Is Trump a fascist? I still say no

Contra Robert Paxton, who Corey Robin says wrote "the book" on fascism, I reject the idea, espoused by Paxton three years ago, that Jan. 6, 2021 made Trump a fascist.

It's not whether the Capitol insurrection succeeded or not. It's Trump's degree of involvement or not. 

The Beer Hall Putsch failed, but Hitler was actively pushing it. Trump posted a vague message or two on Twitter, did nothing about getting the National Guard involved later, but also did NOT get personally involved with the insurrection (wrong, Blue Anon) and did not block the National Guard from eventually being called up.

Paxton might point to what he's written on the 1934 French coup. True that no leaders of far right parties seemed involved. But, it does seem that people with political standing, not just the 1934 French version of the Proud Boys, WERE active. Paxton himself notes of that:

On that evening thousands of French veterans of World War I, bitter at rumors of corruption in a parliament already discredited by its inefficacy against the Great Depression, attempted to invade the French parliament chamber, just as the deputies were voting yet another shaky government into power. The veterans had been summoned by right-wing organizations. They made no secret of their wish to replace what they saw as a weak parliamentary government with a fascist dictatorship on the model of Hitler or Mussolini.

Trump wasn't looking to replace Joe Biden with Viktor Orban. He was looking to replace himself with more of himself. And, other than Trump himself, while you had many wingnuts in Congress contesting various states' electoral votes, you did not have any Republican leaders outside the Capitol assisting the insurrection as it happened, nor joining Trump in advance to call for something like this.

The reality is that I think Corey Robin's own analysis is still true, as I wrote about a few years ago. Trump was, and is, a "disjunctive president." He's not a fascist. That said, we're still stuck in the Sixth Party System, and as I told Robin on Twitter, I think we're going to remain stuck there and it's a sign the United States is, while not a "failed state," is a "failing state." Also, as I noted at that link, in a comment to David Bruce Collins, it was "The Resistance," aka #BlueAnon, who first called Trump a fascist. It takes two to tango, or tangle, in a dysfuctional (and disjunctive?) political system.

While I'm here on Paxton, I think part of his thesis on Vichy France is wrong. I do think Vichy actively shaped its future, and I think both in France and beyond, Paxton decisively reset the historical narrative. I do NOT think there's a direct line, or even THAT close to one, between Vichy and the Gaullists. In addition, Wiki's piece on the 1934 putsch or whatever we call it, provides broader perspective, including that not all the right-wing groups wanted to replace parliamentary government in general. For that matter, I'm not sure that Paxton is totally right on claiming a bright line between the 1934 putsch and Vichy.

No, Jim Edmonds didn't roid, Reddit fucktard

On my blog post two days ago about how Juan Soto is NOT NOT NOT a "generational talent" wirth $500 million, the fucktards came out hot and heavy on Reddit r/MLB, where I posted this. People talking about the short right field porch at Yankee while ignoring OPS+, WAR, etc. are park-neutralized. People claiming fielding for a corner OF is overrated. People ignoring just how bad he is in the field. People claiming that, at just at age 25, they can project out his post-30 aging curve.

And, when I pointed out Jim Edmonds as a comp on some issues, on the issue of fielding and other things, one fucktard insinuated Edmonds was roiding.

Said chud posted an old piece from r/baseball that he claimed was support, as shown at left. It doesn't. Yes, the cutoff is 4 WAR, not 7, which Edmonds had.

That was after me posting a LONG list of people who were above 10 WAR when they got older, off this B-Ref page with every WAR value, in order, by player, age and season. I went with age-30, instead of 34, because that's where he originally started from, a blanket statement that everybody declines after 30. No they don't. Beyond that? Small sample size on his part.

I earlier than this mentioned that Dwight Evans had fully half his WAR from age 30 on. Chud didn't like that either.

Chud got butthurt in addition because I included pitchers, even tho his chart backs me up!

Beyond that, I'd never before heard insinuations about Edmonds roiding, so he's full of shit right there. He and others have been blocked and I am posting this there.

Let's go back to that B-Ref all time piece on WAR.

