Category Archives: Random Blogging

Fixing The Court

If there is one word that has been over-used ever since Donald Trump emerged from whatever fetid swamp he previously inhabited, it’s “normalization.” As the administration ignores the rule of law, breaches longstanding norms, and otherwise engages in decidedly abnormal behaviors, the legacy media and national businesses and institutions have largely gone along–metaphorically shrugging their shoulders while murmuring their objections.

That normalizing isn’t new. For years, those same institutions (and to be fair, the majority of the American public) have ignored the increasingly erratic operation of many of America’s governing structures–the misuse of the filibuster, the anti-democratic effects of the Electoral College, the blatant gerrymandering, and the problematic functioning of the Supreme Court.

The Court’s current, blatantly corrupt majority has focused public attention on its erratic and partisan rulings. But for years–well before the more recent decisions that have damaged the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, scholars who study the judicial system had been sounding alarms. Most of those concerns were focused on practices that had resulted in the Supreme Court accepting review of fewer cases each year, and the fact that Justices were living much longer these days–raising the probability of judicial senility. Well before Trump, scholars were calling for various reforms, especially the imposition of term limits (most favored eighteen years–long enough to accomplish the Founders’ goal of shielding Justices from popular passions.)

The subject of Court reform has taken on new urgency, for obvious reasons, and a number of possible “fixes” await a federal Democratic trifecta. One of the most intriguing was offered by Robert Hubbell, a lawyer whose Substack I read daily. Hubbell cites a book reviewed by The Guardian, in which legal scholars argue that the Court has “so delegitimized itself that nothing short of truly radical reform will save democracy.”

As Hubbell writes,

If we do not act boldly and quickly when we next have the chance, the damage Trump has inflicted on the DOJ and the Supreme Court may last a generation. Expand the number of justices to the point that the reactionary majority is impotent, and then begin a three-year plan to reverse every lawless, racist, anti-democratic decision issued by the Roberts Court.

Expansion of the Court, while controversial, is a common recommendation. What isn’t common is another proposal, which I found both fascinating and persuasive-“to split the Supreme Court into two divisions—one that hears cases within the “original jurisdiction” of the Court, and one that hears cases in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.” That would allow “the assignment of “senior” justices to cases that are almost never presented to the Court—”so-called cases of original jurisdiction involving (e.g.) disputes between princes and ambassadors.”

Hubbell quotes an article from Daily Kos describing the plan:

We will need Congress to pass a new law that pushes the older justices aside and ties them up handling cases that don’t mean much to the American people.

The new law would say, “Justices of the Supreme Court who have served for 15 years or more shall be assigned to Division A of the court.

Division A will hear all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction . . . (These are cases that the existing Supreme Court now hears with “original jurisdiction.” It means the Supreme Court handles these cases from beginning to end with no trials in the lower courts.)

The statute should go on to say, “Division B shall be made up of justices who have served less than 15 years on the Supreme Court. After the year 2028, the president may appoint additional justices to this body . . . .

Survey research confirms that public opinion of the Court is at historic lows. A majority of Americans–and a significant majority of the legal profession– see the current Court as an overtly politicised body with significant ethics issues. Its unprecedented use of the “shadow docket” has unsettled both litigants and judges on the lower courts. And there is widespread disapproval of this Court’s consistent disregard for precedent and its dangerous undermining of Separation of Powers in order to empower our would-be king.

As the Editorial Board of the New York Times recently wrote, the lower courts “have responded heroically to Mr. Trump’s ill-founded efforts to centralize power and weaken democracy.” District and appellate courts have blocked Trump policies hundreds of times this year. “In many of those instances, however, the Supreme Court later overruled the lower courts, allowing Mr. Trump’s power grabs. It did so almost entirely on its emergency docket..”

Normalizing this rogue Court–failing to check its excesses–would neuter the Constitution and jettison the rule of law. We can argue about the details, but reform is essential.

Comments

Costco–One Of The Good Guys

I’ve previously written about the very different approaches to doing business by the big-box retailers, Costco and Sam’s Club. I shop at Costco rather than at Walmart’s Sam’s Club because Costco pays its workers well, provides health care coverage to its employees, and shows in a variety of ways that it values its members. I still recall a conversation at the Costco check-out when I said something to my husband to that effect, and the cashier weighed in with an emphatic agreement, saying she’d previously worked at a Sam’s Club and that there was no comparison–she was compensated, and treated, so much better at Costco.

My choice of retailers was confirmed, in my view, when Costco responded to Trump’s anti-DEI push by telling the administration, in effect, to pound sand–that they’d continue their DEI efforts.

