attorneys then go further, arguing that the structure of the agency — particularly limits on the removal of administrative law judges and five board members appointed by the president — violates the separation of powers and infringes on executive powers stipulated in the Constitution.

The attorneys also argue that NLRB proceedings deny the company a trial by a jury and violate its due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment. (source)

ICYMI, this is a case of corporations going, “7th Amendment Protections for me, but not for thee.”

It is strongly worth noting that in 2018 the John Roberts Court ruled 5-4 that companies can use forced arbitration clauses to stop people from joining together to fight workplace abuses - in effect denying individuals their 7th Amendment protections.

Subsequently, binding arbitration clauses used by corporations has proliferated; sneaking into all manner of common legal documents: personal banking applications, ordinary car loan applications, furniture purchases, and more. This is, unsurprisingly, a direct violation of the 7th Amendment that guarantees HUMAN BEINGS AND PEOPLE the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. Republicans and SCOTUS are perfectly okay with corporations having more rights than workers and using forced arbitration to block people from having access to jury trials—but God forbid if corporations don’t have their right to a jury trial.

This legislative push to bestow corporations with more rights than people, while simultaneously taking away rights from human beings, has been nothing if not thoroughly and methodically done. At this rate, no corporation will ever need to fear a class action lawsuit again.

Amazon, SpaceX and Trader Joe’s are union busting.

But this latest case against the NLRB isn’t just an attack on labor and worker’s rights, it’s a fascistic attack on the very heart of fairness and democracy itself.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michelangelo Signorile at The Signorile Report:

Four years ago, as she was ascending to the Supreme Court, I wrote right here on The Signorile Report that “Amy Coney Barrett will destroy marriage equality.” And now she’s appeared to confirm it’s coming, writing the majority opinion last week in Department of State v. Muñoz. Barrett and others in the majority were called out by the three liberals on the court in a powerful dissenting opinion—and even by Justice Neal Gorsuch to an extent, in a concurrence—who zeroed in on how Barrett and other conservatives unnecessarily, and disturbingly, stripped the rights of marriage in a ruling on an immigration case.

The case centered on Sandra Muñoz, a Los Angeles woman and U.S. citizen, who argued that her constitutional rights were violated when the federal government denied a visa to her Salvadoran husband, an undocumented immigrant. As The Los Angeles Times notes, the case is “a major setback for Americans with foreign spouses because it explicitly rejects the idea that a citizen has a constitutional right to attempt to bring their noncitizen spouse into the country.” More than that, as Justice Sotomayor wrote in her very strong dissenting opinion, which opened by quoting from the court’s Oberbefell marriage equality decision, the majority’s decision stripped marriage as a “fundamental” right that is a “matter of tradition and history.”

Muñoz demanded to know the reason why her husband was denied a visa, since, as is standard practice, the State Department would not tell her. Via her lawsuit, the claims of which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed—ruling her husband should get a visa because not doing so infringed on Muñoz’s marriage rights—she found out the dubious reason: The government claimed her husband had tattoos that were gang-related, something an expert on gangs refuted. And, as Gorsuch wrote, that should have been the end of the case. Muñoz got what she sought—the basis of the government’s denial—and, even as the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s decision, she and her husband could try to get a visa again. There was absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to go any further than that.

[...] Biden and the Democrats got the “Respect for Marriage Act” passed—a bill that foresaw the possible overturning of Obergefell, after Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs. The law will not stop states from banning marriage equality in their own states if the court sent the issue back to the states, as it did with the issue of abortion. But it codifies recognition by the federal government of same-sex marriage—for the purposes of Social Security survivorship, for example—and mandates that states that ban same-sex marriage in their own states must recognize marriages of gay and lesbian couples married in other states, even if their own residents go to another state to marry. You can bet that if Donald Trump and the GOP get into power, they'll repeal the Respect for Marriage Act. More than that, only with Democrats and Biden in power can we pressure both to finally move forward on expanding the Supreme Court.

As SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in the dissent for the Department of State v. Muñoz case that cited Obergefell, marriage equality is under serious danger.

[wolveswolves]

Sweden’s biggest, controversial endangered wolf cull has started but campaigners fight on 

February 2023 - Hunters have already shot dead 54 wolves in Sweden’s largest ever cull, while scientists warn that wolf numbers are not large enough to sustain a healthy population

Hunters have shot dead 54 wolves in a month in Sweden’s largest and most controversial cull of the animals yet, prompting fury from conservationists and satisfaction among farmers who consider the predators a threat to their livelihoods.

The Stockholm government has authorised the shooting of 75 wolves in its 2023 cull, more than twice last year’s figure, despite warnings from scientists that wolf numbers are not large enough to sustain a healthy population.

“Wolves are a threat for those of us who live in rural areas,” said Kjell-Arne Ottosson, a Christian Democrat MP and vice-president of the parliament’s environment and agriculture committee. “We have to manage that. We have to take this seriously.”

Farmers say more than 340 sheep were killed in 2021 by a Swedish wolf population estimated at about 460. The predators, which in the 1960s were thought to be extinct in Sweden, are also resented by hunters, who say the dogs they use to track and drive deer and elk are regularly attacked.

“This cull is absolutely necessary to slow the growth of wolves. Sweden’s wolf population is the largest we have had in modern times,” Gunnar Glöersen, predator manager at the Swedish Hunters’ Association, told public broadcaster SVT.

However, the scale of this year’s planned cull – only 203 wolves have been shot in total in Sweden in the 12 years since authorised hunting resumed – has alarmed conservationists. “It’s tragic,” said Daniel Ekblom of the Nature Conservation Society. “It could have consequences for a long time to come.”

Scientists have said that to sustain a healthy population, the wolf population roaming Sweden and Finland should not fall below 500, and Sweden’s Environmental Protection Agency has said at least 300 are necessary to avoid harmful inbreeding.

Led by centre- and far-right parties, however, Sweden’s parliament voted two years ago to cap the wolf population at 270, while the Swedish Hunters’ Association wants to go even further and lower the limit to 150 animals.

Wolf numbers fell steeply in Sweden after 1789, when a law was passed allowing commoners to hunt. That led to the decimation of the deer and elk populations, prompting wolves to prey more on livestock – and the state to pay a bounty for every wolf killed.

The population shrank to the brink of extinction and the predator was declared a protected species in the 1960s. Numbers began growing again 20 years later, however, when three wolves from the Russian-Finnish population migrated to central Sweden.

Conservation organizations in the country have attempted to overturn the wolf hunting mandate but have been unsuccessful.

Groups used the Bern Convention as their main argument. An international treaty agreed upon in 1979, the convention seeks to protect both wildlife and their habitats. Actions to do so are taken in the name of conservation.

“Wolves as top predators in the food chain are a prerequisite for biodiversity. Killing a quarter of the population through hunting has negative consequences for animals and nature,” Marie Stegard, president of Swedish anti-hunting group Jaktkritikerna told the Guardian.

“It’s disastrous for the entire ecosystem. The existence of wolves contributes to a richer animal and plant life. Human survival depends on healthy ecosystems.”

The European Commission has previously opened infringement proceedings against Sweden, warning that the annual cull falls foul of the EU’s habitats directive since “the wolf population has not reached a level that guarantees its conservation”.

“It’s astonishing that Sweden keeps on making these decisions,” said Marie Stegard Lind of the anti-hunting group Jaktkritikerna. “The commission has been very clear about its opinion that these hunts are, in fact, illegal,” Lind told AFP.

This year’s cull began in early January and ends on 15 February, although several regional authorities have already called it off having reached their quota. Experts have said the government’s planned national total of 75 wolves may not be reached.

Under pressure from farmers and hunters, the government authorised limited annual culls again in 2010. Since then, the wolf “has become a symbol of the conflict between the city and rural areas”, Johanna Sandahl of the Nature Conservation Society told AFP.

Sources: [x], [x]

[nordschleifes]

chapter four — algo me gusta de ti

➝ after a choice that ends fernando's chances of a better position for the race on sunday, charlie is confronted by the driver. however, the discussion ends in a way she didn't expect.

➝ word count: 5,1k

➝ warnings: fighting (it that a warning at this point?), racing description

➝ author's note: tagging @christianpulisic10, @alonsogirlie and @enaticosencantados as requested.

— Charlie, don't you think we should start our fast laps now?

— No, you can do one more warm-up lap — she replied, her eyes on the clock at the top of the screen. There were just under two minutes left in qualifying for the Miami Grand Prix, long enough for him to take another slow lap before another flying lap to chase after pole position and finish with just under 20 seconds to go. It was an ideal strategy, carefully developed by the strategy team, all to steal Checo's provisional pole position.

One more lap. A few more seconds.

She watched closely as Fernando followed at a slower speed, giving space for Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari to pass him at turn 9 on his flier. Then, as she took her eyes off of the GPS map to look at the broadcast, she felt her heart skip a beat.

The Ferrari was sliding out of control towards the turn 16 barrier, the crash causing those in the pit wall to let out a collective groan.

— Attention, yellow flag, yellow flag at turn six — she said, before sighing as she saw the color change from yellow to red — Red flag, slow down.

