Thursday, April 30, 2026
Wednesday, April 29, 2026
Cass Sunstein on Bob Dylan!
The brilliant law professor - Cass Sunstein- turns his attention to Bob Dylan!
REBECCA LOWE: We’ve been thinking a bit in this season of our podcast on arts and liberalism about particular artists, or other kinds of—writers, producers of art objects—thinking of them as liberals. This question can obviously mean lots of different things. I think it can lead us on to some questions I’m keen for us to discuss about the relation more generally between liberalism and culture. But I know you are there, in writing, having stated that Bob Dylan is a liberal. I’m just wondering, what do you mean by this? In what way is Bob Dylan a liberal?
Liberalism in Dylan’s Music
SUNSTEIN: Well, have a listen to “Maggie’s Farm,” which is a song about freedom, and not working on Maggie’s farm anymore. Some of the energy of the song comes from the embrace of freedom that the song instantiates. “Like a Rolling Stone” is an anthem. It’s an American anthem. And it turns the situation of rootlessness, and no direction home, into a situation of liberty. That’s why it’s an anthem. And it’s a liberal song in its celebration of people’s ability to make choices.
Now, that’s not all liberalism is, by any means. The liberal tradition is pretty subtle on this point. But the enthusiasm for agency and autonomy is at the center of Dylan’s work. And my favorite moment really for that was when he sang “Like a Rolling Stone” in the UK, and he got booed, and he turned to his people, and he said, “Play it f-ing loud,” which was a liberal moment.
LOWE: That’s good. I should say, I love classical music; it’s only really in the last two years, I’d say, I’ve started listening to non-classical music. So I’m not the best person to ask you about Bob Dylan. Although I have recently, I think, had a change of view about Bob Dylan. I think I used to be one of those silly people who thought, “I don‘t know, it sounds quite good, but why would you give him the Nobel Prize for literature?”
But recently, I have been listening to some—partly in preparation for this. And it did strike me, I mean, some of these ones you’ve mentioned, they seem quite obviously liberal songs. Some of the civil rights songs seem to be. These anti-establishment songs. It seems to me that “Maggie’s Farm” is an anti-establishment song. It seems to me—what is the one where he lifts up the little cards? “Subterranean Homesick Blues”, that seems anti-establishment. There are some anti-war songs, obviously. There’s “Hard Rain.” And then there are the more explicit civil rights ones. These seem liberal because they are engaging in a political sense.
SUNSTEIN: I think we want to be very careful about this. So, Dylan talked about protest songs with revulsion rather than identification. He described protest songs as basically the songs of dead people. He described political posturing in songs as a way of losing your spirit and just spouting cliches. So the “Hard Rain” song, I don’t think it’s a political song in the narrow sense. I think if it’s a liberal song—and I think it is—it’s about freedom and about obstruction of same.
Thursday, April 23, 2026
Fairness won: Dems win redistricting in Virginia
The new map
Virginia has a Democratic trifecta and a Democratic triplex. The Democratic Party controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature.
A state government trifecta is a term to describe when one political party holds majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office. A state government triplex is a term to describe when one political party holds the following three positions in a state's government: governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. To learn more about trifectas and triplexes, click here.
Fairness won: Dems win redistricting in Virginia
By Josh Marshall//Talking Points Memo
We had an illustration Tuesday night of one of the most crucial questions in our current politics and the one that will determine whether civic democracy can have a rebirth in the U.S. Gerrymandering is a bane to civic democracy because it dilutes the expression of the popular will by building district lines around partisan advantage or to diminish the power of disempowered minorities. Democrats spent much of the 2010s and 2020s fighting a legal and legislative battle against gerrymandering. But the Roberts Court has chosen to legalize every manner of gerrymandering, making the current a destructive race to the bottom.
Democrats had a choice. They could express effete outrage and a meaningless devotion to broken norms and principles and agree to wage elections on a permanently tilted plane. Or they could decide to play by the rules Republicans had forced on everyone. They did just that and it was unquestionable the right decision by every measure. It really never seemed to occur to Trump Republicans that Democrats would fight on the playbook Republicans created. There’s a special comedy to this because anyone familiar with the facts on the ground knew that Republicans had already used gerrymandering much more aggressively than Democrats. So there was much more juice in the gerrymandering lemon for Democrats if and when they decided to employ tactics Republicans have been using for more than a decade. It’s worth Democrats considering how deeply Republicans had internalized the belief that Democrats would simply never respond in kind.