We will of course exclude Bonds and Clemens. A-Rod, Sosa, Jason Giambi, also excluded.

But, we will go back more than a decade. And, we'll look for EIGHT not seven or more WAR by decade, because the B-Ref list is top 500 and ties, and cuts off above 8 WAR. I'll still start at age 30, because that was the chud's cutoff line.

We'll list them by decade, in order of WAR, etc., starting with the 1980s.

1980s: 10.1. Steve Carlton, 35, 1980; Mike Schmidt, 8.9, 30, 1980; Lonnie Smith (really) 8.8, 33, 1989 (waiting for him to be accused of roiding); Rickey Henderson, 8.7, 30, 1989; Wade Boggs, 8.4, 31, 1989;

1990s: Cal Ripken, 11.5, 1991, 30; Rickey Henderson, 9.9, 31, 1990; Larry Walker, 9.8, 30, 1997; Craig Biggio, 9.4, 31, 1997; Kevin Brown, 9.1, 33, 1998; Randy Johnson, 8.6, 31, 1995; Randy Johnson, 8.6, 35, 1999; Mark Langston, 8.5, 32, 1993;

2000s: Randy Johnson, 10.5, 38, 2002 (OOPS! 3 Randy Johnsons of 8 WAR or above, age 30 or older, and two of them age 35 or older); and make that FOUR; Randy Johnson, 9.5, 37, 2001; Ichiro Suzuki, 9.2, 30, 2004 (maybe Johnson got roids from Seattle-days A-Roid, then that permeated the clubhouse?); Bret Boone, 8.8, 32, 2001; Curt Schilling, 8.5, both ages 34 and 35, 2001 and 2002 (he obviously got them from Randy, when both were with the D-backs)

2010s: Jacob deGrom, 9.9, 30, 2018; Zack Greinke, 9.5, 31, 2015; Cliff Lee, 9.0, 32, 2011; Max Scherzer, 8.7, 33, 2018; Roy Halliday, 8.6, 34, 2011;

2020s: Aaron Judge, 10.5, 30, 2022.

OK, let's sum it up.

From 1980s on, modern baseball, after first two rounds of expansion and more?

TWENTY-FOUR players at EIGHT not SEVEN WAR or more, age 30 or more. That was the chud's cutoff!

Even if we go age 34? Seven seasons EIGHT WAR or above.

Sidebar? As posted there?

All the TEN WAR seasons, post-30, age 31 or later, non-roiders:

Honus Wagner, 11.5, age 34. Bob Gibson, 11.5, age 33. Willie Mays, 11.0, age 33. Gaylord Perry, 11.0, age 33. (The ball was enhanced, he was not.) Lefty Grove, 10.6, age 36. Rogers Hornsby, 10.6, age 33. Babe Ruth, 10.5, both age 35 and 36. Dazzy Vance, 10.3, ages 33 and 37. Babe Ruth, 10.2, age 33. Steve Carlton, 10.1, age 35. Bob Gibson, 10.1, age 34. Carl Hubbell, 10.1, age 33. Cy Young, 10.1, age 35. Lefty Grove and Nap Lajoie, 10.0 age 31. 

Chud was butt-hurt by facts.

And, moderators got butt-hurt by me refusing to back down, and deleted it.

Palestinian Jews and Christians; how correlation is not causation, Paula Fredriksen

Paula Fredriksen is right that Jesus was NOT a Palestinian Jew. Palestine as a Roman province did not exist until after the Second Jewish Revolt. (That said, contra some Zionists, Greek has a "Ph as F" sound so don't go there with your pseudo-semantics.)

She is right (numbers don't lie) about the decline in Christian percentages of modern Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza.

She is wrong, though, when she implies that the Palestinian decline in the West Bank is due to the Palestinian Authority the same way in which the decline in Gaza is due to Hamas:

Bethlehem has been administered by the Palestinian Authority since 1995. Once a significant majority there, the Christian population plunged from 86 percent in 1950 to less than 12 percent in 2016. 