Without a response from Fernando, Charlie had to confirm with what the data coming from the car said as he drastically reduced his speed. She knew it was a gamble to release him so late from the pits to do his last laps of Q3. She sighed, knowing that she should have anticipated something happening with the slippery track and Leclerc’s crash during FP2 the day before.

— Nice and slow, keep the delta positive — she said, while staring at Fernando’s name on the timing screen — The session will not be restarted. So, it's a P8 for us today.

— Yeah, we're going to have to stick with that — he muttered. He sounded less than pleased.

Given his latest results, he had every reason to be dissatisfied.

After the fifth place in Bahrain, they left for Saudi Arabia with some optimism. After the debrief, the team found, in all of the data they’d gathered over the weekend, that the car had fulfilled all expectations, and in the right conditions, there was even more performance to be had.

Jeddah was like a dream. In each free practice, Fernando was in the top three, with his lap times being tantalizingly close to the Red Bulls. In qualifying, problems with Verstappen's gearbox and a penalty for Leclerc ensured that Fernando would start from second place during the Grand Prix.

The race had its own frustrations, with Fernando getting a penalty for the car being out of position within its starting box, and another for incorrectly serving the penalty during a pit stop in the race. The team argued their case before the FIA and managed to get the pit stop infringement penalty overturned, meaning Fernando’s third place was restored. Charlie was leaving the paddock when Fernando started a video call with her to tell her the good news. Seeing him smiling and satisfied with the result made something warm fill her chest.

Another podium came in Australia, after a race with two red flags and a collision involving Fernando's car that made Charlie’s stomach lurch as she watched it, but the car ended up being able to continue.

At the end of April, a good weekend in Baku solidified the third place for Fernando in the drivers’ championship along with Aston Martin moving up to second place in the constructors' championship.

But Miami was shaping up to be different. Qualifying in P8 on a track where overtaking after the start would be difficult was not very encouraging, but a solid pit stop strategy involving two long stints on the medium and hard tires would be key for Fernando to get valuable points that Sunday. There was rain in the forecast overnight, which would make starting on soft tires unfeasible because of the high degradation during Saturday’s sessions. 

Charlie jotted a few things down in her notebook before she left the pit wall to walk back to the paddock. On the way, she tried to think of how to tell Fernando why she wanted to delay his fast laps and hadn’t considered the possibility of a red flag. Maybe if she told him that Verstappen had to abort his fast lap, too, it may help… 

“Like he cares about that”, she thought to herself as she passed her credentials over the badge reader at the paddock’s entrance turnstile. All of the team motorhomes were assembled on the field of Hard Rock Stadium, which made for a unique paddock set up. After passing a group of McLaren mechanics and waving to Lee, an engineer with whom she had worked for a few years, she entered Aston Martin’s hospitality building, heading straight to the second floor, where was the engineering office, the place they  gathered for the debriefs.

Ben and Lance were already in the office. It wasn’t surprising given that Lance had been eliminated in Q1. They were discussing the decision not to put new tires on his car, which jeopardized his attempt to gain a higher position on the grid. Charlie sat down across from them and opened her notebook, checking the notes she'd taken during qualifying and trying to ignore the tension building in her shoulders.

When Fernando came in with Dan, Charlie could see his displeasure plainly on his face. She was bracing herself for another explosion, just as it was during the McLaren-Honda days. It was a creeping, sickening deja-vu, waiting for his commentary on her poor strategy decisions and how her plan had been too risky. However, he wasn’t chatting to Dan about any of that. Instead, they were chatting about the relative effectiveness of the AMR23’s DRS.

“This is it. This is the calm before the storm”, Charlie thought, scribbling something in her notebook about factors to consider before suggesting plan B during the race. She did everything she could to avoid catching Fernando’s gaze.

 The debrief ended with no outbursts or tantrums from Fernando, and Charlie breathed a sigh of relief. As she stood up to leave, her thoughts turned to going back to her hotel room, ordering room service for dinner, and maybe watching last year’s Miami GP and taking more notes.

— Charlie? — she turned around to see that Fernando was on his feet, adjusting his green cap on his head. He was still wearing his overalls, but the collar was open and the zipper was pulled down to the middle of his chest.

— Yeah?

— Can we talk?

— Of course — Charlie replied, trying to hide her nervousness — What do you need?

— Come with me — he said, brushing past her and leaving the engineering office. As she followed behind him, Charlie couldn't shake the sickening feeling that she knew what was about to happen, even more so when Fernando opened the door to his drivers’ room and gestured for her to step inside. 

She had entered several drivers’ rooms over the years, but this is the first time she had been in Fernando’s since he came over to Aston Martin. The room was one of the simpler, more basic ones she’d seen. There was a small desk with his laptop, a chair, a sofa and a kind of small wardrobe open in the corner, with his backpack and his regular clothes inside. The only thing on the wall was a poster of the AMR23. She was surprised. His drivers’ room when he was in McLaren was a bit more decorated, with the flags of Spain and his home province of Asturias adorning the walls. 

When Charlie heard the door close behind her, she felt her shoulders tense. Fernando stepped back around her, pulling his arms out of the sleeves of his overalls so he could take it off.

— Well, what did you want to talk about? — she asked, thinking about how naive she sounded.

— You know what I want to talk about, Charlie — Fernando replied, picking up a bottle of water that was on the table. He leaned back against it as he opened it and took a long drink, all without taking his eyes off of her.

— Is it about your fast lap?

— If you can call that a fast lap — he said, drying his mouth with the back of his hand.

— It was a warm-up lap.

— The third in a row, when I could have done a fast lap and improved my time — he said dryly.

Charlie sighed.

— It was a strategy...

— A strategy that didn't work.

— Because of Charles — she answered immediately.

— You should have known he was going to do something wrong, Charlie. He was having problems with the rear of the car, I saw it when he passed me.

— You could have told me that.

— Why didn’t you see it on my onboard? Weren’t you watching it?

Charlie laughed in disbelief.

— Yes, I was looking at the onboard, but I was also looking at the brake telemetry, temperatures, everyone else’s times, engine readings, the status of your car, and talking to you at the same time.

— Well, you should have paid attention to my onboards so you can see what I see. 

— I could say the same about many things, Fernando, but I know you're doing several things at the same time...

— But you ask for things anyway — he said.

— Because if I don't ask, your car breaks down and I'm the one who has to listen to you whining.

He snorted, running a hand over his face.

— Well, it doesn’t matter anyway, because the weekend is over, Charlie. Your so-called strategy has made it so this entire weekend is just going to be a waste of everyone’s time.

— Do you want me to apologize? — she asked, trying to stay calm — Is that it? You're making this whole speech because you want me to apologize to you?

— No, Charlie. Your apologies are of no use to me now. Your apologies are not going to get me on the podium tomorrow, or even make me score points. Your apologies won't make me a champion again.

— Who ever said you’re going to be a champion again, Fernando? — Charlie muttered. It was reflexive, almost automatic. 

Fernando’s eyes shot to hers, his expression going rigid.

— I did. I said it. I'm going to be champion again — he replied — But only if you stop making strategy calls that hinder me instead of helping me.

— The only thing that hinders you, Fernando, is your ego. If you don’t keep it in check, you'll never lift that trophy again at the end of the year in Paris.

His nostrils flared. Charlie had found his Achilles heel. She felt a sense of immense satisfaction. She knew she shouldn’t continue digging deeper, but a voice in the back of her mind pleaded with her to not pass up the opportunity to hit him where it hurt, as justice for the years of misery he’d caused her.

— It's not a matter of ego, Charlie, and you know it. I am the hardest working driver on the entire grid…

— That's what you think, right? I’ve heard every driver say that — she interrupted him, crossing her arms — But you’re not any better than anyone else.

— I'm better than everyone. I’m the most complete driver out of all twenty of us, I…

— Are you? If you're so good, then why did you lose to a rookie in 2007? — she asked. Now that she’d gotten her claws in, it seemed like it would be difficult to stop. 

— Everyone knows that asshole Dennis favored Hamilton…

— And then what? When you returned to Renault, why couldn't you beat him then? Why did it take Flavio bribing your teammate into crashing out in Singapore to get you on the podium?

The memory of the 2008 scandal made him visibly clench his teeth. Now, Charlie was just playing dirty, but it was intoxicating. The voice in the back of her head urged her on, to give him a dose of his own poison, to make him feel like she did on that fateful afternoon in Montreal.

— You have to have a lot of audacity to say that you are the best while sharing the grid with Lewis — she continued, taking a step forward to face him — He’s the greatest driver of all time, but not only that, he’s a better teammate than you are. He’s better than you at everything.

— Charlie...

— He's better than you in and out of the car, better in the simulator, better than you personally and professionally. He’s even better than you in bed! — she exclaimed, without thinking. She cursed at herself. She’d gone too far. Her desire to damage Fernando’s ego had gotten ahead of her mouth, and she knew it when she watched Fernando’s expression change from anger to surprise.

— How do you know that? — Fernando asked, the shadow of a smile creeping over his face.

She blinked, transfixed. It wasn't like she actually knew what Lewis was like in bed, after all, she had never had anything more than a professional relationship with him. She’d never had any relationships with any drivers, and it was for a good reason, especially working as a woman in a male-dominated environment.

