96 Comments
User's avatar
Ransom Rideout's avatar

Well Joyce, it's getting hard enough to get a good night's sleep as it is. Thank you for keeping us up on the threats piling up. I could sure use a good evening of chicken posing and nibbling.

David J. Sharp's avatar

Hmm, I think the chickens are already posing … and strutting … and cackling.

Jeanne Golliher's avatar

Today's post actually provided a bit of that elusive comfort I've been desperately seeking since Joyce's The Week Ahead post on Sunday night. I get that the threat is not behind us, but knowing the details of the fight gives me a little hope to hang on to!

C McDonald's avatar

Scary stuff. We plod forward with hope and prayer.

93clementine's avatar

Yeah, it’s superstitious fanatical xtian idiots that ‘pray’ that got us into this mess.

C McDonald's avatar

Lots of non-idiots hope, pray, keep the faith, keep working and going forward.

93clementine's avatar

'Talking' to a nasty, cruel gawd seems like a waste of time and energy but as long as you can keep it to yourself I have no problem with the delusion. It’s when xtians desperately try to cram everyone else into their shallow narrow worldview and kill anyone who objects that I can't abide. They all claim to be praying, too, you know, and supposedly to the same gawd.

patricia's avatar

there must be some kind of highness...otherwise how do you explain buttifuco and bobbit;s name ?

celeste k.'s avatar

the point is, praying gets you nowhere. It's clear that pointed action is what's needed to stop the carnage unfolding each day. If praying makes you feel better, that's nice. But it doesn't make the bed in the morning. Getting up and actually doing something is what counts. Plodding is not going to cut it.

patricia's avatar

true, but I think what makes people mad is the forcing of evangelicals beliefs on america. book burning and the like

Ann Rock's avatar

Is that really necessary? Praying may not be your thing and that’s fine, no one is asking you to. There are many of us that find it comforting. Making fun of someone’s coping mechanism is just nasty and does not represent the “big tent” we supposedly put up.

Hummingbird3's avatar

Wow. Seems like a lot of people got out of bed on the wrong side today. We are all stressed about, well…everything! No need to add to it by sniping at those who find prayer or anything else - as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else - comforting. And if you find someone expressing the word “prayer” on a public forum “harmful”, well, so sorry your trigger is so…sensitive. Buck up. As Joyce Vance says, we are all in this together.

Louise's avatar

"Praying may not be your thing and that’s fine, no one is asking you to."

I'm sorry to disagree but only someone who is not paying atttention to what is happening in this country could make such a naive statement.

Ann Rock's avatar

Again, is that necessary? Do you do yoga or sit and contemplate a tree or the ocean or exercise or drink? Does that help you get through the day in these stressful times? That’s what praying is to the faithful. And at this point I don’t see anyone successfully forcing their beliefs on anyone, yes they may be trying but so far we have freedom to believe or not believe as we wish. Your denigrating peoples practices is very closed minded and quite frankly, rude. It doesn’t add to the conversation and only adds to the impression we on the left are divided. I completely respect and will defend your right not to believe, all I ask is for the same consideration.

Dale of Green Gables's avatar

Sorry you have to defend what should be clear even to the most small minded among us: many of the most faithful are also the most active in doing good --- not despite their religion, but because of it. The majority of U.S. food banks are faith‑affiliated. Most refugee resettlement agencies have religious roots. Religious volunteers donate more time and money than any other demographic and Black churches remain central to civic engagement and mutual aid. This isn’t stereotype; it’s sociology. The real and present danger among liberals is viewing religion as some monolith --- and ironically very much like the far right seeks to paint all liberals as socialists or, as is now again popular apparently, communists. Both examples sadly of a shared human tendency to flatten what we don’t fully understand or choose to willfully do so for a variety of reasons, few of them worthwhile.