As for the Gaza Strip, it is even less hospitable to Christians. As the New Yorker reported in January, a count by the Catholic Church in Gaza, “once home to a thriving Christian community,” found just 1,017 Christians, amid a population of more than 2 million. After seizing control of Gaza in 2007, Hamas ended the designation of Christmas as a public holiday and discouraged its celebration. The dwindling population of Gazan Christians has been harassed, intimidated, even murdered. Were Jesus to show up in modern-day Gaza, he would find an extremely hostile environment.

In fact, the National Catholic Register piece to which she links directly refutes her attempt at bright-line causation in the West Bank:

Many people explain that the declining Christian population in Palestine is due to the overall difficulties of living in Palestine, not because of overt discrimination towards Christians. "Even Muslims are leaving; of course, it will not be as evident to see how many Muslims are leaving compared to the Christians, because the Christians are really a minority," said Sr. Lucia Corradin, a Elizabethan sister from Italy who works at the Caritas Baby Hospital. 

In Israel, where Arab Christians have comparatively more opportunities than their Palestinian counterparts, the Christian population has stayed stable. The Christian population grew by about 5,000 in the past 20 years. Today Christians in Israel number 164,700, about 2 percent of the population, a similar ratio to past decades. ... 

Nabil Giacaman, a Catholic shop owner of the "Christmas House" store on Manger Square, said media emphasis on the shrinking Christian population was part of an effort to create an internal divide in Palestinian society. "It's not about Christians and Muslims, it's not that I'm facing these issues only because I'm a Christian," said Giacaman. "As Muslims suffer, Christians also suffer. At the end, we are all Palestinian, we get the same permits and the same treatment at the checkpoints."

As I see it, per that second paragraph, it's like how the government of Israel gives special consideration to the Druze. Divida et impera, Fredriksen.

Oh, and by the way, the column doesn't mention that Fredriksen converted to Judaism and has taught at Hebrew University. Nor that she, at least until recently, split her living time between Boston and Jerusalem. At least it's West Jerusalem.

That said, as an ex-Christian Jew speaking less than fully skeptically about the Resurrection story, or trying to have her cake and eat it too on Augustine, or appearing to give higher credibility to John's historicity than warranted (given it's likely the latest of the four canonicals is problem one) her intellectual chops aren't all that. I got the above hits while Googling to see if she's Zionist. No, really. With her name and "Zionist" both in search quotes on DuckDuckGo, no hits. With "Zionism" instead, one hit, not much help; it's in the first paragraph of a book review by her.

I await her commenting on the Yahweh-ordered holocaust against Amalek and with more honesty than the lack thereof from Michael Hudson.

Right-wing rural resentment is NOT "rage" — but liberal suckerdom still is

So says a collegiate researcher from a rural site — Colby College in Maine. And, Nicholas Jacobs name-checks people like Amanda Marcotte for misusing his data.

Marcotte is herself a piece of work, a Hillbot who's as deplorable in some ways as any of the people Hillary Clinton called deplorables, but I digress.

Jacobs says that what the likes of her and other librul pundits, and the DNC equivalent of Nat-Sec Nutsacks, get wrong is thinking in terms of policies, not politics.

I think that's true to a degree. That said, I've heard this number played before. I'll get to that at the end of this piece, after giving Jacobs a fair and thorough shake about the observations in his article, which are plentiful.

Let's get started.

Jacobs then offers a few observations:

1. Resentment is in play, but that's not rage and is more rational
2. Racism does exist but is not a primary driver of the resentment
3. This is a politics of place
4. There's no one single reason driving it.

All good backgrounding.

Here, about one-third in, may be the nutgraf:

So, the problem Democrats haven’t been able to solve isn’t policy; it’s politics. And Democrats who give in to the simplistic rage thesis are essentially letting themselves off the hook on the politics, suggesting that rural Americans are irrational and beyond any effort to engage them.

Big old BOOM there. Followed by this one.

So, the problem Democrats haven’t been able to solve isn’t policy; it’s politics. And Democrats who give in to the simplistic rage thesis are essentially letting themselves off the hook on the politics, suggesting that rural Americans are irrational and beyond any effort to engage them. That would be a massive mistake, one that does truly threaten democracy. Democrats have an opportunity to do better in rural America. We need them to do better

And, that sets aside the hypocrisy of third-party-hating Democrats clutching their pearls over "democracy."