At the same time, though, she wasn't deaf to the rumors running through the paddock. It wasn’t like Charlie enjoyed gossip, but it was nearly impossible to ignore the whispered conversations the caterers and cleaning staff had during off-peak hours in the motorhome, but admitting that to Fernando would be the end of whatever remained of her credibility.

— You shouldn't talk about things you don’t know anything about, Charlie — he said quietly, in the face of her silence.

— But I do… Know — she replied, trying to hide her nervousness when she realized how close he was to her.

— You mean you fucked him? — Fernando asked. The way he’d asked was clearly a challenge.

— Yes — Charlie lied, trying to keep her voice steady. However, she couldn't help noticing how fast her heart was beating inside her chest, or how her eyes insisted on drifting down to his lips — And he's very good.

— Oh, he is? Tell me more.

She felt her mind freeze for a few seconds.

— I'm not going to talk about this with you.

— Why not? — he asked, smiling.

— Because I don't owe you any explanations about my sex life.

— Considering you're making assumptions about my sex life, I think I have a right to know what you consider good sex.

Charlie felt her cheeks heat up.

— He's good — she just replied.

— Did he make you come? — Fernando asked bluntly. A wave of heat raced over Charlie's skin as soon as the word left his lips.

— Like I said, he's really good, unlike you.

— You never fucked me, so you wouldn’t know whether I'm good or not.

— Well, I don't need to.

— Oh, I think you do, Charlotte.

In that split second, it was as if a video tape had been rewound in her mind. Staring into his eyes, Charlie remembered the first time she'd spoken with him, on a cold January morning eight years ago. The image of him, with a well-tailored gray suit and his dark, combed-back hair, was seared into her mind. She remembered perfectly what she had thought when she saw him enter her sector, a wide smile on his face as he shook her hand as Ron Dennis introduced them. 

“Handsome”, she thought. And there, standing inches away from her, with the sleeves of his overalls tied around his hips and his dark green baseball cap over his brown hair, he looked the same way.

Handsome.

Another voice came to the back of her mind, making a not-so-subtle suggestion of what she should do. 

So, Charlie did.

Putting her hands on Fernando's face, she pulled his body against hers, their lips colliding in a rough, passionate kiss, completely devoid of any delicacy. The touch ran through her body like an electric shock, sharpening her senses immediately. The faint scent of the cologne he'd put on before heading out on the circuit seemed to have mingled with something Charlie could only classify as his own, delicious and uniquely his.

Her hands slid from his face to the back of his neck, while her lips parted to allow her to taste Fernando. He was sweet and salty and sour all at the same time, as if all facets of him had combined into the lips of the man she was kissing. Her thoughts were an irrational jumble, Charlie realized, but there was nothing rational about the situation.

With her pulse roaring in her ears, she barely noticed when her back hit the wall, much less when Fernando's hands went down her waist towards the skirt she was wearing. Pulling the green fabric up haphazardly, he pressed his fingers into the skin of her ass, pulling Charlie’s hips flush to his. Feeling her nails dig into his skin, she continued that hungry, almost desperate exploration. It was as if one were the air the other needed to breathe, the surface in that sea of unresolved arguments and feelings.

Charlie only realized she was out of breath when she felt Fernando's lips leave hers, trailing down her jaw, nibbling on her skin. He wasn’t touching her like someone with a point to prove, but like someone who had achieved a goal. Someone who had finally gotten what he wanted.

— Did he do this to you, Charlie? — Fernando asked, in a low voice, his hot breath making her skin crawl — Did Lewis kiss you like this?

— No — she replied, sighing as she felt him bite her earlobe.

— Did he touch you like this?

— No — Charlie said, hands sliding through his hair, his Aston Martin cap long since fallen to the floor.

— So he didn't fuck you — he said, as his lips trailed down her neck — He didn’t give you anything close to what you deserve.

— What I deserve — she murmured, reflexively. There was no room for any coherent thought in the rising fever in her mind. There was only one thing that Charlie could see in his dilated pupils, when he lifted his face from the crook of her neck.

Desire.

— A real fuck — Fernando murmured, his lips brushing hers — With someone who knows exactly how to touch you, how to kiss you, how to make you moan, how to make you come. Someone like me, nena.

Charlie stopped suddenly, eyes fixed on his face. Her mind was in a whirlwind of thoughts, guilt mixing with the adrenaline that was coursing through her body. “What have I done?”, she thought, as he brushed his nose lightly against hers, mumbling something she didn't understand.

— Puedo hacerlo todo. Puedo hacer lo que quieras. Sólo dime que sí, nena.

Fernando, the man who had said in more ways than one that he couldn’t stand her, was telling her that he knew how to touch her, how to kiss her, how to make her moan, how to make her come. Of all people, it was him. The man she hated, the man who had almost made her give up on her dream of succeeding in motorsport. The man she had just kissed, because she couldn't resist her own desire to have him for herself, to try those lips and feel his tender touch.

Him. Why him?

Taking her hands to Fernando's shoulders, she pushed him lightly, in a gesture for him to move away. "I couldn't have done that", Charlie repeated mentally, while trying to adjust her green skirt, which was now horribly wrinkled from being hiked up to her hips.

— Charlie? Are you okay? — he asked.

— Leave me alone — she snarled, before quickly storming out of the room, ignoring his protests and slamming the door behind her. A few steps later, Charlie stopped in the middle of the hallway and leaned against the wall, taking a deep breath and trying to calm her own heart that was beating fast in her chest.

Charlie couldn't understand what had just happened. She couldn't understand how that discussion about winning or not winning the championship turned into sensual whispers about how he would make her come like she deserved, into him biting and kissing her neck.

The idea of having sex with Fernando, even a few weeks ago, sounded like an absurdity. However, at that moment, it no longer seemed like something impossible or ridiculous, but something Charlie actively desired. She wanted to touch him, wanted to feel him inside her, wanted to hear the whisper that would make her moan and see the expression on his face when she achieved his goal.

Putting a hand to her face, Charlie grunted in frustration. “Stop it, Charlotte, stop it, stop it!”, she condemned herself. She couldn't and shouldn't think about that. They hated each other. She hated him. She hated him deeply. Or should.

— Joder! — she heard Fernando yell, followed by a loud, heavy sound, like a fist hitting a table. It was the signal Charlie needed to head back into the engineering office to get her things before heading back to the hotel. She didn’t say anything to anyone, and ignored someone she knew waving to her. She walked through the paddock like a woman on a mission, but her head was elsewhere. All she could think about was what had happened minutes before, how she was filled with Fernando's scent and taste. “I need a shower, urgently”, Charlie thought, as she ordered an Uber on her phone.

If she expected to sleep that night, she was wrong. Anxiety kept her eyes open, glued to the hotel room ceiling. Charlie had thousands of questions in her head. Why had she pulled Fernando against her? Why had she kissed him? Why had she allowed him to touch her? Why didn't she back off? Why had she liked it?

As she was ruminating over the kiss, Charlie saw the sun rise over Miami Beach.

Sunday passed in a blur. She was making such an effort to stay awake and focused on that afternoon's race that she had practically mentally isolated herself from everything around her. Charlie didn't see anything related to the start of the day, not even the much-talked-about entry of the driver at the start of the opening ceremony.

Facing Fernando was the strangest part. They met by chance at the door of the engineering office. Meeting his eyes, Charlie felt her heart jump in her chest, a shiver crawling over her skin.

— Good morning — he murmured, standing in front of her.

— Good morning — she managed to reply, before dodging the driver and heading for the garage.

After a good start by Fernando allowed him to gain some positions, the race no longer had any emotion. In fact, it was so boring that Charlie heard the driver commenting on Lance's overtake that he saw on one of the trackside screens. Lance was fighting for a points place, but Fernando managed to finish third after an otherwise uneventful race. As he crossed the finish line, she felt like a weight had lifted off her shoulders.

— Yeah, P3 today. Very good — she said, her voice flat.

— Very good, guys. It was a lonely race, but we can deal with that.

She didn't watch the podium ceremony or even join the group for team photos with the trophy. The debrief was quick and more focused on Lance than Fernando. As soon as the meeting ended, Charlie got up and left the room, not looking back, even as she thought she heard someone call her name. 

Back in her hotel room, she laid down on the bed and let out a heavy sigh. It felt like she’d been holding her breath since she’d left the track. Charlie felt suffocated, as if she were drowning in her own doubt and fears.

Whenever she felt like this, she knew there was one person she could turn to.

Charlie picked up her phone and tapped on the name in her contacts list. As she listened to the insistent rings, she made a mental calculation of the time zone and mentally condemned herself. It was well after midnight in the UK, not a good time for a phone call. However, someone must be awake, as, seconds later, she heard a sweet voice on the other end of the line.

— Good evening, my dear — Amanda, her grandmother, said. Charlie could tell from her voice that she was smiling, even if she did sound tired — How are you?

— Hi, grandma, good evening. I'm fine, and you?

— I'm fine too, just a little sleepy.

Guilt surged through Charlie's chest.

— Sorry I called so late, I forgot about the time difference…

— It's okay, my love, I've been waiting for you to call. You know I don't sleep without talking to you first.

