NeoScarlet

Some days.

Mamdani terrifies the Oligarchs. They need to understand that he's the compromise because if they continue to push our country further into dystopia to further their insatiable greed and need for control, something much more radical will be the reaction to it. They'll think of Mamdani as a moderate.

I don't think things are on a good trajectory. The US media is still controlled by the oligarchs. The VRA will be gutted. Gerrymandering and polarization are only increasing. They will still tip the scales in their favor and we need to work to divest them of that control.

The other key difference is that in those countries, those leaders were actually incredibly popular which allowed them to consolidate power. Trump has never been popular. The minoritarian systems within the US were a force multiplier but it's not a substitute for actual democratic legitimacy.

Every other country that has faced this kind of autocratization of their government has had to deal with relatively younger figures who could maintain and consolidate power over decades. Putin, Orban, Erdogan, Modi etc. all took years to consolidate power and eliminate democratic institutions.

I think when the history of this moment is written, it will become apparent that the oligarchs made a key mistake in their attempt to seize power. They hitched their wagon to a historically unpopular, 79 year old, term-limited Trump.

DHS Wants to Make Some Immigrants and Visitors Take a DNA Sex Test The public comment period for the proposal has begun.

1. A new proposed rule at the Department of Homeland Security would institute biological sex DNA testing of immigrants and visa applicants if DHS has reason to believe it would be relevant to their immigration status.

Read the latest from writer S. Baum.

Subscribe to support our journalism.

Screenshot of a tweet by Matt Walsh. His tweet says: “This is the enemy. Wretched evil parasites, motivated by resentment and hatred, openly plotting to erase our culture and identity and replace it with a dystopian communist hodgepodge of third world dysfunction. This is the fight for now and the future. Get in the game. This is it.” Below it is a quoted tweet from Greg Price that says: “Jennifer Welch to Mehdi Hasan at Zohran’s victory party: ‘Americans have no culture except for multiculturalism… Crusty white people need to learn how to embrace it.’” The quoted tweet includes a photo showing four people in conversation at what looks like a crowded event, with one woman holding a microphone while speaking to three men.

Matt Walsh has been crashing out for the last day and it's beautiful.

Starving the troops has famously gone so well for leaders throughout history. /s

heads up to anyone who holds trans kids near: amy harmon from the nyt is searching for and having a hard time finding people to interview to find out exactly what trans kids are doing when their care is limited or cut off, and for purposes of community safety, please shut the fuck up around her.

Also, I would not trust the NYT to protect anonymity if the feds or state officials came with a subpoena to reveal sources so they could go after those parents. They'd fold faster than a cheap suit. NYTs reporters aren't going to risk jail to protect a trans kid.

Don't talk to the New York Times about trans issues. They will betray your trust and use your story to undermine access to care. That's exactly what Azeen Ghorayshi did with families of trans kids in Missouri.

A woman wearing glasses and a white shirt speaks into a microphone during a podcast or interview recording, sitting in front of a red wall with The New York Times Opinion logo visible in the upper left corner.

After listening to Helen Andrews and reading her piece, I've come to the inescapable conclusion she hates women and is filled with self-loathing for being a woman. Yet another pick-me who is propped up by powerful men because she speaks to their prejudices.

Imagine looking like this and asking the question "Did women ruin the workplace?"

When people talk about the excesses of MeToo, they have to lie, because the reality is that there was no massive social reckoning forcing people to believe survivors or hold perpetrators accountable. In fact, there has been a significant backsliding and new punishments in rejection of MeToo

L.A. soccer stars blast teammate's 'racist and transphobic' op-ed calling for NWSL 'gender standards' Angel City FC captains Sarah Gorden and Angelina Anderson said the editorial by Elizabeth Eddy had "disgusted" the team.

A women's soccer player with the NWSL came wrote an op ed calling for genital checks and genetic testing of all players on order to play. Absolutely batshit stuff.

www.nbcnews.com/sports/socce...

He probably thought there's bad miasma in the air and needed to get out of there.

I'm one of the four fired employees. I was a writer & producer at Bon Appétit for nearly five years, during which I helped organize our union and sat on our bargaining committee.

I am, to my knowledge, the only trans woman in our union and the only trans woman on editorial who doesn't work at Them

A close-up excerpt from a Supreme Court opinion. The highlighted passage reads: “The Government also insists that gender identity is not a meaningful basis for identification—strangely begging the question why sex markers are required on passports at all.” Below the main text is a footnote labeled “5,” discussing whether the government suffers “irreparable injury” when temporarily enjoined from enforcing an executive order.

Gender markers shouldn't even be on passports at all in the first place. They are unnecessary and I'm glad Justice Jackson hints at this. They weren't even added until 1972 when women started to be able to travel independently of their husbands and fathers.

The government has previously made reference to potentially revoking the passports of those issued this year as part of the class. Unclear if they will actually try to do so and whether the trial court will allow them to do so.

A page from a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, cited as 607 U.S. ___ (2025), showing Justice Jackson’s dissent in the case Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Ashton Orr, et al. The text criticizes the Court’s decision to allow a questioned Executive Branch policy to proceed. A highlighted passage reads: “Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern. … This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.” The dissent argues that the Court unjustifiably favors the government and ignores harm to the most vulnerable parties.