Personal observation? There's plenty of wingnuttery where I live, but people are, by and large, secure enough in their place that I have yet to see a house as Trumpiana-festooned as the one in one picture in the story.

Next, Jacobs calls out the authors of White Rural Rage for detailed wrongs. First is the fallacy of composition, and when you've engaged, in depth, in a classical informal logic fallacy, you have a problem, that I know.

As far as white Christian nationalism and their claims? Tim Dunn's Midland isn't rural, I can tell you that off the top of my head. Maybe the book's authors think all of "flyover country" is automatically rural?

Finally, as far as trying to get Dems to address politics, not policies, Jacobs pivots back to the issue of it being resentment, not rage. He notes that rural voters may often vote against their self-interest, but cites their politics of place, plus saying a sense of agency is involved. This:

Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not.

Is another good pick-up.

COVID exemplies this. California has huge metropolitan areas, but also, depending on exactly how rural is defined, plenty of ruraldom, too. Setting aside the hypocrisy of churches that were not in rural area on COVID attendance, I think rural areas wanted some flexibility on COVID policies.

That said, I do think Jacobs hits a foul ball fairly near the end, and it's not about Democrats but about Republicans. And, about those rural voters

This:

A fter portraying white rural America as an obstacle to democracy (and the Democratic Party), Schaller and Waldman call for a “ real rural movement” to “use the power they have, and start demanding something more concrete.” 

What they miss is that a real rural movement is already here. It is the rural movement towards the Republican Party that has been building since the 1980s.

Is a lazy follow-up to what Nicholas had said up to this point. 

First, even if the book's authors use sketchy poll data, Nicholas admits they're not 100 percent wrong on seeing how resentment plays out.

Second, and related, yes, resentment itself may be rational, but how it plays out is not always so.

Third, like the old Oldsmobile commercial, "This is not your mother's GOP." And, in specifics surrounding Trumpianism, the play-out of the resentment DOES seem more irrational, as well as more visible. It's a defiant middle finger, or a desire to "own the libs," that IMO might continue even if Democrats did a better job of uniting policies and politics to the degree possible.

Third, part two, is that national and statewide level Republican leaders don't really have much more in the way of answers than Democrats do, but are perfectly content to stoke the politics of resentment.

Fourth, it ignores the possibility that a fair amount of ruraldom knows what Dems say about being "takers" and don't care.

He does correct himself after that, trying to envision a politics that does address rural resentment. More bullet points:

1. Note the rural-urban geographic divide
2. Stop making it about racism, including both noting that racism still exists in urban areas and noting that rural nonwhites hold race-based tropes, too
3. Note that these rural nonwhites agree with rural whites on the geographic divide and the sense of place.

All good points. And not just for the coasts. Many urban Texas Dems could stand to accept this. 

At the same time, this appears to have a tinge of the "listening tour" to it, which Hillary Clinton touted but never did and Arlie Russell Hochschild did, but it was a one-way street. See my review below for more. That said, in the linked blog post, I mention Paul Waldman (whose book Jacobs is critiquing and even attacking) calling this a mug's game. I at least partially agree.

Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Russell Hochschild
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is one of those books where I'd like to have a two-part, split review.

I'd give Hochschild 5 stars for the listening side and 3 stars for the analytical side.

Since I can't, it's 4 stars, and let's discuss what she misses, or takes a pass on.

First, although she hints at the cognitive dissonance of the people she interviewed, she never spells it out. In fact, she never even uses the phrase. The closest she comes to that is using Gen. Russell Honore as a kind of a foil on environmental issues.

And, no, this is not a political science book. Nonetheless, sociology, like other social/soft sciences, can indeed engage in analysis and interpretation.

Second is the hypocrisy issue. Not so much toward the government when it's big biz doing the polluting, and the feds at least are trying to address it, even when Jindal's totally cutting state-level enforcement in Louisiana.

But, the hypocrisy of the highly religious voting to re-elect David Vitter to the Senate, when his sexual promiscuity was splashed all over non-Faux type news and surely got at least a few mentions there.

