Supreme Disappointment

The Supreme Court, as per usual, has saved the biggest cases for last, with a big stack  remaining—too many of which are about whether President Donald Trump can continue dismantling democracy.

I won't bother to talk about the immigration cases.  It's quite certain that the conservative cabal will let convicted felon Donald Trump do whatever he wants to brown and black people-- cause of course, there's no more racism, right?

We’ve got Trump v. Cook, about whether Trump was allowed to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board based on ginned-up mortgage fraud allegations from the egregiously bad Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte.   Trump said he fired Cook “for cause” based on these unproven, uncharged allegations and that his decision can’t possibly be challenged.  Following oral argument, it looks like Cook has the votes to stop Trump from firing her. But even if she wins, it comes at a huge cost—literally; she’s spent more than $1 million fighting this.

Here’s where things get a bit squirrelly. While simultaneously signaling that they’ll block Trump from removing people from the Fed, the court is also still sitting on Trump v. Slaughter, where he removed Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission.  Sure, there’s a direct precedent that is nearly 100 years old, Humphrey’s Executor, which says that the president can’t fire an FTC commissioner without cause. But this is not a court that’s interested in following their own cases.

The Supreme Court conservatives have been playing a little shadow docket game here, letting Trump fire whoever he wants without directly saying they’re overruling Humphrey’s, but it’s looking pretty likely that they will rule in favor of Trump here.  So we’re looking at the court possibly carving out a special exception to bar Trump from firing Fed board members—because conservatives love their 401(k)s and don’t love financial chaos—but to let him fire anyone else from any other agency as he pleases.

Does this make sense? Nope. Will the conservative majority care? Nope.

The most critical remaining case is Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case where Trump showed up to vaguely glower at the judges during oral argument and has been openly threatening the justices, demanding that they rule in his favor.  From oral argument, it doesn’t look like he has the votes, but mostly it’s just shameful that the case even exists—a product wholly of Trump’s xenophobic malice propped up by MAGA law professors who somehow “discovered” that the 14th Amendment doesn’t say what it says.  If and when Trump loses this one, he’s going to lose his mind worse than he did when his idiotic tariffs got shut down.

And finally, it wouldn’t be a Supreme Court term without an anti-trans case that looks to succeed—enshrining even more of Trump’s bigotry into law.  Earlier this term, the court ruled that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban was likely unconstitutional, leaving LGBTQ+ children at the mercy of Christian “therapists” who “help” them by forcing them to be straight. It also upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care—but only for trans kids.  This time around, it’s about banning trans kids from participating in sports. West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox are combined cases challenging state bans on trans athletes. And from oral argument, it looks bad. 

While we don’t know the outcomes yet, we do know one thing for sure: Whenever Trump and his ilk win, the rest of us lose. 

 

Taylor Swift - I Knew It, I Knew You

The Art of the Mis-Deal

So what about Trump's so-called deal with Iran?

 First of all, it's not a deal.  It's an MOU/framework that will guide negotiations over the next 60 days.  What does the MOU call for?

1. A 60-day ceasefire (we already had peace before Trump started the war).

2. The re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz (we already had that)

3. The end of the naval blockade (we already had that)

4. Iran agrees that it will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons (something they already agreed to under the previous deal)

5.  The U.S. agrees not to impose any new sanctions on Iran until a final deal is reached

6. The U.S. will waive oil sanctions ​on Iran for a specified period, allowing Tehran to sell oil and receive revenue

7. The U.S. ⁠agrees to release $25 billion of Iran’s frozen assets

8. The U.S. will prepare a reconstruction and development plan for Iran

9. Iran will have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund (as confirmed by JD Vance)  

10. Iran would be allowed to charge maritime service fees on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz (instead of tolls). 

11. Iran can dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium on Iranian soil (instead of being seized by the U.S.)

12. Iran’s ​nuclear program, uranium enrichment activities and mechanisms  ​for handling its stockpile of highly enriched uranium will be negotiated within 60 days ​and addressed in a final agreement (so, kicking the can down the road on that one). 

So basically-- 1, 2, 3 & 4 we already had (no new gain for either side);  5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 are a net plus for Iran;  and 12 is TBD (no progress yet).  Sounds like a resounding win for Iran-- way to go, Orange man!

 

Putting on a Good Face for the World Cup

Happy Fucking 80th to the Orange Man

Musk's Starbase is Fracturing a Small Texas Town

The arrival of SpaceX has brought good business to Eddie Reyes and his family. Since the establishment of Starbase, Elon Musk's company town in south Texas, his charter boat business has picked up ‌as space fans flock to the area for a glimpse of launches. Reyes' nephew works at SpaceX as a welder, driving a Tesla Cybertruck.  But the same rockets Reyes sees lifting his family's fortunes are also shaking his mother's home. Shockwaves from launches are cracking the ceiling, ‌loosening window seals and sinking the foundation. She's among dozens of residents now suing Musk's company for damage.

While SpaceX's rapid expansion is bringing jobs, visitors and global attention, it is also fueling lawsuits, environmental concerns and a growing divide among the 1.4 million residents of the Rio Grande Valley. "This company is literally shaking the earth," said Tino Villarreal, city commissioner of Brownsville, a city of 185,000 people that borders Starbase. "By the amount of workforce it wants to produce, by the actual wavelengths that are shaking our soil."

Some local Rio Grande Valley residents initially welcomed SpaceX. Maria Pointer lived in the region for ​almost two decades when she sold her home to SpaceX in 2020 after meeting ​with Musk. "We were excited," she said. "I really felt, at the time, that we deserved the moon as the gas station to wherever all the Elons of the world wanted to go in interstellar space."  Over time, Pointer has become less optimistic, saying the town has become less friendly. In April, she went to Starfactory to film an interview with an Italian news crew, beneath a huge "X" near the entrance to the building, where her kitchen once stood. A security guard approached and instructed them to leave. "It was very military," she said.

Other residents of neighboring towns – Laguna ​Vista, Port Isabel and South Padre Island – claim the Starship launches are damaging their homes, according to a class-action ‌lawsuit filed in April against SpaceX.  One plaintiff, who declined to speak on the record at her attorney's direction, showed Reuters her Port Isabel home. Cabinets sit unevenly, doors no longer close, and chipboard covers warped flooring she said was damaged by mold after a ​shower pipe burst following a rocket launch. She estimates foundation repairs at about $100,000, more than half the home's value.  "They're wanting to get to Mars," she said. "But what about us that are here? I'm here now. And nobody is thinking about us."

 

Keeping it Real