She smiled. Her grandmother had been the woman she had always considered as her mother. It was Amanda who smiled along with her in happy moments and dried her tears at the difficult ones. It was Amanda who had taught Charlie to love math, and who encouraged her to apply for the work experience at McLaren while she was in university, even though Charlie thought the chances of her getting the placement seemed slim.

— Your grandfather watched the race today — the grandmother continued — He said that driver of yours did well, despite starting down the grid.

Something in Amanda's words made her lips purse.

— Yeah, he did well today — Charlie just said.

She couldn’t think of anything to fill the silence for a few seconds.

— Honey, did something happen? — her grandmother asked.

— No, grandma, nothing happened — she hastened to say.

— Are you sure?

— Yeah, I'm just tired — she said, trying to sound convincing.

— Charlotte Elaine, I've known you long enough to know when you're lying, and right now, I'm sure you're lying to me. Is something going on?

Charlie let out a long, frustrated sigh. She didn't like discussing personal matters over the phone in the best of cases, and this was not the best of cases. However, her grandmother would never let her hang up the phone without saying what was bothering her.

— Darling, please — Amanda insisted, again.

— It's just — she hesitated for a few seconds — I kissed a guy.

— Oh, really? — the grandmother said. She sounded interested — And was it good?

Charlie felt her heart jump in her chest. She didn't know which word to choose to describe what had happened in that room. It hadn't been a simple make-out session that could happen in any corner of the paddock or in any Miami nightclub, but something different. There was emotion there. There was feeling. And she didn't know how to deal with it.

— It was normal, I guess.

Amanda laughed on the other end of the line.

— Clearly it wasn't normal, considering you’re acting very strangely

— I'm not acting strangely, grandma...

— Speaking hesitantly, carefully — her grandmother continued — Is the boy there with you now? Tell him to take good care of you, huh?

— Grandma — Charlie exclaimed, feeling her cheeks heat up — He's not here with me, in fact, I don't even know where he is right now...

— How do you not know where he is? You didn't go to a party on a work weekend, did you? You know these trips are for work, right, Charlie?

She pressed her hand into her face. 

— No, grandma, I didn't go to a party. He only left after the race in his jet, no big deal.

— Jet? He’s rich, then?

Charlie sighed. There was no way out of it.

— Grandma, I kissed Fernando.

— Fernando, which Fernando?

— Alonso.

— The driver?

— Yes.

— Wait, your driver?

— Yes.

Silence reigned on the line for a few seconds.

— And how did that happen? — Amanda asked.

"If only I knew", she thought, sitting up in bed.

— We were in his room in the motorhome, we started talking, and it happened kind of unexpectedly.

Charlie heard her grandmother giggle.

— Well, is he handsome, at least?

— You've seen him on television.

— You know these drivers all look the same to me, the only one that stands out is Lewis, for obvious reasons.

— Okay, grandma — Charlie replied — He's good-looking.

— How good-looking?

— Like, a little taller than me, has a beard and dark hair — she described, trying to ignore the shiver that crept across her skin — His eyes are light brown, with a smudge of green near the pupil. They are the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen...

— Got it — Amanda said — And is he a good kisser?

— Grandma! — she exclaimed.

— I just want to know, Charlie! But something tells me he is...

— Please, grandma...

— Come on, tell me. Was it good?

She pressed her lips together, resting her head on her free hand.

— Yes, grandma, he's good. Very good.

— Wow, so it’s serious!

— It wasn't, grandma. It was just a casual thing, nothing major...

— Considering you’re calling me this late, I don’t think it was that casual — Amanda replied, the smile coming to her voice again. She was definitely more excited about it than Charlie.

— Even if I thought it wasn't casual, he probably thinks it was, so it's no use getting your hopes up.

— Are you telling this to me, or to yourself?

— I’m telling you, grandma — she replied, trying to hide her annoyance — By the way, shouldn't you be sleeping?

— Perhaps, but it's much more interesting to hear you recount your adventures around the world. By the way, are you coming home this week? Ron misses you already.

Charlie smiled at the mention of the cat. He always stayed with her grandparents when she was traveling, especially during double and triple headers, when it became impossible to get back to England between races. Fortunately, Ron liked Jamie and Amanda enough to feel comfortable in their home.

— I will, grandma. I leave tomorrow in the middle of the day, but I won’t get back until Tuesday afternoon, if I don't have any delays.

— Is it that long of a flight? 

— No, it’s not too long, but I have to get two connections. One in Montreal and another in Frankfurt. Then an hour's drive from Birmingham and I'll finally be home.

— Do you want to have dinner with us, since you're going to have to stop by the house to pick up Ron?

Charlie smiled.

— Ah, that would be excellent, grandma. I miss your food.

— I thought you liked American food — Amanda said, laughing.

— It is, but nothing compares to yours — she replied, making her grandmother laugh. That was one of the best sounds in the world for Charlie.

— I can make that pot pie you like, the one with the beef, with extra potatoes. 

The memory of the smell of pies baking in Amanda’s kitchen made Charlie smile fondly. 

— I'd love to, grandma — she replied.

— And in return, you can tell me more about this Fernando Alonso, what do you think?

— Are you blackmailing me?

— Just trying to stay informed regarding the state of your relationships, my dear.

She laughed in disbelief. 

— It’s not a relationship, grandma, and it never will be. 

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Revs. Jan Barnes and Krista Taves have logged hundreds of hours standing outside abortion clinics across Missouri and Illinois, going back to the mid-1980s. But unlike other clergy members around the country, they never pleaded with patients to turn back.

The sight of the two women in clerical collars holding up messages of love and support for people terminating a pregnancy “so infuriated the anti-abortion protesters that they would heap abuse on us and it drew the abuse away from the women,” recalled Taves, a minister at Eliot Unitarian Chapel in Kirkwood, Missouri, as she sat on a couch at Barnes’ stately church in this quiet suburb of St. Louis.

“I thought: ‘Whoa, these people really are not messing around.’ But then I thought, ‘Well, I’m not messing around either.’”

So when Missouri’s abortion ban took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, Barnes and Taves decided to fight back. Along with rabbis and ministers across several denominations, they joined a first-of-its-kind lawsuit arguing Missouri blurred the line between church and state, imposed a particular Christian idea of when life begins over the beliefs of other denominations, and threatened their ability to practice their religions.

As the nation nears the one year anniversary of the fall of Roe, the Missouri case is one of nearly a dozen challenges to abortion restrictions filed by clergy members and practitioners of everything from Judaism to Satanism that are now making their way through state and federal courts — a strategy that aims to restore access to the procedure and chip away at the assumption that all religious people oppose abortion.

In fact, many of the lawsuits are wielding religious protection laws enacted by anti-abortion state officials to target those officials’ own restrictions on the procedure.

In Indiana, a group of Jewish, Muslim and other religious plaintiffs sued over the state’s near-total abortion ban. Their argument: that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law in 2015 by then-Gov. Mike Pence. A lower court judge sided with them in December and blocked the state’s ban from taking effect — the most significant win the religious challengers have notched so far.

Then, earlier this month, the Indiana judge granted the challengers class action status, meaning a win for them could apply to anyone in the state whose religion supports abortion access in cases prohibited by state law.

“Even if the Religious Freedom law was intended by Mike Pence to discriminate against people, we thought: ‘Let’s use this for good instead,’” said Amalia Shifriss, a leader of Hoosier Jews for Choice, one of the Indiana plaintiffs. “It brings me joy to think how much this must upset him.”

A Pence spokesperson characterized the lawsuit as a “pursuit to legalize abortion up to and even after birth.” They added: “It will probably strike Americans as pretty tasteless to call the latest iteration of their abortion crusade as a cause ‘for good’ and a source of ‘joy.’”

Conservatives with a history of mounting their own religious challenges to state laws dismiss the effort as doomed to fail, arguing that even if people can prove the abortion bans violate their beliefs, it won’t be enough to halt enforcement.

“As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in one Free Exercise case, the right to swing your arm ends just where the other man’s nose begins,” said Denise Harle, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has filed briefs defending state abortion restrictions, including from faith-based challenges in Wyoming and Florida. “Even if you have religious freedom, there is a line at which you are doing actual deadly harm and destroying human life, so it’s appropriate to limit what can be done in the name of religion.”

But with oral arguments and rulings in several of the cases expected this summer and fall, other legal experts say there’s a solid chance the challengers can persuade courts to grant religious exemptions to abortion bans if not strike them down altogether.

Shlomo C. Pill, a lecturer at the Emory University School of Law who specializes in religious rights, said the lawsuits have “a strong basis and should be successful,” particularly after a series of COVID-19-related cases paved the way for more religious exemptions. Pill pointed to multiple Supreme Court decisions during the pandemic that said whenever states create secular exemptions to laws — like indoor gathering restrictions or vaccine mandates — they have to justify not offering religious exemptions as well.

“So the fact that secularly-motivated exemptions to abortion bans exist — such as for rape and incest — means the legislature could also have to offer similar exemptions for people with religious objections,” he said.

‘REAL CHUTZPA’

Most of the cases, including those in Indiana, Kentucky, and Texas, are demanding exemptions from the bans for people whose religions support abortion rights. But a few, including the lawsuits in Florida, Missouri and Wyoming, are attempting to have the bans struck down entirely.