Justice Jackson sharply dissents yet again from SCOTUS interfering with trial court decisions on important matters by always siding with the Trump administration.

Legal gender marker and name change is associated with lower negative emotional response to gender-based mistreatment and improve mental health outcomes among trans populations In recent years, Massachusetts (MA) and Rhode Island (RI) joined a growing list of states allowing residents to easily change the gender marker and name on government-identification (ID) documents. This was an important change for transgender and ...

The language in the unsigned opinion will be utilized to try and overturn existing cases and bolster increasing bans on gender marker changes. Incorrect gender markers on ID's can out trans people and subject them to harassment, abuse, and even severe violence. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

A scanned Supreme Court of the United States order, dated November 6, 2025, in the case Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Ashton Orr, et al., No. 25A319. The document discusses an Executive Branch policy requiring passports to display an individual’s biological sex at birth. The highlighted passage reads: “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases.” The Court grants the government’s application for a stay at this preliminary stage, reasoning that the government is likely to succeed on the merits and that the policy does not violate equal protection principles.

SCOTUS has granted a stay in Trump v. Orr, the trans passport case, meaning that the government will be able to once again deny gender marker changes to trans passport applicants.

This is a terrible decision with horrifying consequences for trans folks.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

What this order makes clear is that plaintiffs can collect a mountain of animus, the district court can write extensively about the record, and the Supreme Court will just go “nuh uh.”

A non-negotiable for Democrats in the 2028 primaries is that they must promise to expand and reform the court. The Supreme Court has lost all legitimacy to rule and it needs to be completely overhauled. Nothing less would be an abject failure and acquiescence to Republican ratfucking of the court.

No reason at all to do this besides hate

Once again, SCOTUS undermines the rule of law, its own legitimacy, and the lower federal courts with a 'back of the napkin' explanation that doesn't even bother to analyze the issue under the standards for staying an injunction—all to enable a bigoted attack on a targeted group.

TRUMP v. ORR JACKSON, J., dissenting identity. From 1992 to 2010, passport applicants who wished to obtain passports with sex markers that were dif- ferent from the sex assigned to them at birth had to submit evidence of surgical reassignment. In 2010, the State De- partment began allowing passport applicants to submit a doctor’s certification avowing that they had undergone clin- ical treatment for gender transition. Beginning in 2021, the State Department allowed applicants to self-select the sex marker that matched their gender identity. Through it all, the indisputable point of a passport re- mained: to “attes[t] to the identity and nationality of the bearer.” 22 CFR §51.1 (2024). The State Department’s sex- marker policies have thus long demonstrated that what is important for identification purposes is the bearer’s gender identity today. No matter. On January 22, 2025, the agency overhauled the rules for sex markers on passports, reverting to its pre- 1992 practices. Its Passport Policy now requires that all new passports reflect the holders’ sex assigned at birth. Why? Because two days earlier, on January 20, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14168, characterizing transgender identity as “false” and “corrosive” to American society. 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (2025). The order asserted that “the policy of the United States” is “to recognize two sexes, male and female,” which it defined based on the sex as- signed “at conception.” Ibid. And the order directed the Secretary of State to require that any new government-is- sued identification documents reflect the holder’s “biologi- cal” sex. Id., at 8615–8616. The State Department re- sponded by rescinding its prior sex-identification policies moving forward; transgender Americans who had previ- ously obtained passports with sex markers reflecting their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth could continue to use those documents until they expire. Several transgender Americans w

Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2025) 9 JACKSON, J., dissenting President from carrying out these supposedly legitimate ob- jectives. Thus, the Government’s asserted harm from being sub- jected to the injunction—its only asserted harm—is that the President cannot, at least for now, enact his preferred poli- cies regarding sex markers on U. S. passports. Even as- suming, arguendo, that this purported injury counts as ir- reparable harm, it does not suffice to justify the extraordinary equitable remedy of a stay pending appeal.5 What the Government needs (and what it does not have) is an explanation for why it faces harm unless the Presi- dent’s chosen policy is implemented now. It suggests that there is an urgent foreign policy interest in dictating sex markers on passports, but does not elaborate as to what that interest might possibly be. All the Government is able to muster is the statement that “the injunction forces the government to misrepresent the sex of passport holders to foreign nations” and to “contradict . . . biological reality.” Application for Stay of Injunction 34. But how urgent can this interest be when the Passport Policy itself allows transgender Americans who already have passports with sex markers reflecting their current gender identity to con- tinue using those passports until they expire? The Government also insists that gender identity is not a meaningful basis for identification—strangely begging the question why sex markers are required on passports at all.

The Supreme Court's decision to let the Trump White House implement its anti-trans passport policy is vile, and I appreciate Jackson going out of her way to include in her dissent, for the record, the administration's language justifying the policy. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Bet?

Honestly one of the worst, most disturbing paragraphs — on the basis of process, substance, and effect — I’ve read in a Supreme Court order or opinion in a very long time.