I'm not religious myself, but I abhor what academics would call "essentialism" or "reductionism" wherever it’s found: race, gender, politics and religion; flattening what is very much pluralism into undifferentiated blocs. Indeed, Christian Nationalism looms large in the political imagination. It’s loud, it’s organized, and it’s explicitly political but it is not religion itself that's the threat, it's religion as a political movement. The real distinction that must be made is not religion versus secularism --- but pluralism versus theocracy. Christian Nationalism is theocratic. Most religion is pluralistic. Confusing the two is like confusing a match with a forest fire.

93clementine's avatar

The problem is that the xtians are indeed not just asking but demanding that we pray. As far as being naive, right back at ya. It is you who are not paying attention.

LiverpoolFCfan's avatar

"The question here is whether [SCOTUS} will try to sidestep clear rules the Court has created, and this majority itself has enforced, in this situation to aid President Trump."

Yes, they have to ask themselves," is it OK to prevent eligible voters from voting in order to keep the Republican party in power without a mandate from WE THE PEOPLE?"

And their answer will be a clear indicator of whether our democratic republic still exists or whether they've killed it.

Louise's avatar

There's also the overarching statement in the U.S. Constitution that proves Trump's efforts to control elections are beyond his enumerated powers.

Ruth Sheets's avatar

I keep having the word "treason" coming into my mind. Deliberately standing against our constitution by a man who swore to uphold it while he works to take away the right to vote of millions of Americans, hoping somehow he will be permitted to remain in the white house forever. To me, that is treason perpetrated by Donald Trump and anyone who supports his illegal unconstitutional push to destroy our democracy. We need impeachment, but Republicans are too cowardly to do it even though they know what Trump is and what he is trying to do to this nation and for nothing but to serve a bunch of far too rich white oligarchs who have nothing positive to offer anyone, but want enormous power they don't deserve, and prove it every day!

David J. Sharp's avatar

Sadly, no longer just “a man” … now his cult, his Republicans … and, all too often, his court.

Diane Doyle's avatar

And now nearly EVERY Republican seems to be in that cult. The ones with principles were driven out. It's as if every remaining Republican was forced to go into the phony phone booth of Simon Bar Sinister (i.e. Trump) and came out of there promising to do what Simon says, even if against their own interests.

Mary Corredor's avatar

Ruth:

What this jerk has done to this country is treasonous. He has violated the constitution, and misused taxpayers’ money. Plus, he and Bennie have made our country less safe. Even if Iran totally capitulates to the US, there will be, likely already are, factions in Iran and the Middle East going underground and plotting the next 9/11.

Plus, what about the young men, women, and children who have seen their family and friends murdered in Iran, Gaza, Lebanon and witnessed their homes and lives destroyed? Does anyone really believe they are going to grow up loving the US and Israel? Bennie and Donnie have laid the groundwork for the next generation of terrorists.

But what really burns me up is, as you mentioned, Republicans are fully aware that what he is doing is wrong and could do something were they not “Profiles in Cowardice.” There is strength in numbers! That fact was driven home to me recently by the post World Cup shenanigans of the FIFA president, Giani Infantino. He tried to change the governance of FIFA, behind people’s backs, by establishing a board of private investors to own shares--and make decisions undoubtedly. The investment firm included none other than Kushner’s younger brother. (HMM.) The 55-member European Football Union (UEFA) threatened to boycott all games including the 2030 World Cup. Two other groups voiced opposition, and several executives, some of whom were reportedly close to Infantino, voiced their opposition. One, in fact, resigned while another stated he did not care if speaking out resulted in losing his position. Infantino had to scrap the plan.

In other words, there was and is strength in numbers.

Donald Trump could be dealt with if Republicans, law firms, Universities all stood up to the creep the way so many judges have done and tried to do.

Coelle Baskel's avatar

Did you notice that he's the First President -elect that didn't put his hand on the Bible when taking the 'Oath of Office'!!!!!

Ruth Sheets's avatar

Coelle, Trump probably couldn't find the bible and where to put his bruised hand that people would see. In reality, the Bible means nothing to Trump; he thinks he is god, so doesn't need any of that oath-swearing stuff or living that oath because "god doesn't need that, right!

patricia's avatar

the devil can't touch such things...