I mean, Hochschild just whiffs here. Unlike environmental issues, she doesn't even try to raise this issue in a roundabout way. And, Vitter's just a sample; just as she knows the pollution issue and red states, she knows the higher divorce rates, and related sexuality issues, along with high out-of-marriage birth rates for southern whites as well as blacks.

For those living in coastal enclaves, and wanting a sympathetic insight, perhaps the book is worth more.

But, for we liberals, let alone outright lefties, in these red states? The book tells me as much about Hochschild, in a sense, as it does her subjects. That's the only reason I didn't 3-star it overall. Basically, she seems of the mindset that liberals should do these listening tours whether conservatives do or not and that will somehow change their minds. I don't know exactly how the political breakthrough hurdles need to be cleared, but just a listening tour isn't one.

Beyond that, to tout this beyond sociology and as having a light for political science is wrong. That's mainly because there's an asymmetry at work.

Basically, no conservative sociologist would do what she did. We know, because Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve instead.

View all my reviews

First, note that Hochschild speaks about rage. That's anger, not resentment. To turn back to Jacobs, a subset of the resentful may have rage.

Second, this is Overton window territory for the professional exploiters of the politics of resentment. To trump Jacobs? That goes back to Tricky Dick.  

Of course, when you're Jacobs, and your book publishing CV includes "What Happened to the Vital Center," the game is up.  His more recent book, "The Rural Voter," from which I expect his essay is taken? Hard to say. No 4-star reviews, just ratings. The two 3-star reviews? One says it's too data-dense, the other, by a deep-fried capital-L Libertarian, says it's not footnoted enough and that it's elitist. Looking at his reviews, dude comes off as semi-nutter WITHIN Libertarian Party / libertarianism.

On the third hand, it's easy to stereotype, or to move from group generalization to individual stereotype. I have a neighbor in my apartment complex who's a trucker, and delivers a dedicated product — fracking sand. We were talking earlier, and he said he tells #MAGAts that Trump has no power to tell oil companies "pump"!

No, Juan Soto is not a $500M generational talent, let alone $600M

His agent, the notorious Scott Boras, wants you to think so, as he talks $500M (non-deferred value) for Soto's next contract (more at The Athletic) after he enters free agency next year. So do some fanbois of either Soto or Boras.

But, he's not.

Update: And, now that we're at the start of the World Series, unless some dumb GM comes along, he's definitely not a $600M talent.

As I said in various comments on the Reddit post where I saw that?

So far, entering his age-25 season, Juan Soto has had 1 7-WAR year and two at 5.5.

Mike Trout, at the same age, already had two 10-WAR and three 9-WAR years.

Mookie Betts, going through his age-25 to count it, had a 10.5-WAR, a 9.5-WAR and two 6-WAR seasons.

And, Shohei Ohtani (when arm-healthy to pitch as well as bat) is all that.

Part of Soto's falling short is that he simply is not a five-tool player. Trout and Betts are. And, of course, Ohtani, when pitching, is a unicorn equivalent of that. And, Soto never will be a five-tool player. He's not a base stealer, and he's generally not that fast. He's below average on outfield range factor and maybe average on arm strength for right field. 

There's a video at the top link of Soto's "game winning throw" in the season opener. Or you can watch here:

He's in medium right field, no deeper, when he gloves the hit. The throw is a one-hop throw, and also about four feet up the line. He still got the guy out. Why?

Because the Astros' third base coach knows Soto's fielding reputation and decided to challenge him. Against at least half the right fielders in the league, that runner is held at third all along.

==

UPDATE, June 27: Playing in the Mets' deep RF, Soto has struggled defensively — and heard about it, from Keefers Hernandez in the press box.

UPDATE, Oct. 22: As the Boras-led contract possibility puffing continues, let us take note that Soto came oh-so-close, but fell short of 8 WAR again, despite playing right field half the year in the Friendly Confines, for him, of Wrigley Field.

And, yes, technically, SOME of baserunning is not hitting, per discussion on Reddit. But, baserunning skills from the batter's box? Yes it is. Beating out grounders contributes to batting average. Turning singles into doubles or doubles into triples contributes to slugging percentage. Both contribute to OPS, OPS+ and oWAR and other things. 