And now, Costco has filed suit against the Trump administration, demanding repayment of the added amounts the retailer has paid due to Trump’s ridiculous tariffs. As The New Republic has reported, the company has filed a lawsuit arguing that the tariffs were illegal; that the law under which Trump justified the tariffs was never meant to authorize their collection, and that “the pell-mell manner by which these on-again/off-again IEEPA duties have been threatened, modified, suspended, and re-imposed” was evidence of the validity of that assertion.

As the article notes, while other companies have filed similar suits, Costco’s stands out “not only because of the size of the company involved but because it illustrates how tariffs actually work—and exposes the Trump administration’s lies about them.”

The administration has responded to these suits by insisting that it would refund American importers if the tariffs were found illegal. (This was the concession that persuaded the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to deny issuance of a preliminary injunction, allowing the government to keep collecting them during litigation.) Costco alleges that the way the tariffs are collected (among other peculiarities of this situation explained at length in the linked article) makes that promise of refunds ephemeral absent a specific company’s lawsuit. Even if the tariffs are found to be unlawful, observers have opined that the administration is likely to stall the tariff rebate, according to academics following the debate. One expert has predicted that the repayment process will be “a political quagmire” and suggested that it’s likely Costco filed suit to protect itself.

Even some of the Supreme Court justices who have taken up residence in Trump’s pocket have signaled an unwillingness to find the tariffs lawful. Roberts has (correctly) called them a tax, and noted that taxation is a core power of Congress, not the executive branch. If Costco and the other companies that have sued win their cases, what the article calls “Trump’s scam” will collapse—and his administration may be forced to make those companies whole.

The Washington Post is also covering the litigation.

The warehouse club last week became the largest company — and the first major retailer — to sue the Trump administration, seeking a full refund for the levies it has paid this year. The Supreme Court heard arguments in November on whether President Donald Trump has legal authority to impose tariffs on goods from nearly all countries, and it is expected to rule in the coming weeks or months. If it rejects the administration’s case that tariffs are justified as an emergency, the companies could be entitled to hefty refunds.

The article also pointed out that Costco “is uniquely positioned to weather any backlash from Washington” thanks to its legions of devoted customer/members– a devotion that sets it apart from most other retailers, who are accordingly more reluctant to make waves by resisting the administration.

There’s a lesson to be learned here. Costco’s approach to the conduct of its business initially earned it the devotion of those legions of members, and now, its principled stances have generated increased support from that membership.

While the grassroots efforts to boycott Target for ending its DEI programs led to weakening foot traffic and diminished financial outlooks for consecutive quarters, Costco saw a boost. Net sales for the 2025 fiscal year (which ended Aug. 31) increased 8 percent over 2024 to $269.9 billion. Net sales for November were also up 8.1 percent over last year, reaching $23.6 billion, the company reported last week. 

It’s another reminder that We the People can punish cowardice and reward principled behavior.

 
Comments

About That MRI…

I know it is dangerous to get one’s “news” from Facebook and/or other social media platforms, but I was sufficiently intrigued by a post I came across to do some due diligence–to research its accuracy and check it out. The post in question noted that a drug named Leqembi is used to treat early symptoms of Alzheimers, that it is administered via infusion (often through the back of the hand), and that its use requires monitoring via regular MRIs.

The post ends with “why am I mentioning this? No reason,” a tongue in cheek disavowal of the obvious purpose of sharing the information. As most readers of this post will immediately recognize, the information–if accurate–is a likely explanation of the bruises on the back of Trump’s hand and the recent MRI he has been unable to explain. It is certainly consistent with the mental deterioration everyone outside the MAGA cult has observed.

The results of my (admittedly unscientific) research suggest that the post accurately describes the nature and purpose of Leqembi–  generic name lecanemab. It is described as a drug that “targets amyloid-beta (a protein) in the brain,” and it was developed because medical experts believe that amyloid-beta plaques (otherwise known as clumps in the brain) play a key role in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

Leqembi binds to these proteins and helps to clear them, slowing the progression of the disease. It isn’t a cure; rather, it’s
considered a “disease-modifying” therapy.

The Alzheimer’s Association describes it as follows: 

Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is an antibody intravenous (IV) infusion therapy that targets and removes beta-amyloid from the brain. It has received traditional approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat early Alzheimer’s disease, including people living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease who have confirmation of elevated beta-amyloid in the brain. Leqembi lowers beta-amyloid in the brain and reduces cognitive and functional decline in people living with early Alzheimer’s.

Leqembi is administered by intravenous (IV) infusion every two weeks, and regular MRI scans are required.