Marlene Lerner-Bigley (CA)'s avatar

Joyce, I have been following most of the primaries tonight. The gaps between the progressives and moderates (Democrats) are apparent but a decision has been made in Michigan, especially, that whoever wins will be supported by their opponent. This is the way for the Democratic Party to stay together and be strong, iron-clad, against Trump and the regime. It has to be this way, whether we like it or not.

Mary Corredor's avatar

SPOT ON. Unless something has changed in the last week, so far in Texas, Talarico's opponent in the primary has not campaigned for him. I am so disappointed.

Christine's avatar

Guess he has one promise he intends to keep.the one where he told the people in Florida to vote for him and they’ll never have to vote again.this EO is both corrupt and illegal and yet the court has to decide.it’s scary when something seems like a no brainer and we still have to worry. Thank you Joyce for all you do.

Ed Weldon's avatar

It's looking more and more like the 2026 election will be the determinant of whether the United States of America will continue to exist in its present physical form after 2028.

JK's avatar

Well, now we have the red states joining up against the blue states to bust the union. Sounds all too familiar -- other than the irony of the Handmaiden-Dobbs, red states (ab)using the national government as a cudgel against state's rights.

Dale of Green Gables's avatar

The so-called government’s argument is that the suit is "premature" because agencies haven’t finalized implementation rules. But both the district court and First Circuit rejected that, noting states have already purchased envelopes and begun other election preparations. The states’ constitutional arguments (Elections Clause, anti‑commandeering) are substantial, and the First Circuit’s warning about confusion and disenfranchisement is exactly the kind of harm courts take seriously. Could the Imperial Court ignore "Purcell," the principle that warns courts not to change election rules close to an election because late changes risk voter confusion and administrative chaos? Yes --- because the Court has done so before when pursuing substantive rulings (e.g., "Louisiana v. Callais"). But doing so here would be even more conspicuously partisan: the executive order is far more disruptive than many election-law changes the Court has previously blocked under "Purcell." The executive order doesn’t just tweak an election rule --- it seeks to rebuild the mail-balloting system from the ground up, and it does so at the very moment states are already deeply involved in election prep and locking in USPS routing schedules. "Purcell" is about timing and disruption. This executive order is the legal equivalent of detonating a grenade inside the election-administration calendar.

93clementine's avatar

More like a nuclear bomb.

Bruce Katz's avatar

I know it’s unrelated but when I hear something about Trump being described as “premature” I think of the McConnell Rule in the Senate: it’s premature if it works against Yellow POTUS but perfectly ripe if it helps him.

Sandra J Grigsby's avatar

This is the most horrifying thing I've read yet. For those of us in dark red states, we're hosed. No ballot, no vote. If the EO is allowed to be implemented, disenfranchising millions of voters, we will hear the first shot across the bow of what will be the Civil War II. Guaranteed.

93clementine's avatar

I guess my question would be that if this worries you so badly — which it totally should — why are you living in dark red state? I live in a deep blue state and my AG is among those fighting like crazy against whatever nightmare trump dreams up next. I just don’t get the attraction for sane people to live in a fascist state. But yes, my take is that if the fascists on SCOTUS side with trump, we may be looking at secession of the rich blue states. CA, OR, and WA could easily go it alone and we would finally be able to spend our tax dollars on living in the 21st century instead of sending it down the black hole of backward magats who are determined to live in the dark ages. Throw in NY and IL and I think we would be fine. The red states would wind up a failed nation without our handouts. Just think of it: vaccines, healthcare, women’s bodily autonomy, alternative energy, environmental protection, equality, etc — it’s possible without the obscene red drag on us. We can’t save you from yourselves but we sure can keep from going down with you.

Diane Doyle's avatar

It's harder than you think for some people to move from a dark red state. The red states likely have cheaper housing since blue states are often expensive. Or they're married to someone living there or have aging relatives.