Besides all of this? Bor-ass didn't claim Soto was a generational hitter. Nor did he claim he was a generational offensive player. He claimed he was a generational talent. And, he's not. Is he among the best of the generation? Yes. King of the hill? No.

And, if you claim Pujols roided? Or Berkman? Or Edgar Martinez? Or insinuate? Bye. That Dum Fuq claimed that Pujols' end-of-career resurgence proved he was roiding. Really? Then why not do it five years earlier?

==

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he were DH-ing by age 30. And, per WAR, that has a positional anti-scarcity angle on offensive WAR issues, and a ding for dWAR automatically.

Setting aside pre-25 vs post-25 on age? Here is all the players that have posted at least one year of 9 WAR or above since 2020. Lemme know when Soto joins that.

As for a future contract? Yeah, some GM will overpay.

Especially if a junior GM at Reddit becomes a GM. The stupidity at r/MLB, where I posted this, is rampant. People talking about the short right field porch at Yankee while ignoring OPS+, WAR, etc. are park-neutralized. People claiming fielding for a corner OF is overrated. People ignoring just how bad he is in the field. People claiming that, at just at age 25, they can project out his post-30 aging curve.

And, when I pointed out Jim Edmonds as a comp on some issues, on the issue of fielding and other things, one fucktard insinuated Edmonds was roiding.

Said chud posted an old piece from r/baseball that he claimed was support, as shown at left. It doesn't. Yes, the cutoff is 4 WAR, not 7, which Edmonds had.

That was after me posting a LONG list of people who were above 10 WAR when they got older, off this B-Ref page with every WAR value, in order, by player, age and season. I went with age-30, instead of 34, because that's where he originally started from, a blanket statement that everybody declines after 30. No they don't. Beyond that? Small sample size on his part.

Chud got butthurt in addition because I included pitchers, even tho his chart backs me up!

Beyond that, I'd never before heard insinuations about Edmonds roiding, so he's full of shit right there. So are a couple of others who are blocked. And, this is going to be expanded, this section, into another post.

Some people there know the facts on Soto's fielding skills or lack thereof. And, as I explained the lay of the land on that play at the plate, a lot of cases, Soto doesn't make that. And, B-Ref notes negative 4/yr on total fielding zone runs and -2/yr on defensive runs saved.

Oh, while we're here, for people who don't get sabermetrics (but like to call others "grandpa")? On the batting side? Runs from positional scarcity is -27 overall, or negative 3/yr. So, combine that with whichever of the two defensive stats one uses, and he costs either 5 or 7 runs a year compared to the typical RF. (Also, under advanced batting, he's slightly below MLB average on how often he takes an extra base, like going from first to third when the batter behind him singles.)

Finally, as far as aging curve and other things? He has NEVER to date done as well as his age 21 and 22 seasons in Washington.

But, especially per the part about likely moving to primary DH by 30 or soon thereafter?

First, I wouldn't give him more than eight years, not 10.

Second, if we put him as a 6-WAR player at $7M/WAR, that's $40-45M, not $50. 

Add it up? If I'm a GM, I give him 8/$325-350 (roughly what teammate Aaron Judge has) with opt-outs after year three and then year five or six. I certainly wouldn't give him 10/$460 (non-deferred value) of Ohtani, which I think itself is an overpay, as we don't know what his pitching return will be like.

And, Redditors? Lemme know when he has an 8-WAR season, let alone a 9-WAR one. Then, we'll talk about generational talent. 

And, mods deleted it because it's "just a blog." Really? Fansided is "just a blog."

How credible is Ohtani, or not?

At a minimum, per this LA Times piece, Shohei Ohtani looks like a naive sucker for his blind trust in body man/Man Friday/interpreter Ippei Mizuhara.

At a maximum, per this story linked within that first one, especially its second half, detailing how much Ohtani both 'lawyered up" AND "PR agencied up" after the news first broke, after he and Mizuhara both started to change their stories, but well before his no questions asked presser, it seems he is still hiding things.

