Paul Blumenthal

Indiana just rejected Trump's gerrymandered 9-0 map

GLASHEEN: Antifa is our primary concern right now. That's the most immediate violent threat we're facing

BENNIE THOMPSON: Where is antifa headquartered?

GLASHEEN: ... ... ... we are building out the infrastructure right now

THOMPSON: What does that mean?

Opinion | Pam Bondi’s welcome woke rollback The Justice Department rescinds regulations encouraging racial preferences.

You don't got to hand it to them, but at least the anti-woke are finally just saying what they're really against: the civil rights movement www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...

Stop printing lies in the newspaper. There need to be consequences for printing lies in the newspaper. He literally says and believes exactly this, several times per day and on camera.

BREAKING: Judge Paula Xinis orders the immediate release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from immigration custody

I asked the Pentagon about Pete Hegseth's mentor. Then the threats started. Journalism in the second Trump administration gets personal.

Check this out!

NEW: The redistricting wars aren't going to end with the midterms.

-Hochul committed to pushing through new maps in NY, Bennet + Weiser say the same in Colorado
-Dems will look to redraw in Wisconsin if they win a trifecta - other possibilities in MN, NV, MI.

www.huffpost.com/entry/the-re...

Insanity

United States District Court Northern District of California 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 25-cv-04870-CRB ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances.' Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one. Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, Defendants still retain control of approximately 300 Guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly. What's more, Defendants have sent California Guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops. In response to Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin this conduct, Defendants take the position that, after a valid initial federalization, all subsequent re-federalizations are completely, and forever, unreviewable by the courts. Defendants' position is contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ENJOINS Defendants' federalization of California National Guard troops. ' The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) ("TO what expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.").

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. • Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. 33 • Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Case 3:25-cv-04870-CRB Document 225 Filed 12/10/25 Page 35 of 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Guard to Governor Newsom. • The Court STAYS this order until noon on Monday, December 15, 2025. • Plaintiffs are ORDERED to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours. The bond shall be filed in the Clerk's Office and be deposited into the registry of the Court. If said bond is not posted by the aforementioned date and time, this Order shall be dissolved. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 10, 2025 CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge

NEW: Following last week’s arguments, Judge Charles Breyer orders an end to Trump’s federalization and deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

The order is stayed until noon PT Monday (Dec. 15).

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Opinion | At the Supreme Court, Scenes From a Judicial Backlash

1/ A few thoughts about @williambaude.bsky.social’s comment in yesterday’s NYT chat that, “It’s amazing how many of our problems today could be solved by a Congress that was willing and able to legislate in response to national problems.” www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...

Neo-paleoconservatism

Supreme Court Gets Roasted For The Mess They’ve Created To Their Faces “Our tinkering causes more harm than it does good,” Justice Sotomayor said of the court's interference over the past 20 years.

Covered what I thought was most notable about it here. As for how it will turn out, either they'll do what they always do or kick the can on the mootness issue www.huffpost.com/entry/suprem...

That’s about the same margin that Joe Biden won Miami by.

Kamala Harris won it by a much smaller 50-49

CONFIRMED: Eileen Higgins, a Democrat, will be the new mayor of Miami.

She'll be the city's first Democratic mayor since the 1990s. She flipped the office from Republicans, and does so easily. She leads the DeSantis-endorsed Emilio González 59/41 right now with most ballots counted.

Not even trying to pretend…. Code of conduct for US judges canon 5: a judge should not attend an event sponsored by a political organization or candidate. Judicial Conference: your thoughts?

So basically a bunch of people who died soon afterwards killed their country

Supreme Court Gets Roasted For The Mess They’ve Created To Their Faces “Our tinkering causes more harm than it does good,” Justice Sotomayor said of the court's interference over the past 20 years.

Today's arguments in NRSC v FEC felt a lot like a roasting of the conservative justices' campaign finance decisions www.huffpost.com/entry/suprem...

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor (U.S. 1830).

“Donald Trump and Republicans have taken us down this dangerous path of mid-cycle redistricting. We have no choice but to fight back. I support a one-time change to Colorado’s constitution so we can do our part. That process begins in 2026, but our maps won’t change until 2028. Right now, the most important thing we can do is flip the House of Representatives in 2026. Colorado has real opportunities, from CD-5 in El Paso County — a longtime GOP stronghold that’s trending our way — to CD-8, one of the nation’s top battlegrounds.”

Dem Sen. Michael Bennet, who is running for #COGov, has come out in favor of Colorado pursuing mid-decade redistricting.