Before starting treatment, there’s a baseline brain MRI, and during treatment, regular MRIs monitor for abnormal changes in the brain like swelling or bleeding, something that can occur when amyloid is being cleared. The manufacturer advises that additional MRIs be given before the 5th, 7th, and 14th infusions, and additional MRIs may be required if certain symptoms arise–symptoms that include confusion, visual changes, dizziness, edema, and gait problems.

There’s a reason doctors and psychiatrists consider it unethical to diagnose from a distance–absent an actual, in-person medical or psychological examination, there is no way to explain behaviors or symptoms with any certainty. In Trump’s case, his refusal to disclose accurate medical information (or for that matter, accurate financial information, i.e. tax returns) understandably gives rise to speculation that may or may not prove accurate. We should acknowledge that, but it is also obvious that the description of Leqembi–the reasons for prescribing it, the method of its administration, the need for MRIs, and the enumeration of the side effects–are consistent with what anyone looking at this walking (limping?) disaster of an egomaniac can see.

In a sane world, a situation where doctors are treating a president for a condition that clearly and negatively affects decision-making would immediately trigger invocation of the 25th Amendment. In our world, where a delusional president and would-be King surrounded by sycophants, grifters and assorted incompetents, a diagnosis of Alzheimers is just one more reason to dissemble, to cover up, to pretend that “Dear Leader” is hale and hearty.

The King isn’t naked, he’s wearing beautiful clothes.

This is unlikely to end well….

Comments

The Aftermath

Those of us outside the MAGA cult see Trump’s steady deterioration. Granted, he’s always been mentally ill, intellectually deficient,  massively ignorant, and a purveyor of ugly rhetoric, but his daily descent–both mental and physical– from even that very low bar is impossible to miss.

So what happens when he’s gone? What happens when the cult loses its Jim Jones?

In an essay in Lincoln Square, Rick Wilson revisits the aftermaths of other strongman regimes, and makes several predictions. (My favorite: an aside suggesting the inevitability of his grave becoming “the largest public all-gender restroom in history.”) Snark aside, Wilson notes that the public discussion has yet to address the chaos and bloodshed that so frequently comes after the collapse of systems built around a single man. As he warns, that’s when a supposedly unified movement turns into a feeding frenzy among the sycophants who have been rewarded not for competence but for “fealty, loyalty, public and private obeisance.”

Autocrats are very good at seizing power and holding it. They are very bad at leaving it behind without blowing something up on the way out. Political scientists have long argued that personality cult regimes are especially fragile at succession because the leader spends his life eliminating rivals rather than training successors.

Wilson points to a long succession of cult figures, beginning with Nero and extending through Mussolini, Stalin and Mao. The more a system is in thrall to one man,” the less prepared it is for the day that man disappears. “The court that spent years flattering him is suddenly full of men who see an empty chair they crave beyond words and reason.”

Franco’s Spain. Romania’s Ceausescus. Libya’s Ghaddafi. Dozens of cases exist in the modern era, including, of course, the Austrian Guy. Some age out. Some lose wars.

In each case, the same thing happened. The autocrat spent his life telling the country that he alone embodied the nation. He hollowed out institutions, punished independent power centers, and promoted flatterers over equals. When he left the stage, he did not leave behind a constitutional order; he left behind a mob of ambitious men in the same room.

If you zoom out, scholarship on personality cults and personalist regimes boils it down to a few core truths, and in the age where Trump is dying before our eyes, we’d better get ready to watch them play out…and exploit the chaos to slap autocracy back into its hole.

Wilson tells us that the more central the person has become, the more dangerous the aftermath. He describes three possibilities: the movement may fracture into rival factions (in which case, he predicts a Vance/Cruz/Rubio/DeSantis knife fight); the cult converts into a dynasty (Donald Jr. is already ramping up–as Wilson says, “you don’t think the Trumps are giving up all this money, do you?”); or the movement is forced into a larger “transition” because it’s too weak to carry on without its human idol.

Donald Trump has spent almost a decade turning the Republican Party from a political party into a cult. The party platform literally dissolved into “whatever Trump says.” Candidates run on loyalty to him more than any coherent ideology. The conservative media ecosystem revolves around his moods, his grudges, and his need for constant adoration. If that is not a proto-cult, it is a full-dress rehearsal.

Wilson says the sycophants who aspire to follow Trump come in three factions: the zealots who picture Trump as some kind of quasi-religious figure, and who won’t move past him will be the core of Don Jr’s 2028 campaign. Then there are the courtiers– the family, money men, and figures like JD Vance who’ve been cultivating their ties to billionaires and Silicon Valley reactionaries, who claim to be the only people who can keep the base and the money together. Finally, there are post-Trump aspirants like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ted Cruz.