In Missouri, the plaintiffs argue that because lawmakers put religious language in the text of the abortion ban itself and made explicit religious appeals when voting on it, they violated the Establishment Clause.

“It took real chutzpah for the legislators to voice their own religious motivations, to wantonly and shamelessly purport to know what God wants or doesn’t want and to enshrine that into law,” said Rabbi James Bennett of Congregation Shaare Emeth in St. Louis, another plaintiff in the Missouri lawsuit. “They’re entitled to their interpretation of when life begins, but they’re not entitled to have the exclusive one.”

Last week, the group faced off in a St. Louis courtroom with state officials who are pushing to have the case thrown out. A ruling could come as soon as this summer.

In Florida, clergy representing Reform Judaism, Buddhism, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Church sued in state court both to overturn the state’s 15-week abortion ban, and — if that fails — to secure religious exemptions. Their case makes free speech arguments as well — claiming that state bans on “aiding and abetting” abortions are muzzling clergy members who want to offer counseling to parishioners grappling with whether to terminate a pregnancy.

In Kentucky, three Jewish women are arguing that the state’s near-total abortion ban violates their belief that life only begins when a baby takes its first breath, saying it’s preventing them from pursuing pregnancy through in-vitro fertilization.

“To have someone else’s religious belief that an embryo is a human being imposed on me in a way that’s so personal, that prevents me from growing my family, is just rude and un-American,” Lisa Berlow, the lead plaintiff in that case, said in an interview. Berlow had one child through IVF and was planning to have another before Dobbs made her and her fellow plaintiffs fear prosecution. “Discarding non-viable embryos could now be criminalized, or I could miscarry and not know what type of medical care I would get or whether I would be investigated for causing the miscarriage,” she said.

The Satanic Temple is in federal court challenging abortion bans in Texas, Idaho and Indiana, arguing that the laws infringe upon their congregants’ belief in bodily autonomy and right to practice abortion as a religious ritual. A Texas District Court ruled against the Satanists last fall, saying they didn’t prove the need for a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the ban against its members. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is poised to rule on the challenge in the coming weeks.

These cases are unlikely to restore abortion rights at the federal level given the weaker religious rights protections in the U.S. Constitution compared to many state constitutions as well as the federal judiciary’s rightward tilt.

Elizabeth Reiner Platt, director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, stressed that the Supreme Court has a record of protecting the religious rights of some groups and not others, pointing to its back-to-back decisions in 2017 upholding the right of a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and allowing the right of the Trump administration to deny entry to travelers from majority-Muslim countries.

“While I don’t like to read the tea leaves, I don’t have any hope that the current Supreme Court would, after ruling that there was no due process right or privacy right to abortion, would find a right under the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause,” Platt said.

Still, she and other legal experts see the state-level religious challenges as one of the best chances abortion-rights advocates have to chip away at bans on the procedure.

“The arguments are quite powerful for creating religious exemptions in the reproductive context under First Amendment doctrine and under state laws for Free Exercise,” said Micah Schwartzman, director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy at the University of Virginia Law School. “What Judges do with them is another story.”

In order to succeed, these lawsuits must prove: that the right to an abortion is central to the religious practices of the people suing; that they are sincere in their beliefs and have a track record of observing them; and that state abortion bans make it impossible for them to live according to their faith.

The cases challenging abortion restrictions in their entirety face an additional hurdle: proving that state officials stepped over the line separating church and state in crafting the bans.

“We have a really strong Establishment Clause argument because it’s clear that these bills were passed for religious reasons,” said Marci Hamilton, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania who is part of the legal team representing clergy in Florida. “The 15-week bill was signed in a church and members of the state legislature repeatedly referred to God when arguing why this had to be done.”

Other experts are skeptical, however, of the strength of these arguments.

“There are a million-and-one other explanations a state could give for their abortion restrictions,” Pill said. “They could argue it’s a matter of secular conscience, for example. And once you have any kind of secular justification, an Establishment Clause argument becomes more difficult.”

For their part, the states defending their abortion laws and the conservative legal groups supporting them have to prove that they have a compelling interest — unrelated to religion — in protecting fetal life, that they’re using the least restrictive means to protect that interest, and that the challengers’ claims are speculative and premature because none of them have actually sought an abortion or been blocked from obtaining one since the laws took effect.

“I think these are much more like political stunts than they are viable court cases,” said Lori Windham, a vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund, the legal firm behind the Hobby Lobby case that secured a Supreme Court ruling allowing many employers to opt out of covering certain forms of birth control for their workers due to a religious objection. “You can have a sincere political belief or policy preference, and it can be passionate and deeply held, but that doesn’t make it a religious practice.”

CITING SCRIPTURE

Judges have historically avoided questioning the sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs, but Becket and other groups have filed amicus briefs that do so.

To combat these accusations, the challengers point to scripture that lays out a case for abortion rights as well as support from religious leaders for their claims.

The Jewish challengers in Kentucky cite religious texts including the Mishnah that say life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not when it is conceived, and if medical issues arise during pregnancy, the pregnant person’s life “comes before the life of [the child].” They also submitted to the court letters from rabbis arguing that current state exemptions for life-threatening medical emergencies aren’t enough, saying Jewish law permits, and in some cases requires, an abortion when there is “a risk of poverty, abuse, addiction, or mental illness.”

The case challenging Missouri’s ban cites the United Church of Christ’s vote in 1971 to acknowledge the right to abortion and members’ “autonomy to determine what happens to their own bodies,” as well as the Episcopal Church’s “long-standing opposition” to any government attempt to infringe on reproductive choices.

“There’s a tendency to see these cases as kind of a clever, legal switcheroo. Like, here’s a way to take these laws that are often thought of as very conservative and use them to protect abortion rights,” Platt said. “But the idea of reproductive rights as a religious liberty issue is absolutely not something that came from lawyers. It’s how faith communities themselves have been talking about their approach to reproductive rights for literally decades.”

[ridenwithbiden]

"The Supreme Court overruled a key pillar of federal agency authority Friday, appropriating a massive amount of executive branch power to itself.

In overruling Chevron, a 40-year-old precedent, the Court decided that federal agencies no longer get to fill in the gaps of Congress’ laws with their experts’ own reasonable interpretation of how to carry them out; that authority now resides in the judiciary. It’s a power grab that the right-wing legal world has been marching towards for years — and they finally got a Court activist enough to do it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, often the tip of the spear for this movement, wrote the majority. Justice Elena Kagan, probably the Court’s best pro-agency voice, wrote the dissent, joined by her two liberal colleagues. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote solo concurrences.

Roberts completed the takeover with very little humility. The thinking underlying Chevron deference is that agencies are staffed by experts who understand the technicalities of their subject matter, and are best equipped to mold often broad statutes into day-to-day regulations. Judges, on the other hand, have no special insight into, say, the Environmental Protection Agency’s calculations to find permissible amounts of air pollution, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s experience with how factories should be laid out.

“Delegating ultimate interpretive authority to agencies is simply not necessary to ensure that the resolution of statutory ambiguities is well informed by subject matter expertise,” Roberts hand-waved.

(A dissenting Kagan quipped in reply to this section of Roberts’ opinion: “Score one for self-confidence; maybe not so high for self-reflection or -knowledge.”)

In fulfilling his right-wing mission, Roberts also pretended that letting judges, rather than agencies, fill in statutory specifics won’t result in a whipsawing based on the judges’ partisan leanings — since, per Roberts, judges don’t act on them. That’ll come as a surprise to the Biden administration, which has seen everything from power plant regulations to student debt relief summarily shot down by the conservative supermajority.

“Courts interpret statutes, no matter the context, based on the traditional tools of statutory construction, not individual policy preferences,” he intoned.

Gorsuch, son of an anti-agency EPA Administrator, cheered the elimination of “systemic bias in the government’s favor.” Thomas wrote that not only was Chevron deference wrong, it was an unconstitutional infringement on the separation of powers (the accumulation of executive branch power in the judiciary, on the other hand, does not seem to trouble him).

In her dissent, Kagan underscored the political mechanics underlying the majority opinion in usually bald terms for a justice on a Court so prizing comity and respect. She traced the conservatives’ recent rulings, in which they give themselves enough excuses to toss Chevron since it’s become outmoded anyway. In each, the majority grasped for novel reasons to ignore the precedent.

In a one-two punch, Kagan also pointed out that this kind of behavior, reverse engineering a string of cases to get a hall pass to overturn long established precedent, has become habitual.

“This Court has ‘avoided deferring under Chevron since 2016’ because it has been preparing to overrule Chevron since around that time,” she wrote. “That kind of self-help on the way to reversing precedent has become almost routine at this Court.”

Roberts tried to downplay the ramifications of the ruling by asserting that old agency cases decided by Chevron deference are still good law and beholden to the precedent the Court so blithely tossed away on Friday.

But Kagan countered that it was an unvarnished power grab.

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law,” she wrote. “As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”

For this conservative Court, appointing itself “czar” of the administrative state meshes with its partisan leanings seamlessly. Particularly in the modern era, Democratic administrations seek to use agency power far more muscularly, to enact regulations more aggressively. Republican ones, concerned with unwinding regulation, have less to lose from running into a judicial buzzsaw.