CO would need a constitutional amendment to move forward. A grassroots group is pursuing one: www.redistrict.co

he was once a really good producer though! i'll give him that. also don't really give a shit about his opinion on anything, aside from how to structure an instrumental track.

This Could Be The Very Last Chance To Hold Trump Accountable For Jan. 6 Several lawmakers told HuffPost they want to make sure no one forgets the most shameful day in U.S. history — and they’re playing the long game.

EXCLUSIVE: For years Donald Trump has evaded responsibility for the Jan. 6 insurrection.

And for years, he has tried to kill a lawsuit that could hold him liable.

He has failed. Again and again.

This is it. This is the last chance to see Trump held to account:
www.huffpost.com/entry/lawmak...

guy who sings "Happy" in Saudi Arabia and for an IDF fundraiser is only about one thing

Sotomayor just torched the NRSC's arguments in this case and the conservative's "tinkering" with campaign finance.

The arguments here in NRSC v FEC are so absurd to make you want to tear your hair out. The entire argument here is based in the fact that the Supreme Court has torn up campaign finance law over the past decade-plus and that's the reason they need to keep tearing it up.

In the McCutcheon case, the court’s decision was largely rooted in naive expectations of how political parties would act once aggregate limits were eliminated. The aggregate contribution limits capped the total amount a donor could give in any one election, among all political parties and candidates. The intent was, like the coordinated spending limits, to prevent corruption and work-arounds of the candidate limits.

A key argument in the case was that, absent the aggregate limits, political parties could create a joint fundraising committee that linked all 50 state parties together with the national party and allowed them to easily shift money donated in one state to support a candidate elsewhere. During oral arguments, Alito called these “wild hypotheticals.” Then-Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority: “The Government provides no reason to believe that many state parties would willingly participate in a scheme to funnel money to another State’s candidates.” But that’s exactly what happened. Beginning with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016, every presidential campaign has created a super joint fundraising committee that then redirects contributions made to non-swing-state parties toward state parties in swing states or back to the national party.

Or the even more egregious McCutcheon v FEC, where the court directly rejected the circumvention argument made during oral arguments as not possible. Guess what?

In Citizens United, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, explained his decision by stating that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That has proved wildly inaccurate as the corruption convictions of North Carolina insurance executive Greg Lindberg and former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder (R) and the 2015 indictment of then-Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) all involved corrupting contributions made through outside groups making independent expenditures. (Menendez was later convicted of accepting bribes and acting as a foreign agent in a separate case in 2024.)

Kennedy also promised that, thanks to the internet and disclosure laws, corporations or others spending unlimited sums on independent expenditures could be held accountable by the public. But Citizens United enabled a radical decrease in the transparency of campaign spending as “dark money” nonprofits, which do not disclose their donors, became significant political spenders. These groups now make up a growing percentage of donors to super PACs. Though super PACs do have to disclose their donors, that does not trickle down to requiring disclosures of the donors to those donors — making the true origin of a large portion of election funding completely opaque. Similarly, the notion that independent expenditures are truly independent from candidates or parties has proved to be completely inaccurate. The largest-spending outside groups are those directly connected to party leaders or staffed by close aides to the candidates they support. Candidates provide information, like b-roll and directions on what messages to use in advertising for outside groups, on their websites or surreptitiously on social media. And in 2024, the FEC ruled that supposedly independent groups may directly coordinate with parties and candidates on get-out-the-vote operations. Billionaire Elon Musk went on to do exactly this with the Trump campaign and earned a plum spot in the White House for his efforts.

Take Citizens United:

The court wants to steal all possible power from Congress, at least when it suits their policy desires, for themselves.

But they know nothing about how campaigns are run or operate. Their campaign finance decisions are riddled with errors and naive understandings.

This also goes hand-in-hand with yesterday's unitary executive arguments. Why is the Supreme Court writing campaign finance law? Whatever the merits of the coordination limits, Congress should be the body changing them, not the court. The court's record on rewriting campaign finance law is terrible.

The Supreme Court Looks At Eliminating A 50-Year-Old Rule Experts argue it’s a decision the Supreme Court has no business making.

SCOTUS will hear arguments today to decide whether or not to strike down party coordination limits.

The court's recent history on campaign finance has been marked by a naivety (willful blindness?) to the impact of these decisions. What could go wrong this time?

www.huffpost.com/entry/suprem...

Folk theories that presidents are the sole representatives of the people's democratic will are really just arguments that Nixon and Reagan won by a lot and so Congress shouldn't have been able to restrain them vis a vis Vietnam, Iran-Contra and their administrative presidencies.