Texas Ten Commandments case headed to the Supreme Court

SCOTUSBlog reported yesterday, and has more thorough legal analysis than what the Trib does.

Here's the nutgrafs:

The justices have considered a similar law before. In 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring public schools to display a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in classrooms violated the Constitution. In an unsigned opinion, the court wrote that “[i]f the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause,” which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. 

In the 46 years since the Stone decision was handed down, both the court’s make-up and its religious-freedom jurisprudence have changed significantly. In particular, the court’s ruling in Stone rested on its conclusion that the Kentucky law failed the “Lemon test” – a three-part test, outlined in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman, to determine whether a law violates the Constitution’s establishment clause. Under that test, a statute had to be found to have a secular purpose, the statute could not promote or restrict religious beliefs or practices, and the statute could not foster excessive church-state entanglement. In 2022’s Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the court ruled in favor of a high school football coach who lost his job after leading post-game prayers on the field, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for the six-justice majority indicated that Lemon had been “long ago abandoned.” Instead, Gorsuch wrote, courts should look at history and the understanding of the drafters of the Constitution to determine whether a law or practice violates the establishment clause.

Well put. 

Part of the problem is that Gorsuch and others of the "six" badly framed Bremerton, and I suspect deliberately. That said, beyond that, the Court was presented a case that was itself deliberately misframed by Kennedy and his backers, and it became a tool for wingnuts. See Wiki's summary.

The plaintiffs are saying that Stone has not been rejected, whatever the standing of Lemon is. 

That said, per SCOTUSBlog, the plantiffs have another angle:

The majority also rejected the families’ effort to rely on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 decision in which the Supreme Court agreed that a Maryland school board violated the rights of parents to freely exercise their religion when it refused to allow them to opt their children out of instruction that included LGBTQ+ themes. S.B. 10, the majority stressed, “authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children’s religious beliefs (or their parents’).”

It's been speculated by many court-watchers that the Supremes would vote to overturn the Texas law, and a similar Louisiana one, on this basis or similar. I can see a 5-4 or 6-3 coalition possibly breaking that way, in what will be a three- or four-way fractured opinion. 

Per the 9-8 Fifth Circuit ruling, it's clear that majority there rejects entirely the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" not just broadly construed but narrowly.

If five or six justices agree, we're really in trouble. 

Talafreako hypocritico — now on pulpit endorsements

James Talarico, by late July Fox polling, and other sites, continues to post a small polling edge over Ken Paxton.

Kenny Boy remains much more ethically challenged than Talafreako, but the latter is not simon-pure.

Shock me again, but he's apparently violating his pledge not to accept endorsements from church pulpits. And, though he's not a lawyer, he's doing so in Strangeabbott-type legal-Jesuitical fashion: 

The Sunday before he’d announced his Senate candidacy, he’d gone to his home church of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian, he said, where his pastor, Jim Rigby, had addressed it explicitly. 

“He said, ‘You know, the new IRS rules mean that I can now endorse candidates from this position,’ ” recalled Talarico. “And he said, ‘But I won’t be doing that, because I still believe in the separation of church and state.’ That’s exactly how I feel. I will not seek, nor will I accept, any endorsement from the pulpit anywhere, because that boundary is sacred in my mind.” 

It’s a strong statement—one on which he seems to have compromised. On Sunday morning, at the Luke Church, in Humble, Pastor Timothy Sloan brought Talarico up to the pulpit and made a strong statement of his own. “In the spirit of my pastor, Reverend William Alexander Lawson—he would always say this whenever he had an official that came to the church. He’d say, ‘Now, we don’t endorse candidates. That’s not the church’s role. However, you should know who your pastor endorses and believes in.’ And I want you to know my full, total, and complete weight is behind James Talarico.” Talarico’s team shared the clip across its social media accounts, touting the endorsement of “one of the most respected pastors in Houston.” 

Sloan’s caveat that he is endorsing the candidate in his personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Luke Church, is delivered as a knowing wink—the congregation bubbles up with laughter at his “however.” It’s a technical loophole—not that such things matter anymore, as far as the IRS is concerned—that is pretty well annulled by the fact that it is being delivered from the pulpit on Sunday morning.

Yet more reason to either undervote the race or hope some write-in candidate is entered. And, yet one more thing that Kuff either will ignore or else put in his spin cycle. (The Monthly story was Aug. 11 and as of Aug. 18, Kuff had nothing, so it's on his ignore cycle. I know he reads the Monthly online often enough.)

And, per the next paragraph, Team Talarico immediately put it in their spin cycle:

When I reached out to the team, citing Talarico’s previous denouncement of pulpit endorsements and asking whether his position on the matter had changed, spokesperson JT Ennis pointed to the distinction. “James is honored to have the support of Pastor Sloan, a dedicated and trusted spiritual leader in Houston. As Pastor Sloan made clear, it is not the church’s role to endorse candidates—but that does not preclude faith leaders from speaking out in their personal capacities,” Ennis said in a statement. “As James travels across Texas to engage with places of worship, he will continue speaking beyond political talking points to address the deeper spiritual crisis facing our country.”