Kagan lists a series of Chevron questions to show how out of their depth judges will be in their new czarist role: From the Food and Drug Administration, “When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as such a ‘protein’?” From the Department of the Interior, “How much noise is consistent with ‘the natural quiet’? And how much of the park, for how many hours a day, must be that quiet for the ‘substantial restoration’ requirement to be met?”

“The majority disdains restraint,” she concluded, “and grasps for power.”

[sapphicthunderhead]

I hate that transphobes who happen to be cis women are called TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) because they’re not radical feminists. They’re not even feminists.

I’m not being pedantic here. By nature of their belief that trans women should be denied the bodily autonomy necessary to live their truth, they demonstrate a fundamental lack of conviction in anyone’s right to control their own bodies. A truth universally acknowledged by every sincere believer in basic rights I’ve ever known: people should be able to do what they please with their own bodies, so long as their actions aren’t harming their fellow human beings or infringing on others’ fundamental rights.

Feminism, especially radical feminism, is about reinforcing our understanding of and protecting all people’s fundamental human rights. This is why we (and why I personally) fight for reproductive rights, for educational equity, for free healthcare, for feeding the hungry, for protecting refugees and abuse victims, for housing the homeless— and you know who ends up homeless at a disproportionate rate in the US? Trans folk.

When I hear people use “TERF” to refer to (almost always cis female) transphobes, cisheterosexists, trans-exclusionists, or whatever you’d prefer to call them, it brings to mind certain white anti-abolitionist suffragettes. It reminds me of the hypocrisy of white women who wished to empower themselves politically, but deny that empowerment to POC— because for these white women, it was never a fight for human rights, decency, and dignity; it was never about truly representing the will of the American people in the democratic process. They wanted to stop their own suffering, their own subjugation, but lacked the empathy to desire the same for people with whose experiences they could not identify. This problem is echoed in the contemporary conflict between anti-trans bigots and trans folks and their allies.

I could go on about how important the issue of trans rights is and should be to feminists and the queer community in general. I could talk about the trans community’s current status as canary in the coal mine for the rest of us who are LGBTQIA+, or how the attack on trans rights has coincided with the reduction of women’s reproductive rights & the overturning of Roe V. Wade. I could talk about the media’s peculiar tendency to erase the existence of trans men, because their mere presence in the conversation challenges the grotesque narrative that right-wing pundits are determined to push about the inauthenticity, duplicity, and immoral intent of our trans sisters. I would also love to air my hypothesis that the (often traumatized and paranoid) former radfems who turn against trans women are falling into a trap laid by the patriarchy to isolate them from the vast majority of a community that would otherwise offer them a great support network.

But I thought I'd put this out here. It's pride month as I'm writing this, so the timing seems right. Disrespecting any person’s harmless acts of self-expression and right to exercise bodily autonomy is glaringly anti-feminist. I support trans rights, and so does every other radical feminist I know. Hell, the term TERF was coined by a trans-inclusionary radfem. (I disagree with the pervasive usage of the term, which is often inaccurate, but I appreciate her initial intent.)

Happy pride month. Trans women are women. Trans people are human beings who deserve the same rights as everyone else. End of story.

[leohttbriar]

Amarillo is the biggest Texas locality, so far, to consider the policy as a ballot measure—making this perhaps the most significant chance for ordinary Texas residents to vote on abortion rights since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022. Statewide, voters may never get the chance to protect abortion rights as they have in Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio and might in at least 10 other states this November. This is because Texas is among the two dozen states that do not allow citizen-initiated statewide ballot measures, something only the GOP-controlled Legislature could change. 

[...]

“Generally, we don’t allow states to reach outside of their borders and regulate activity in another state,” said Liz Sepper, a University of Texas at Austin professor who specializes in healthcare law. “It’s even more suspect for a city to try and enforce its moral code outside its boundaries well beyond what the state has even done.” 

However, there is a “complex gray area” that could be open to a loophole, said Sepper. For instance, in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that patients could not be prosecuted for out-of-state abortions under the constitutional right to interstate travel, yet he failed to address the civil enforcement strategy found in the travel bans. Additionally, that private enforcement framework helps shield the bans from federal lawsuits seeking to block them, as is also the case with SB 8. 

When confronted with the possible unconstitutionality of the ordinance, Dickson and his anti-abortion cohort often cite the federal Mann Act, a 1910 law—accused of being used as a tool of racially motivated persecution in the mid-20th century—that was originally intended to criminalize the transport of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.”

“These prohibitions on abortion trafficking no more infringe the constitutional right to travel than prohibitions on sex trafficking infringe the constitutional right to travel,” said Dickson. 

Regardless, the ordinance would likely create a chilling effect on those traveling out of state for care—and advocates say that’s by design. SB 8’s similar vigilante-style enforcement created the risk of potential litigation against anyone supporting care, which immediately halted abortion in Texas, causing damage even before legal pushback. “Like with SB 8, the point is to create fear,” said Sepper. 

[furrbbyx]

I had time today, because I caught a life threatening virus in Biden's America where precautions and tracking have been at Trump levels and I'm in quarantine. Yes, I'm saying the virus has spread further because of Biden's conservative Trumpian way of dealing with this. So anyway. I had time.

And speaking of viruses Biden's support of social issues is something that's been pushed around this app kind of irresponsibly.

Speaking of Biden as if he is an individual and not an administration, and confusing what is policy and what is just talk.

This image was my prompt. I'm not going to address every point, but I will give you the resources to look into the others.

Some definitions

Policy is a law, regulation, procedure, administrative action, incentive, or voluntary practice of governments and other institutions. (CDC, 2015)

An executive order is a signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. (American Bar Association, 2021)

Law can be said to be the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system. But there are other similar definitions.

A regulation has the force of a law, but may only be a governmental order. Such as during quarantine.

An executive order is not a policy. A policy is a law.

TLDR: This is supposed to be the people's administration. If the government doesn't live up to the peoples' standards of creating laws to protect the human rights they believe should be protected then it's not supporting the things the people support. Full stop. Biden administration is weak on many levels in terms of keeping promises, and pushing change. They can't even forgive all the student loans. Read critically and don't trust tumblr images about important topics because MAGA, red or blue, is invested in creating a less critical electorate that trusts their messaging as gospel. Is the US your gospel? Or is liberation your gospel?

There is no formal Biden administration policy supporting a ceasefire, an end to aggressions on civillians in Palestine, or a withdraw of military and opening of humanitarian corridors. That is literally malinformation. Members of his administration have signed letters and resigned over his policy on that issue. For months the US has vetoed ceasefire resolutions in international lawmaking. Yes he has said a bunch of things and proposed a deal without any backing or conviction imo, but where is the policy? Only on the right of misrael to exist. He did release a statement welcoming a ceasefire in 2022 but the words support were used in reference to the right to defense (Biden, 2022)

Trans Rights: The Biden administration has chosen to reinstate guidance on Title IX extending to protecting gender orientation. The Law is the Title IX, and the guidance is a legal interpretation of the law from the Obama administration. Other than that there's just an executive order, no law or national policy. There is a law making the Pulse Memorial a national one… Biden called for the Equality Act (an amendment to the Civil Rights Act) to be passed two yeas ago, and since then has not tried to stop states infringing on human rights, and they've taken down rainbow flags internationally at embassies.

The Environment: Biden wrote in executive order 13990 that it is the policy of his administration "to protect the environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; to restore and expand our national treasures and monuments; and to prioritize environmental justice"

However there aren't many POLICIES from his administration to back that up. In most instances they have updated bits of policies that are already in effect. Any law from this administration involving the environment is about allocating money to invest in "climate reform". The administration's solution has not been to create more polices to protect the environment, instead it signed an order reading

"… this order directs all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions during the last 4 years that conflict with these important national objectives, and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis." (Biden, 2021)

This order does minimal work basically asking agencies to look into the regulations and actions that conflict with the policy or "national objectives" of his administration (during Trump era only), to ask themselves is changes are needed, and they do not have to finish the review process during his term.

Removing the requirement that states meet the federal government's fuel economy requirements. This was to let California set higher standards, however it allows states to set any standard of emissions for motor vehicles. Or none.

Improving safety and reporting standards for gas pipline operators through rulemaking (regulations) under an existing policy (Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations). The standards improvement was only done in January 2024 (USDOT, 2024).

New renewable fuel targets under the 2007 Energy Policy requires a minimum of fuels to come from "renewable" sources. In this case renewable means biofuels which have been criticized because they require corn and soybeans, promoting land degradation, increased fertilizer use and bio-waste.

Mercury pollution standards re-strengthened because of executive order 13990.

This order also stopped leasing of oil rich land in North Alaska while the review process is going on. This doesn't mean it was stopped to save a natural habitat, or that the Biden administration is going to stop leasing gas rich fields in preserves. In fact nothing the Biden administration has done signals a willingness to protect federal preserves from environmental injustice.

The Biden administration has proposed strengthening NEPA but has not yet done so. NEPA is the Act that set the nations environmental policies. To me this is what belies the statement that the administration wants to protect the environment. According to Pulido (2017) less than 2 percent of litigation brought under these types of laws have been successful at applying those policies to address environmental injustice. This means it is already weak.