Wilson’s conclusion? “When Trump finally fails to answer the bell, either politically or biologically, do not expect a solemn passing of the torch. Expect the Roman script with better lighting and worse hair.” There will be competing Right wing factions fighting for the same base, scapegoating and accusing each other of treachery (a la Mao’s “Gang of Four”). And he predicts “historical rewrites that would make a Soviet propagandist blush.”

Bottom line: MAGA won’t disappear when Trump does.

The energy that once ran vertically, from base to Leader, will start to run horizontally, between camps and claimants. That is where movements get creative, and reckless, and violent.

You really need to click through and read the whole essay.

Comments

Heritage, Again

As Trump continues to disintegrate before our eyes, and special elections confirm what the polls have been telling us, I think Americans can begin to breathe again. Granted, this evil and incompetent administration will continue to wreak havoc for three more years, but there’s reason to believe that the midterms will put a halt to much of the destruction, and that the political pendulum will swing back from Trump’s gulag to support of something more closely resembling the America we thought we inhabited.

What happens then, however, will depend upon what we’ve learned from this horrifying episode. What rot within the body politic allowed the ascent of people so morally and intellectually unfit for public office? I think there are three interrelated answers to that question. An unfair, “gilded age” economy and a fragmented, politicised media landscape have combined to facilitate the re-emergence of bigotries that had been suppressed but obviously not eliminated.

Research has confirmed that the single most potent predictor of support for MAGA and Trump is racial resentment. But racism is almost always accompanied by other hatreds: of women, of Jews, of Muslims, of immigrants (at least those with Black or Brown skin). Those attitudes haven’t just been fostered and encouraged by “Christian” nationalist churches, publications and social media posts, but also by (mis-named) think tanks. The election of America’s first Black President lit the flame of the rancid ideology they had carefully nurtured during more civil times.

And that brings me to the Heritage Foundation.

With the publication of Project 2025, Heritage shed its disguise as a research institution, and identified itself as a purely ideological enterprise, intent upon remaking American society into one dominated by White Christian males. Minorities aren’t the only elements of the population who would lose status should its fever dream be realized–women would be returned to subservient status too.

The Atlantic has recently documented Heritage’s misogyny. As the article noted, Heritage’s current unmasking may have begun with Kevin Roberts’ defense of anti-Semitism, but disclosure of the nature of the “Heritage” it is trying to protect includes the recent decision to hire Scott Yenor to lead its Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies. The author says the choice “poses serious questions about the institution’s beliefs concerning the equality of women in the workplace and perhaps even as citizens.”

In a 2021 speech at the National Conservatism Conference, Yenor labeled professional women “medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome.” He frequently uses the term AWFLs (short for “affluent white female liberals”). He was ejected from a position as chair of the University of West Florida’s board of trustees when even Florida’s MAGA Republican-controlled state Senate wouldn’t confirm him.

Yenor believes that employers should be legally permitted to discriminate against women in the workplace, and has advocated for legal changes that would allow businesses “to support traditional family life by hiring only male heads of households, or by paying a family wage”—that is, denying women jobs solely on the basis of their sex or paying men more for performing the same job as women. He also believes that “governments should be allowed to prepare men for leadership and responsible provision, while preparing women for domestic management and family care.”

Yenor’s ideas are rather obviously outside both the American and conservative mainstreams–and not just his opinions on employment discrimination. He has also dismissed women’s suffrage as “a feat of social engineering.” Feminism, he has asserted, weakens the all-important institution of marriage–a situation that calls out for policy change.

So Heritage now faces an uncomfortable question: Does it agree with its new director of American studies?

What makes the question particularly pressing is Heritage’s “one voice” policy. “While other organizations may have experts advocating contradictory points of view,” the institution explains, “Heritage employees are always rowing in the same direction.” If this is Yenor’s view, and he’s now a Heritage director, does that make it Heritage’s official view?

Heritage was founded in 1973 by Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., Joseph Coors, and Paul Weyrich. Despite the obvious political ambitions of those founders, until very recently the media has portrayed it as a legitimate, albeit Right-wing, think tank. And that brings me to the role played by the media in MAGA’s capture of our government.

One of the thorniest problems we will face as we try to repair the systemic flaws that allowed bigotry and misogyny to drive  political behavior will be what to do about a media landscape that abets false equivalences–a landscape that allows Americans to avoid “inconvenient” realities and  choose “news” that confirms their biases.

I have no idea what we do about that.

Comments