Gads. 

 

DSAcrats and the Bradley Effect and the Klippenstein Kronicle

It's clear that the the DSA Roseys are self-inflating expectations (while running away from past social media statements). Barring some new piece by Ken Klippenstein, per his most recent one, it seems many fellow travelers, per an old Deep Purple song, think it's not about the kill, but the thrill of the chase.

That seemed true enough after Abdul El-Sayed's much narrower than self-projected win of the Democrat nomination for U.S. Senate in Michigan. It seems more true than ever after Francesca Hong's loss for the Democrat gubernatorial nod in Wisconsin.

And, yes, BlueAnon, leaving off the "-ic" is deliberate, from the left, not the Rethuglican world.

So, why?

Part of it, per CNN, is crappy polling. Mainstream media — and not just print media, but national cable teevee people like, er, CNN — are spending less and less on polls. That means partisan polling rises to the front. Add in the corruption of prediction markets like Kalshi, and partisan polling then feeding back off that to try to create a narrative that may often be almost as fallacious as The Donald claiming he's winning in Iran, and there you go. 

As for Ken claiming "The Rebels Already Won," er, no they didn't, and this comes off in hindsight as flat-out performative spin. Especially with your ongoing refusal by silence to admit even a partial political mea culpa on Graham Platner, you come off looking less and less like a political analyst on Democratic party elections and more and more like the Substack version of a talking head. 

If that's what you want to be, fine. Be honest about it, because if you aren't, I'll keep hanging that label on you. As I read you more and more, I see less and less in the way of actual political analysis in actual electoral races. (For example, Ken in that piece, and notes after the election so far, has said nothing about Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both refusing to endorse Hong, and why he thinks they didn't.) 

Beyond that, as I noted off this Time piece, per the parentheses in the first paragraph, Hong was looking like a Pander Bear even before Wisconsin primary day. That said, my concerns about that Time piece includes Hong not being quoted, whether the author chose not to reach out, or she chose not to respond, while Crowley was. (I'm assuming lack of reach-out; the author never mentions the old journalistic "We contacted Francesca Hong but she chose not to respond.")

So, Wisconsin didn't even have a rebel running, not in all aspects. 

Speaking of all of the above? Here's a Substack restacking note I had to Ken's Aug. 14 piece about The Third Way ready to label certain Democrats, whether restricted to the DSA or not, as "extremist":

If only Ken recognized that third parties exist, and as part of his talking-head-ism, encouraged more readers to think about that. 

Also, wouldn’t this have been a good chance to ask AOC and Bernie, since he’s using their picture, why they didn’t endorse Hong, and what they think about this new Third Way policy statement, if they know about it?

As is, I think Ken wants the sweet spot of putting talking-headism on top of investigative reporting leaks, but without always getting into actual analysis behind those leaks. 

The Bradley effect? The degree of its effect, and even its existence, have been debated since it was first posulated. And, to the degree it exists, if at all, is it primarily or only about race? This:

While there is widespread belief in a racial component as at least a partial explanation for the polling inaccuracies in the elections in question, it is not universally accepted that this is the primary factor. Peter Brodnitz, a pollster and contributor to the newsletter The Polling Report, worked on the 2006 campaign of black U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr., and contrary to Edelman's findings in 1988, Brodnitz indicated that he did not find the race of the interviewer to be a factor in voter responses in pre-election polls. Brodnitz suggested that late-deciding voters tend to have moderate-to-conservative political opinions and that this may account in part for last-minute decision-makers breaking largely away from black candidates, who have generally been more liberal than their white opponents in the elections in question

Offers definite food for thought, as it can apply within primary races as well as general elections. Plus, with much wider use of early voting today, election-day voting, especially outside of senior citizens, still continues to break Republican.

So, if Abdul El-Sayed does lose in Michigan, you heard it here first. (The state has a minimum of nine days of early voting.)

On Hong? Per Ken's interview of her, she won a seven-way primary (presumably for a safe Democrat seat — Wiki confirms with noting it's the east side of the People's Republic of Madison) for the Wisconsin Assembly in 2020, with 28 percent. As for her "consistently leading polls"? Well, per the above, WHOSE polls, first? Ken doesn't say. Second, even if by quality independent pollsters, sure, when other candidates keep dropping out, you might float to the top.

Also per that Wiki page on Hong? Ken doesn't tell you she was a carpetbagger into that district in 2020, first. Second, it discusses those polls, saying her rise only really took off in July — after the Dem straw poll endorsed Sara Rodriguez, then other candidates dropped out, then she dropped out. There was nothing inevitable about her before that.

Third, the bottom portion of her Wiki page confirms what I say above and already said on Shitter: She was turning into a Pander Bear. (Ken didn't tell you that, either, in his interview story. It's true that this only started happening after the date of his interview, but Ken didn't append a note to that piece, do a follow-up or anything else.)

Update, Aug. 19: Angie Nixon's win in the Florida Democratic Senate primary may spin things further. 