Fairness won: Virginia Redistricting Referendum
Fairness won: Redistricting in Virginia - Talking Points Memo
By Josh Marshall
We had an illustration Tuesday night of one of the most crucial questions in our current politics and the one that will determine whether civic democracy can have a rebirth in the U.S. Gerrymandering is a bane to civic democracy because it dilutes the expression of the popular will by building district lines around partisan advantage or to diminish the power of disempowered minorities. Democrats spent much of the 2010s and 2020s fighting a legal and legislative battle against gerrymandering. But the Roberts Court has chosen to legalize every manner of gerrymandering, making the current a destructive race to the bottom.
Democrats had a choice. They could express effete outrage and a meaningless devotion to broken norms and principles and agree to wage elections on a permanently tilted plane. Or they could decide to play by the rules Republicans had forced on everyone. They did just that and it was unquestionable the right decision by every measure. It really never seemed to occur to Trump Republicans that Democrats would fight on the playbook Republicans created. There’s a special comedy to this because anyone familiar with the facts on the ground knew that Republicans had already used gerrymandering much more aggressively than Democrats. So there was much more juice in the gerrymandering lemon for Democrats if and when they decided to employ tactics Republicans have been using for more than a decade. It’s worth Democrats considering how deeply Republicans had internalized the belief that Democrats would simply never respond in kind.
TPM: Specious DOJ attack on Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
TPM: Specious DOJ attack on Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
The colossally corrupt indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center shows just how powerful a politicized DOJ can be in the hands of a rogue president — and how difficult it is even this late in the game for the press and the public to have a clear-eyed view of retributive prosecutions.
While the SPLC has long been a tormenter of extremists and therefore targeted by the right, it has not been subjected to the kind of drumbeat narrative against it from President Trump that would help to elevate the bogus nature of the prosecution more clearly in the public mind. So there was a lot of “let’s wait and see what they’ve got” in yesterday’s coverage of the new federal indictment out of Alabama. Even I felt some trepidation about assuming it was another bogus politicized prosecution until we got a better handle on the allegations.
But let’s be clear: They got nothing. Period. Full stop.
The indictment reads like what you would expect a bunch of young conservative lawyers who fancy themselves as clever and who have an axe to grind against an anti-white supremacy organization to come up with. It’s too cute by half. It insists that up is down.
Thursday, April 16, 2026
D.C. Circuit Court, 2-1, blocks Judge Boasberg restraint of ICE deportations
D.C. Circuit Court blocks Judge Boasberg restraint of ICE deportations
[Neomi] RAO, Circuit Judge: More than a year ago, the President
invoked the Alien Enemies Act against members of Tren de
Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang and foreign terrorist
organization, and ordered that they be detained and removed
from the United States. In a series of fast-moving events on
March 15, 2025, the government placed a group of alleged
gang members, including plaintiffs in this case, on planes to El
Salvador. After the planes took off and left the country, the
district court ordered the government not to remove the
plaintiffs from the United States.
The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order
because it was premised on a legal error and the plaintiffs’ suit
was brought in the wrong court. Nonetheless, the district court
threatened to hold government officials in criminal contempt
unless they complied with the now-vacated order by, for
instance, taking back custody of the plaintiffs. We issued a writ
of mandamus vacating the court’s first contempt order.
Undeterred, the district court is proceeding with criminal
contempt for the government’s decision to transfer the
plaintiffs to the custody of El Salvador. To cooperate, the
government identified then-Secretary of Homeland Security
Kristi Noem as the official responsible for the transfer decision.
The district court previously said this was the only information
it required to make a referral for prosecution. But the district
court has now expanded its inquest and ordered hearings to
extract more information from government counsel about
exactly what happened last March. The government petitions
for mandamus.
The widening gyre of the district court’s investigation
again calls for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to halt
the judicial “impairment of another branch in the performance
of its constitutional duties.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,...
Dissent:
[J. Michelle ] CHILDS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Contempt of court is a public offense, and the fate of our democratic republic will depend on whether we treat it as such. In the many forms in which it can be committed, contempt degrades the power that the People, through their Constitution and Congress, gave the federal courts. Without the contempt power, the rule of law is an illusion, a theory that stands upon shifting sands. For contempt offends not only the authority of whichever judge has been subjected to such incursions, but it also offends our system of governance. Addressing contempt is, therefore, a responsibility that is part and parcel of the court’s duty to interpret and apply the laws of the governed.