Yes, Ohtani has a large penchant for privacy in the US. And, his bombshell wedding announcement seems to indicate that is true of him in general. Such penchant could either easily leave him a mark for suckers, or else be a good tool for nefariousness.

Next question is how much, or how little, cooperation will "hunk of metal" Rob Manfred get out of Ohtani? Question after that is, if the answer there is "little to none," what does Manfred do next?

Texas Progressives talk this and that

Former Texas House Speaker Joe Straus publicly confirmed the long-rumored last week: Christofascist Tim Dunn indeed did make antisemitic (being directed to the Jewish Straus) and more broadly Christian nationalist comments about government leaders needing to be Christian. Effect it will have on today's Texas GOP? Near zero.

Operation Lone Star has officially backfired with the arrest of a Texas National Guardsman for smuggling. I'm surprised this hasn't happened before, while adding that maybe it has happened and this is just the first time somebody's been caught.

SocraticGadfly, riffing on The Nation, has some critical thoughts about Richard Linklater and Lawrence Wright as squishes, based on Wright's HBO series.

Ball-less Texas House Rethuglicans, vis-a-vis the Smokehouse Fire, apparently don't believe in subpoeanas. (I assume the hearing was being conducted under auspices of the Texas House and thus had subpoena power.)

Off the Kuff sighs and reviews one more whiny sore loser election lawsuit in Harris County.

John Devine: the Clarence Thomas of the Texas Supreme Court. 

Interesting piece on school districts in or near the path of eclipse totality deciding whether or not to cut classes that day. Also interesting is the idea that Kerrville is "tiny." At 25,000, it most certainly is not. A. It's not. B. This is not the first time I've seen this type of rural-urban divide bullshit from the Trib.

Two Denton ISD principals indicted for electioneering. I hope a plea deal means no jail time, but contra the Texas chapter of American Federation of Teachers, they WERE electioneering with school district email. Pure and simple.

TxDOT is a bunch of thugs about I-45 in Houston. (That said, it's my experience that in other states, traffic engineers in general have an arrogant "we know best" attitude.)

Meet the Democrats for Ted Cruz phenomenon.

Why is the Texas Public Policy Foundation getting a tax break not really meant for it and why is weaselshit Comptroller Glenn Hegar not being more forthcoming?

The Fifth Circuit has, very interestingly, sided WITH a state prison inmate who sued TDCJ, stating that 3.5 hours of sleep a night was cruel and unusual punishment. Weirdly and sadly, multiple times in this ruling process, the appellate court has had to override federal district courts who "aren't getting the memo."

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project said vote in the HCAD races & demand local elected Democrats, including Dem. Houston City Councilmembers, be part of the fight. 

The Austin Chronicle reports on the change of leadership at Ground Game Texas. 

Adrian Rocha argues that President Biden should pardon all undocumented immigrants who have been arrested on marijuana possession charges.  

The Eyewall summarizes the latest 2024 hurricane season forecast.

 

Top blogging of March

These are the most read posts in March. Posts not from last month will be so indicated.

No. 10? Dental care as health care. Important globally, not just in the US.

No. 9? My critical analysis of Genocide Joe's State of the Union.

NO. 8? A blast in the past from 2017, my longform/total takedown, to which I make occasional small new notes and edits, of the late "Actual Flatticus" / "Alan Smithee" / IRL Chris Chopin.

No. 7? No, I don't "revere" the Constitution. A leftist reply to typical librul thought.

No. 6? A blast from WAY in the past, back in 2006, and yes, Tim Treadwell WAS really fricking nuts (and as a result, really fricking dead). Sidebar: Having read Herzog's memoir recently, going beyond what I said in the original about him pulling punches, he may also have been a bit manipulative, or certainly a bit novelistic. That said, Treadwell was really fricking nuts without Herzog's framing.

No. 5? Actually posted April 1, but it's already trending that much. An April Fool's Day, sadly all too real, presidential election news roundup.

No. 4? My thoughts on Guernica magazine's scrub of "From the Edges of a Broken World."

No. 3? Posted even later than April 1, but trending that much that quickly? My schadenfreude about the Libertarian Party going broke and imploding.

No. 2? My mocking of the stupidity of a Green Party candidate on Twitter.