But it would not surprise me that with a fascist victory, the rich blue states, like CA, OR, and WA bailing out of the USA to go it alone. And Minnesota too, given how the Regime has treated them lately.

93clementine's avatar

Life is hard for all of us and choices are difficult but if the blue states keep all the money we throw down the dark sucking hole of red states we would do better. And if survival is at issue … well, all you say is true for reasons to stay there but will be lost anyway if there is a civil war. This government wants to make it impossible for anyone to have cheap housing or any medical care or be able to feed your kids safe food so that’s a pipe dream when it all falls apart. I would say that moving now beats the hell out of being a domestic refugee fleeing war, which is what will happen in red states. We don’t want to be dragged down with them.

And as far as blue states ‘bailing’ that’s a wholly undeserved insult. We have stood by the lazy loud nasty fascist states through everything and even accepted that treasonous monster back into the family in 1865. We have been gladly sharing our hard-earned wealth with them because we thought we all were Americans. This is the thanks we get: insane screeching little men foaming at the mouth attacking women trying to get standard healthcare — while the president pays them millions of dollars to do it.

https://reproductivefreedomforall.org/news/reproductive-freedom-for-all-condemns-trump-doj-for-rewarding-convicted-anti-abortion-extremist-with-seven-figure-payout-using-taxpayer-money/

Nope. Not this time. Here’s some tough love: Some states are not salvageable.

This time WE leave and we take our 21st century country with us.

Diane Doyle's avatar

Wasn't meaning to insult the blue states by saying "bailing". But there does come a time when staying together with the red states has become untenable, especially when their objective seems to be to drag everyone back to the Dark Ages.

Fortunately, I live in a blue state -- Virginia. Fortunately, the Northern part of VA (where I live) has grown enough in population over the years to override the more southerly, conservative parts.

But I have heard plenty of stories online about red state inhabitants who find it hard to move for various reasons.

Yes, some of the states are not salvageable.

Russell John Netto's avatar

Blanche's DoJ has lost 19 cases in a row trying to get sensitive voter data. He's clearly indefatigably corrupt and it's small wonder Trump is rooting for him.

https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/2084692554927198692

Donald Maisch's avatar

What are the rules for American citizens living overseas to be able to vote in the midterms?

Mike in the Desert's avatar

CA lets me fax them in from South America

Avtar Khalsa's avatar

Those rules vary from state to state. Contact the state’s Secretary of State for guidance. If you are overseas there is probably a Democrats Abroad group that helps expats navigate the voting system for voting from abroad.

Dale of Green Gables's avatar

Try FVAP.org, the official government clearinghouse for overseas voting https://www.fvap.gov

VoteFromAbroad https://www.votefromabroad.org

Overseas Vote Foundation (OVF.org) https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/vote-from-abroad-overseas-voting

Carla (in BXL)'s avatar

In Belgium we receive our Washington State mail ballots quite early. We return them by a scan attached to an email.

Peter Wood's avatar

There are no conservatives on the supreme court or in Congress. There are right wing stooges for a corrupt president. 🤮🤮

Mike in the Desert's avatar

One’s trashy gold decor is another man’s top of the line Hobby Lobby gold accoutrements… yet still all trashy

Mike Savage's avatar

Thank you, Professor. It seems a bit treasonous to me what he’s trying to do. Vote Blue. ☮️❤️🌻

Laurie's avatar

Thank you is not enough. Every day it gets scarier. We are losing our DEMOCRACY. Are we in boiling water yet? It appears so…

Wynn's avatar

Thanks Joyce for keeping us all up-to-date on this most important issue that’s now once again on the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket. If ruled in the favor of the Republican could disenfranchise many Democrats in Blue States especially in places like California and Arizona just to name two but with many other Blue States.

93clementine's avatar

That’s the whole point of everything they do.

Scott Whitmire's avatar

What should we do to/with the Court should they so obviously violate the clear text of the Constitution?