The claim about vaccines and public health and health care reform is downright malinformation. Firstly there is only a mandate for federal employees and vaccines for COVID-19, and none for masking. So far the only things that Biden and his administration have been able to put together for public health are executive orders, vaccine mandates, stimulus checks, cap on prescriptions prices for medicaid only. Oh and tons of money to police wrapped up in a public health act, which doesn't specifically say that police departments must improve public health, nor does it mandate the reporting of those murdered in police custody which is a public health issue, so I think that answers the claim of "criminal justice reform".

Biden said during his debate that "we defeated medicaid" he meant that shit. Biden has not address the fact that private equity has been gobbling up the public health system (a symptom of fascism). If you read or the COVID-19 Preparedness Plan you will get the sense that the administration thinks they saved us.

"And the U.S. government has successfully put equity at the heart of a nationwide public health response. Hispanic, Black, and Asian adults are now vaccinated at the same rates as White adults."

and

"The path forward in the fight against COVID-19 is clear: schools, workers, and workplaces have resources and guidance to prevent shutdowns."

and if you read the reactionary executive order 14076 which came out after "Roe" was overturned you might think that protections for birthing people are really important to the administration. But reading deeper reveals that similar to the vaccine mandate, it mainly effects federal employees, that it can only be applied to the extent of the law (no Roe, so it's states' laws) and that even the federal Health and Human Services department cannot enforce the PRECEDENCE of federal laws about medical treatment against the Texas Abortion law. (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2024).

For abortions the administration did reinstate Title X funding for clinics, but that's beside the point now. Biden has also been heard saying that he is "not big on abortion" (TIME, 2022) and previously supported the Hyde amendment which prevented public funds supporting abortion procedures. Articles online criticize Biden especially in his first 100 days for sending more money to Planned Parenthood and paint him as staunchly pro-choice, but why wasn't Roe enshrined in law (like he said he'd do), if he supports it so hard.

But don't forget this at the end of each order is a nice little

"This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

So, since this is already a million years long let me end by pointing out that environmental reform is not environmental justice, immigration reform isn't mentioned (because he's put more kids in cages than Trump) and he still has no plan for the student loans beyond a repayment plan or the future with COVID-19.

Biden administration is already folding, meaning they are not fighting against Trump. They are less invested in the outcome of the election than their electorate. People are defending a fuckass administration with zero plans on how to push them left, and zero action steps if they don't deliver. They could win today. If they stopped funding misrael and stopped the siege. If they wanted to win this election cycle they could, and if you people pushing this disinformation and malinformation would read critically you might realize why no one wants to hear your fearmongering, "lesser evil" fake arguments. The proof is in the (lack of) policy. People don't want to choose between fascists imo, they want to be free and have their rights enshrined in law.

sources

What is an Executive Order? American Bar Association, January 25, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/ Bennett, B. (2022, May 13). Biden’s Abortion Views, Faith at Odds Like Never Before. TIME. https://time.com/6176375/bidens-abortion-catholic-democrats/ Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge | Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/about/alaska/coastal-plain-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge Definition of Policy | Policy, Performance, and Evaluation | CDC. (2023, May 9). https://www.cdc.gov/policy/paeo/process/definition.html Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | CMS. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.cms.gov/medicare/regulations-guidance/legislation/emergency-medical-treatment-labor-act Fueling America’s Economy: Legislation to Improve Safety and Expand U.S. Pipeline Infrastructure | US Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.transportation.gov/fueling-americas-economy-legislation-improve-safety-and-expand-us-pipeline-infrastructure House, T. W. (2021, January 21). Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ House, T. W. (2022a, July 8). FACT SHEET: President Biden to Sign Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/ House, T. W. (2022b, August 8). Statement by President Biden on the Ceasefire in Gaza. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/07/statement-by-president-biden-on-the-ceasefire-in-gaza/ National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. (n.d.). The White House. Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/ Pulido, L. (2017). Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence. Progress in Human Geography, 41(4), 524–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516646495 Quinn, M. (2023, June 28). Biden says he’s “not big on abortion” because of Catholic faith, but Roe “got it right” - CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-abortion-catholic-faith-roe-v-wade-got-it-right/ Tracking regulatory changes in the Biden era. (n.d.). Brookings. Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-changes-in-the-biden-era/ U.S. Detention of Child Migrants | Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-detention-child-migrants US EPA, O. (2013, July 31). National Environmental Policy Act Review Process [Overviews and Factsheets]. https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-review-process Klein, M. V., Kate Sullivan,Betsy. (2022, January 20). 5 significant bills and 5 executive orders Biden signed in his first year – and his 5 biggest priorities for 2022 | CNN Politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/biden-laws-passed-priorities-to-get-done-executive-orders/index.html President Biden Calls for Passage of Equality Act to Advance LGBTQ Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusion-diversity/president-biden-calls-passage-equality-act-to-advance-lgbtq-rights

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Donald Padgett at The Advocate:

Namibia’s High Court found two Colonial-era anti-sodomy laws prejudicially targeted gay men and were unconstitutional in a historic ruling handed down on Friday. The case was filed in June of 2022 by LGBTQ+ activist Friedel Laurentius Dausab and was heard by the High Court of Namibia in October of 2023. Dausab, who was assisted by the Human Dignity Trust (HDT), argued the anti-LGBTQ+ laws “unfairly and irrationally discriminate against him and other gay men on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and thus infringe his constitution right to equality, dignity, privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association.” The three-judge panel acknowledged in its ruling that same-sex sexual relations are not necessarily popular in the culturally conservative country. Still, it declared that “the enforcement of the private moral views of a section of the community (even if they form the majority of that community), which are based to a large extent on nothing more than prejudice” and that the act of criminalizing such relations for gay men “poses a greater threat to the fabric of society as a whole than tolerance.”

[...] While other African nations like Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, and South Africa have decriminalized same-sex sexual relations, other countries remain dangerous for the LGBTQ+ community.

The high court in Namibia overturned its colonial-era anti-sodomy laws that were prejudicial to gay men.

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: This African country just made history by decriminalizing homosexuality

[odinsblog]

THE LOCHNER ERA is a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court's own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies” The court did this by using its interpretation of substantive due process to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights.

The era takes its name from a 1905 case, Lochner v. New York. The beginning of the era is usually marked earlier, with the Court's decision in Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), and its end marked forty years later in the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which overturned an earlier Lochner-era decision.

The Supreme Court during the Lochner era has been described as "playing a judicially activist but politically conservative role." The Court sometimes invalidated state and federal legislation that inhibited business or otherwise limited the free market, including minimum wage laws, federal (but not state) child labor laws, regulations of banking, insurance and transportation industries. The Lochner era ended when the Court's tendency to invalidate labor and market regulations came into direct conflict with Congress's regulatory efforts in the New Deal.

Since the 1930s, Lochner has been widely discredited as a product of a "bygone era" in legal history. Robert Bork called Lochner "the symbol, indeed the quintessence, of judicial usurpation of power".

In his confirmation hearings to become Chief Justice, John Roberts said: "You go to a case like the Lochner case, you can read that opinion today and it's quite clear that they're not interpreting the law, they're making the law."

He added that the Lochner court substituted its own judgment for the legislature's findings. (source)

The Roberts Court is illegitimate and deeply corrupt.

[moontyger]

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch opined that too many laws and regulations in America can impinge on fundamental liberties. It’s a rich statement coming from a man who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus allowing states to put women or their doctors in jail for endangering or aborting a fetus.

“Too little law and we’re not safe, and our liberties aren’t protected,” Gorsuch told The Associated Press in an interview about his forthcoming book, Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law. “But too much law and you actually impair those same things.”

In the wake of the end of Roe, fourteen states have criminalized abortion, and another 14 states and territories have become “hostile” to abortion, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, meaning lawmakers are moving toward an abortion ban. In Louisiana, lawmakers have made even possessing abortion pills without a valid prescription illegal, so those found with mifepristone and misoprostol who can’t present a prescription could face large fines and jail time. Earlier this year, a caucus representing House Republicans endorsed a national abortion ban — something Donald Trump and vice presidential candidate Sen. J.D. Vance have previously supported.

But apparently those aren’t the kinds of laws Gorsuch meant when he said: “There were just so many cases that came to me in which I saw ordinary Americans, just everyday, regular people trying to go about their lives, not trying to hurt anybody or do anything wrong and just getting whacked, unexpectedly, by some legal rule they didn’t know about.”

[ngdrb]

The Downfall of the US Supreme Court

The recent trajectory of the United States Supreme Court has raised significant concerns about its credibility and impartiality. The Court, historically viewed as a pillar of justice and an arbiter of constitutional integrity, now faces scrutiny due to a series of decisions that appear to align closely with right-wing ideologies. This perceived shift challenges the foundational principles of impartiality and equity that are essential for maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

One of the most contentious issues involves the Court's rulings on voting rights. Decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, have been criticized for undermining efforts to protect against racial discrimination in voting. By effectively weakening federal oversight, the Court has enabled the implementation of state-level laws that disproportionately affect minority voters, raising questions about the commitment to ensuring equal access to the democratic process.