I'll thank Don Huffines to stop further politicizing the Texas Comptroller's office

Glenn Hegar, the last regular elected comptroller, was bad enough. Strangeabbott-shenaniganed interim comptroller Kelly Hancock was worse.

And now, here's Huffines with the normally halfway anodyne news release about monthly sales tax allocations:

Texas Comptroller Don Huffines said many cities and counties can reduce property taxes due to increased sales tax revenue as local governments will receive $1.4 billion in sales tax allocations for August, 13.6% more than in August 2025. 

These allocations are based on sales made in June by businesses that report tax monthly and on sales made in April, May and June by quarterly filers. “The increased sales tax revenue distributed to local governments is a strong sign the Texas economy continues to grow,” Huffines said. 

“It is also a clear signal that many local governments with increased sales tax revenue can dedicate much of that to property tax reduction. Lowering property taxes is one of the best ways to make housing more affordable and help Texans with the cost of gas, groceries and other living expenses.”

First, as I noted, school districts don't have sales taxes.

Second, property taxes are high because .... capitalism, which Tex-ass Rethuglicans don't like when it gores their ox.

Third, they're high because no income tax.

Fourth, Dannie Goeb, with repeated jackings of the homestead exemption, rather than putting a reasonable increase on that, then a COLA, has played politics with property taxes for years. 

Fifth, the cost of living is up right now because of Warmonger Don's Zionism-driven illegal war against Iran. 

I can haz AOC's babies? Especially if they're presidential ones?

You know, like the old "I can haz cheezburger?"

AOC publicly announced she's freezing her eggs so the world has a long-term future possibility of little AOC-lets popping up. 

The piece has all the other funness you'd expect.

First, there's her distancing herself from the radical Democratic Socialists of America while still trying to triangulate off them for support of a lot of people who do back them. That said, per my riff on Klip, she was already creating her own Overton Window on Israel on official foreign policy a full year ago. And, even before that, she was one of the leading Pergressuve Cucks in the push to throw Ilhan Omar under the bus over "the Benjamins." THAT, in turn, was way back in 2019; a full year before that, she showed herself a squish on BDS.

Second, there's the attempt to thrust herself into the headlines by saying she's "open" to running for US Senate or President. She is old enough to be already eligible for the former, and for the latter as of 2028.

On the Senate? Chuck Schumer's seat comes up in 2028. To successfully primary him, she'd definitely have to fully claim an anti-Zionist line she's been reluctant to grasp. Frankly, I don't think she can pull it off. She'd also probably have to be honest, and not merely performative as in the past, on any "tax the rich" angle vs Chuck being in bed with Wall Street. He'd still be under 80 and would surely run for re-election. Kirsten Gillibrand comes up again in 2030.

Indeed, AOC the presumable pretendian JAP might shift yet more right vs Schnorrer Schumer. 

President? With her tacking right while Kamala is a Zionist Cop pretends to tack left on Israel, two women of color will have overlapping lanes. 

If you really want to understand the world of oil and gas

Read this piece, "Nobody is Denied Energy," then this piece, "A Barrel of Crude is Not Just a Fuel," to understand how both hydrocarbons play out in the global economy, and what's likely ahead for the short-term future.

In terms of "shocks" on both fuelstocks, and the Cold War 2.0 that both US duopoly parties produce, and aim even more at China than Russia? In the short term, China is pretty insulated on both. In the longer term, it is increasing its insulation on oil with EV buildout. Its exposure on gas is primarily on gas as feedstock for foodstuffs, whether fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide. But, it's ongoing pivot to Brazil as food exporter versus the US gives it some degree of insulation from US-based gas shocks.

Here is my Substack comment on the first piece:

Well put all around, especially on the coda of China and EV build-out. Yeah, five years from now, the oil window will look differently there. And, per what I said elsewhere on gas issues and food, China is free to continue to import more foodstuffs from places like Brazil and less from the US.

And on the second:

Great stuff all around. And, on 1941, Roosevelt underlings, while he was hobnobbing with Churchill, were the ones who actually tightened the screws on Japan on aviation fuel, and by the time he found out, a couple of months of screw-tightening were deemed too much to reverse. 

On fracking, you know like I do that much of it the 2010s was financially underwater, ergo, contra American exceptionalists, oil division, did not disprove Hubbert's Peak. And, per the general theory behind Hubbert, the fracking portion of America's oil and gas both will get tighter in the future. How much tighter and how quickly, I don't know? 

Per your one linked piece, on "Fortress America" pivoting to Latin America? Still won't affect China in Cold War 2.0, right, and also, under the current American regime, will be the old Dual Monarchy's "hotbed of nationalities." This sets aside continuing Chinese efforts at increasing inroads in Latin America. Then there's the issue of how much more sharply Japan and South Korea eventually look at the American alliance, kind of like the smaller Gulf states today, and what they can actually do, or try to do, to slip it. (Shorter answer is: It all depends on how much more rapproachment they want with China, right?) Pakistan? Already a failing state (that's a continuum, not a single point) a few steps down the road in the wrong direction toward failed state.

Go read both, along with pieces linked off them.