And yet, a court’s inquiry into contempt is a responsibility that can be just as difficult as it is sacred. The complexity of this task explains why, for some contempt proceedings, factfinding is required for a trial court to fairly identify contemnors, their contumacious acts, and then hold them accountable. Thus, we cannot judge the early actions of a trial court in such a proceeding heavy-handedly, for contempt of court is not addressed for the district court’s vanity; it is done to preserve and enforce our law. As a court of review, we preserve the sanctity of these proceedings by reviewing judgments of contempt with an eye towards vindicating the dignity and authority of the courts while simultaneously respecting the individual liberties and rights of contemnors.
Here, unfortunately, we have overstepped in adjudicating this balance of interests.****
Saturday, April 11, 2026
A 25th Amendment reading list - Garrett Epps
A 25th Amendment reading list - Prof. Garrett Epps
Prof. Garrett Epps has developed a 25th Amendment reading list. Prominent is the work of my Fordham colleague and former Dean John Feerick.
A lot of people are discussing the XXV Amendment with what seems to me to be only a foggy sense of what is actually in it. If you are curious about the meaning and history of the Amendment, then this list is for you:
25th Amendment Reading list
Night of Camp David
Fletcher Knebel
Begin with this book because 1) it tells the story of a president who wants to take over Canada and parts of Scandinavia at which point everybody realizes he is insane; 2) it shows the scary state of play just before the passage of the XXV Amendment; 3) it lets you test whether the Amendment has improved the ability to handle the “crazy President” problem; 4) it’s fun.
Birch Bayh, One Heartbeat Away: Presidential Disability and Succession (Bobbs-Merrill, 1968). The sponsor of the Amendment tells the story from his point of view.
John Feerick, From Failing Hands: The Story of Presidential Succession (Fordham University Press, 1965). A look at the history of the problem by the man who is most responsible for the drafting and adoption of the XXV Amendment
___________, The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Its Complete History and Applications (2nd ed.). An account of the drafting of the Amendment and what it means to a “crazy President” situation. https://www.amazon.com/.../082321.../ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0...
Brian C. Kalt, Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies (Yale University Press, 2012). A wonderful book by a fine scholar who spent a lot of time looking at the Constitution and asking “What could go wrong?” (Answer: a lot). https://yalebooks.yale.edu/.../constitutional-cliffhangers/
____, Unable: The Law, Politics, and Limits of Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment
A very short and clear explanation of why the Amendment is not a very good protection against the “crazy president” problem.
Thursday, April 9, 2026
Wednesday, April 8, 2026
Robert Reich: Trump's Defeat in Iran
By Robert Reich [former U.S. Secretary of Labor]
Friends,
Last night, 90 minutes before Trump said he’d cause the death of a “whole civilization” if Iran didn’t open the Strait of Hormuz, an Iranian official said the shipping channel would be reopened for two weeks if the United States stopped bombing Iran. The U.S. has now stopped bombing Iran.
So we’re back to the status quo before Trump began his war. Only now, Iran can credibly threaten to close the strait if it doesn’t get what it wants from Trump — thereby causing havoc to the U.S. (and world) economies. Trump’s only remaining bargaining leverage is the threat of committing war crimes.
In other words, last night’s showdown was a clear victory for Iran and a clear defeat for Trump (although he’ll frame it as a victory).
The Iran fiasco is only the latest in a host of examples revealing how to defeat Trump.
In addition to Iran, similar strategies have been used by China, Russia, Canada, Mexico, and Greenland. Inside the United States, the people of Minneapolis have used them, as have Harvard University, comedian Jimmy Kimmel, writer E. Jean Carroll, and the law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale.
What’s the strategy that connects them all?All refused to cave to Trump, despite his superior military or economic power. Instead, they’ve engaged in a kind of jujitsu in which they use Trump’s power against him, while allowing Trump to save face by claiming he’s won. Consider:
Iran knew it was no match for the superior might of the U.S. (and Israel). So it used cheap drones and missiles to close the Strait of Hormuz and incapacitate other Gulf oil installations, thereby driving up the prices of oil and gas at the pump in the U.S., which has put growing political pressure on Trump, months before a midterm election. Hence, Trump has been forced stop his war.
Monday, April 6, 2026
A farewell to Robert Mueller, by Eric Holder
https://open.substack.com/pub/ericholder/p/a-farewell-to-my-friend-bob-mueller?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=zv1g
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)