No. 1? It turned out to be dated, but my thought on the first two rumored candidates to be Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Veep — Aaron Rodgers and Jesse the Body Ventura.

The problems of the shadow docket and the need for Supreme Court reform

This is an extended version of my review of Stephen Vladeck's "The Shadow Docket."

The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic by Stephen Vladeck
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Vladeck gets five stars but in my quarter-star system, he's not quite there. See below. (Note: I liked Goodreads platform updates of a year ago as far as they went. I decry it not following Storygraph and giving us quarter-star, or even half-star, review rating tweaks. As clunky as the website is, I still think they could have done it.)

Having read essays and journalism pieces by Vladeck already (bits of some incorporated into this book) I figured it would be good and wasn't disappointed. The "Conclusion" chapter makes clear what's wrong today. In a nice bit of petard hoisting, near the end of the last pre-Conclusion chapter, Vladeck uses as a starting point a quote from the plurality controlling opinion of three justices in the Casey case:

The Court cannot ... independently coerce obedience to its decrees. ... (The Court's power) lies in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people's acceptance of the Judiciary as fit to determine what the Nation's law means. ... The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions on the terms the Court claims for them, as truly ground in principle, not as compromises with social and political pressures.

And yet, this illustrates why the book is 4.5-4.75 stars and not quite a 5 star 5 star.

Vladeck COULD have mentioned the timing of Kennedy's resignation, his son work for Trump lender of mega-resort as well as last resort Deutsche Bank as Trump's banker and other things. He nowhere references the book Dark Towers, which covers a lot of this.

Elsewhere in the penultimate chapter, Vladeck rightly faults Biden's commission on judicial reforms for "milquetoast" recommendations and for being used by Biden for taking a 2020 election year pass. But, he doesn't plump too much for specific recommendations himself.

Personally? Per one thing I learned early on in the book, that the American Bar Association proposed an alternative at the time to what emerged as the 1925 Judges' Bill? That's my takeoff. The ABA proposed adding seats to the High Court (which Cowardly Lion Joe Biden has passed on) and having the justices address most appeals like a final version of a federal court of appeals — three-judge panels.

Today? We have 11 enumerated circuit courts plus the DC Circuit. Under the idea that Roberts (and other Chiefs) are chief justice of the US, not the Supreme Court, that means we need 13 justices, so each of the 12 associates "rides circuit" on one and only one appeals court, no doubling up, and the chief does do on none.

Excluding the chief from panels, then, that gives you four groups of three justices that could hear four appeals at one time. When all four are done, a computer redraws the 12 names and start over. Then, when that's done, you leave time for petitioners, as at a circuit court, to ask for en banc hearings, decide which of those to grant, and leave time for full court work.

Per Vladeck, it sounds like the ABA wanted all cases taken by panel. I would tweak that to reserve some cases, by law, for going straight to en banc, for sure, at least some of the cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, but this would still strongly reduce docket work, remove an excuse for abusing the shadow docket and more. The chief, meanwhile, could focus on non-circuit courts, ie FISA, the International Trade Court and the few other Article III courts that aren't in the regular district-circuit parameters, and in concurrence with Congress on so-called Article I courts. 

With 13 justices, one would adjust the votes for cert. Should it be six, parallel the four now? Maybe only raise it to five, since we're going to use three-judge panels for most appeals.

Also, within the 13 justices, since the DC Circuit is a sort of tertiam quid, maybe we designate an "associate chief justice" who gets that circuit as their riding.

This all said, in an April 15 Substack, and with linked older pieces within it, Vladeck does mention ideas for reform, and ones he likes less, including expansion. (In this, he sounds like a liberal not a leftist.)

Specifically on expansion, via one of those links, he pretty much hates it. As with the elimination of the filibuster, he thinks this would only politicize the court even more. I chalk that up to balllessness of Democrats (assume Vladeck is one, and not a non-duopolist) as much as anything. As for it reducing hte legitimacy of the court? The court's done that to itself, but yeah, to some degree, if it further reduced its legitimacy, I'm one of those people Vladeck references that would at least halfway welcome that.

View all my reviews