Additionally, the Court's approach to reproductive rights has sparked significant debate. The overturning of Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision represents a profound shift in legal precedent, affecting millions of women across the country. Critics argue that this decision not only disregards decades of established jurisprudence but also imposes a particular moral viewpoint, thereby infringing on personal liberties and bodily autonomy.

The influence of corporate interests on the Court's decisions has also come under scrutiny. In cases like Citizens United v. FEC, the Court has expanded the role of money in politics, equating financial expenditure with free speech. This interpretation has paved the way for unprecedented levels of corporate influence in elections, potentially skewing political outcomes in favor of wealthy interests at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Furthermore, the Court's stance on environmental regulations has raised alarms among advocates for climate action. By limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Court appears to favor deregulation over environmental protection, potentially jeopardizing efforts to combat climate change and protect public health.

The cumulative effect of these decisions suggests a judiciary increasingly aligned with conservative ideologies, raising critical questions about the balance and separation of powers. As the Court continues to wield significant influence over American life, it is imperative to ensure that its rulings reflect a commitment to justice, equality, and the broader public good, rather than narrow partisan interests.

Rebuilding trust in the Supreme Court requires a renewed dedication to impartiality and a recognition of the diverse needs and values of the American populace. Only through such measures can the Court regain its standing as a fair and just arbiter of the nation's laws.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A federal appeals panel appears inclined to restore the limited gag order in former President Donald Trump’s federal election subversion case, but may loosen some restrictions so he can more directly criticize special counsel Jack Smith.

A three-judge panel of the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Monday in the closely watched case, which stems from Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election and obstruct the lawful transfer of power. He pleaded not guilty.

None of the three Judges embraced Trump’s claims that the gag order should be wiped away for good because it is a “categorically unprecedented” violation of his free speech rights. Yet they also posed sharp questions to prosecutors as they tried to find the boundary of where intense campaign trail rhetoric crosses the line of undermining a criminal case.

“We certainly want to make sure that the criminal trial process and its integrity and its truth-finding function are protected, but we ought to use a careful scalpel here and not step into really sort of skewing the political arena,” Circuit Judge Patricia Millett said.

The limited gag order from District Judge Tanya Chutkan – which was temporarily frozen by the appeals panel when they agreed to hear the case – restricts Trump’s ability to directly attack Smith, members of his team, court staff or potential trial witnesses. He is allowed to criticize the Justice Department, proclaim his innocence and argue that the case is “politically motivated.”

The appellate judges, who are all Democratic appointees, heard the case on an expedited schedule and are expected to issue a ruling soon, but the timing is unclear.

Here are key takeaways from the hearing:

TRUMP POLITICAL RHETORIC CAN’T ‘DERAIL’ THE CASE, JUDGE SAYS

Millett repeatedly challenged Trump attorney D. John Sauer, saying it was important to draw a distinction between purely political campaign rhetoric and speech intended to subvert the legal process.

“First of all, we’re not shutting down everyone who speaks,” Millett said. “This is only affecting the speech temporarily during a criminal trial process by someone who has been indicted as a felon. … No one here is threatening the First Amendment broadly.”

Sauer argued that the restrictions on all criminal defendants against illegal speech like blatant witness tampering were more than enough to protect the integrity of the case. He said the gag order infringed on Trump’s “core political speech.”

Cutting him off, Millett said: “Labeling it ‘core political speech’ begs the question of whether it is in fact political speech or whether it is political speech aimed at derailing or corrupting the criminal justice process. You can’t simply label it that and conclude your balancing tests that way. We have to balance.”

Sauer responded by arguing that the speech potentially being restricted by the gag order is “inextricably entwined with the issues that are being publicly debated in the context of the campaign.”

BUT TRUMP SHOULD HAVE SOME LEEWAY

Later in the hearing, Millett and fellow DC Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard both signaled that they think the existing gag order could be loosened to allow Trump to levy additional public attacks against Smith and his team of prosecutors.

Not that they think the attacks are well-founded, but that Trump should have the right to defend himself.

“It can’t be that he can’t mention Mr. Smith,” because most Americans have heard about the case in the context that it was initiated by Smith’s team. That has become the shorthand, Pillard noted.

“Surely he has a thick enough skin,” Pillard said of the special counsel.

Trump can’t be forced under a gag order to “speak Miss Manners while everyone else is throwing targets” at him during a theoretical GOP presidential primary debate, Millet added.

The names of Smith and the other prosecutors are all “part of the public record,” she said.

The current gag order prevents Trump from “making any public statements … that target the special counsel… or his staff.” In speeches and social media posts, Trump often says Smith is “deranged” and a “lunatic.”

Trump has criticized Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, at nearly every turn. Earlier this month, he called the special counsel a “disgrace to America.”

TRUMP ATTORNEY PRESSED ON HYPOTHETICAL THREATS AGAINST PENCE AND WITNESSES

Millett posed sharp questions about the potential of Trump to intimidate witnesses while he is campaigning for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination that hit on a well-documented pattern of Trump trying to threaten, discredit or cajole witnesses through public rhetoric.

She raised the hypothetical of Trump saying at a rally that a specific person is being “bothered” by prosecutors and that he thinks people who are “faithful” and “loyal” shouldn’t cooperate with prosecutors.

In response, Sauer claimed Trump hasn’t done that in this case.

Millet asked if it would acceptable for Trump to post: “Mike Pence can still do the right thing if he says the right stuff tomorrow,” on the eve of his testimony at the trial. (The witness list hasn’t been announced yet, but Pence is clearly a major part of the case.)

Sauer said this type of speech could only be restricted if there was a “compelling evidentiary showing” of “an actual threat” against Pence.

A significant portion of Smith’s case against Trump revolves around Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence to abuse his position overseeing the Electoral College certification to block the lawful transfer of power after the 2020 election.

“The district court correctly found that the defendant’s well-established practice of using his public platform to target his adversaries, including trial participants in this case, poses a significant and immediate risk to the fairness and integrity of these proceedings,” special counsel prosecutor Cecil VanDevender argued.

CONCERNS ABOUT JURORS BEING DOXXED

At several different points, Millett expressed concern about Trump potentially revealing the personal information of jurors in his trial and how his speech might lead some of his followers to similarly attack jurors on the Internet.

The potential issue of online threats being directed toward jurors as a result of Trump’s speech could factor into the judges’ final decision on the gag order. Prosecutors have argued that those kinds of threats could prejudice the jury in the case.

“If the district court entered an order restricting a criminal defendant from making comments about individual jurors, and the defendant were a candidate for public office, would that order violate the First Amendment?” Millett asked Sauer.

“It would depend on the context, but I do concede there would be facts that could justify an order like that,” Sauer said, prompting the Judge to appear somewhat puzzled by his response.

“It would depend on the context?” she asked.

Millett returned to her concerns later in the hearing, this time pressing the special counsel’s office if it was possible to proactively protect jurors from online doxxing by Trump “loyalists” acting in response to the former president’s speech.

“Is there any way, preventatively, to protect someone’s technology? Like let’s say I’m a prospective juror, can I be protected technologically from like doxxing?” she said.

“Because we do have – as you appreciate – the problem of speech by the defendant, and then it has the knock-on effect with the loyalists’ zeal, and that’s then, you know, what causes direct efforts at threatening and harassing individuals,” the judge explained.

Assistant special counsel Cecil VanDevender said he wasn’t aware of any technological tools that would work to mitigate the issue “at the source.”

“If they exist, I think they are not widely used and not easy to incorporate, particularly for every witness and every potential juror,” he added.

CHUTKAN DEATH THREAT LOOMS LARGE

A death threat issued against Chutkan in August by a Texas woman loomed large over the hearing, with two judges bringing up the incident as Sauer, Trump’s attorney, was pressed on whether his client’s speech can lead to real world actions by his supporters.

“What the district court is finding is we have a past pattern: When the defendant speaks on this subject, threats follow,” said Circuit Judge Brad Garcia. “Why isn’t the district court justified in taking a proactive measure? Not waiting for more and more threats to actually occur and stepping in to protect the integrity of the trial?”

Sauer countered that there is “an evidentiary burden here,” and argued that despite Trump’s online comments on the case, prosecutors “haven’t come forward with a single threat that’s even arguably inspired by any of his social media posts.”

But Garcia and Millett quickly pushed back, with them both bringing up Abigail Jo Shry, who was charged in August after making the threat against Chutkan.

“The day after (Trump) said, ‘If you come after me, I’m coming after you,’ that threat issued,” Millett said.

Shortly after Smith unveiled the federal charges against Trump, Shry called Chutkan’s chambers and left a voicemail message threatening to “kill anyone who went after former President Trump,” according to a criminal complaint.

The death threats also allegedly included racist comments against Chutkan, who is Black. Prosecutors said in court filings that Shry called the Judge a “stupid slave nigger” in the voicemail.

Sauer attempted to distance Shry from Trump’s comments, saying that in her case, “there’s no evidence of any reading of social media.”

“That particular threatener is a – unemployed, you know, mentally unstable, heavy alcoholic who sits on her couch drinking beer all day, according to her father. Never leaves the apartment, watches the news, not reads things on social media, watches the news on TV, gets angry about it and makes angry, threatening calls,” he said.