<....Yet 2022 was the first redistricting cycle in 60 years in which the federal courts did not draw any congressional districts in response to lawsuits.

The brief 5-4 order from the Supreme Court allowing Alabama to use its districts in 2022 was accompanied by 21 pages of dissents and concurrences from the justices.

In his concurrence with the court’s order, Justice Brett Kavanaugh advocated for the “Purcell principle,” which says that courts should not change electoral rules just before an election because it could create confusion for voters and election officials.

Although the Purcell principle has been increasingly invoked over the past decade, it has not been the precedent that the federal courts have followed in redistricting cases over the past 60 years.

Instead, when the federal courts were faced with congressional plans that violated the law, they would halt the use of the challenged plan and order the state to create a new plan that complied with the law because the election was approaching.

If the state repeatedly failed to create a legal plan, the federal courts would take the uncommon step to impose plans themselves before the election.

Election laws are traditionally the responsibilities of states and legislatures. Federal courts imposing their own redistricting plans is often referred to by judges as the “unwelcome obligation” for those courts.

Alexander Hamilton called the judicial branch of government the “least dangerous” branch because it controlled neither spending nor an army. Federal courts acting in such a political realm by imposing redistricting plans creates conflicts with the founders’ ideals of federalism, separation of powers and democracy. Since the 1960s, however, the protection of voting rights has been viewed as an issue so important that it warranted extraordinary intervention by the federal courts.

When faced with these circumstances in Alabama in 2022, the lower federal courts followed this precedent. They looked at the challengers’ complaints, found that Alabama had likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, prevented Alabama from using its districts and ordered the state to draw new ones. But this time, the Supreme Court intervened at the behest of the state.

Once the Supreme Court’s final decision in Allen v. Milligan upheld the Voting Rights Act and the lower court’s decision, the lower court case continued, reviving that court’s order for the state to draw new districts.

After Alabama failed to submit a map that satisfied the lower court’s demands, the court used a special master – a court-appointed official – to create the new congressional districts. The aim would be to enhance Black voting power in a second congressional district to comply with the law. The new plan was adopted in October 2023.

The November 2024 congressional election results will show the true effect of Alabama’s new court-made districts. But for now, they show the clear impact that federal courts can have on democratic representation when they prioritize voting rights ahead of upcoming elections.>

<Donald Trump is now planning to headline a political fundraiser on the day he demanded a break in his hush money trial so that he could attend his youngest son Barron’s high school graduation.

On Monday, the Minnesota Republican Party announced that the former president will headline its annual Lincoln Reagan Dinner event on 17 May.

“We are thrilled to welcome President Trump back to Minnesota,” state GOP chairman David Hann said in a statement. “I can think of no one more fitting to join us this year than President Trump.”

The fundraiser will be held in Saint Paul, Minnesota, a roughly three hour and 45 minute flight from West Palm Beach, Florida, where Barron’s graduation ceremony will take place.

The high school event starts from 10am ET. It is not clear what time the Republican fundraiser gets under way.

However, Mr Trump’s busy schedule that day comes after he falsely claimed the judge in his hush money trial wouldn’t give him a day off to attend his son’s graduation from Oxbridge Academy.

At the start of the trial in April, Mr Trump’s legal team asked the judge to allow the criminal defendant the day off.

Judge Juan Merchan told Mr Trump he was not going to make a decision until the trial was underway, saying that he would not be able to grant the request if the trial was running behind schedule.

Mr Trump hit out at the judge saying that he was blocking him from attending the special moment.

“Who will explain for me, to my wonderful son, Barron, who is a GREAT Student at a fantastic School, that his Dad will likely not be allowed to attend his Graduation Ceremony, something that we have been talking about for years, because a seriously Conflicted and Corrupt New York State Judge wants me in Criminal Court on a bogus 'Biden Case' which, according to virtually all Legal Scholars and Pundits, has no merit, and should NEVER have been brought,” he wrote on Truth Social on 15 April.

Mr Trump's other sons and allies got in on the outrage as well.

Donald Trump Jr reposted a video compilation made by right-wing online personality Jack Posobiec calling Judge Merchan’s non-existent decision “pure evil”.

“Judge Merchan is truly heartless in not letting a father attend his son’s graduation,” Eric Trump also chimed in.

Senate candidate Kari Lake called the judge “corrupt”, “heartless” and “cruel”, while Utah Senator Mike Lee wrote that it was “deliberately cruel”.

Despite all the complaining, Judge Merchan ultimately granted the request – saying on 30 April that it was not a problem for Mr Trump to take the day off for the ceremony because the trial is currently running to schedule.

His appearance in Minnesota on 17 May will also come after Mr Trump once vowed never to visit the state again if President Joe Biden won it in the 2020 election.

“What we've done for Minnesota, if I lose Minnesota, I'm never coming back,” he said during his 2020 presidential campaign. “I don't care. I'm never coming back!”

Apparently that promise didn't stick.

The Independent has reached out to the Trump campaign for comment.

Unlike his siblings, Barron has largely been kept out of the spotlight. After the end of Mr Trump's presidency, Barron left Washington and enrolled in the Oxbridge Academy in West Palm Beach.

He has since lived with his mother, former first lady Melania Trump, at Mar-a-Lago. It is unclear where or if he plans to attend college.

A source close to the Trump family told PEOPLE in March that if Barron goes away to college, there is a chance that Ms Trump will follow him.

“Melania’s main job is taking care of Barron,” the source said. “I think it’s possible that she will follow him wherever he goes to school.”>

<Gov. Brian Kemp signed legislation Tuesday that makes additional changes to Georgia's election laws ahead of the 2024 presidential contest in the battleground state, including defining probable causes for removing voters from the rolls when their eligibility is challenged.

Republican activists — fueled by debunked theories of a stolen election — have challenged more than 100,000 voters in the state in recent years. The activists say they are rooting out duplicate records and removing voters who have moved out of state.

The bill Kemp signed into law — SB 189 — lists death, evidence of voting or registering in another jurisdiction, a tax exemption indicating a primary residence elsewhere, or a nonresidential address as probable causes for removing voters from the rolls. Most controversially, it says the National Change of Address list can be considered, though not exclusively.

Supporters have said the probable cause definition would make the challenge process more difficult. Opponents have disputed that, saying the changes would enable more baseless attacks on voters that would overwhelm election administrators and disenfranchise legitimate voters. For example, people sometimes live at a place of business, which would be considered a nonresidential address. Officials with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office say there are more reliable types of information, such as driver’s license data, to confirm a voter’s eligibility.

The Georgia bill also allows challenges to be accepted and voters removed from the rolls up until 45 days before an election. That provision in part has prompted the threat of lawsuits from liberal groups because federal law says states and counties can’t make systematic changes to voting rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

The measure also says homeless people must use the county voter registration office as their address instead of where they live. Opponents have said that could make it harder for homeless citizens to cast ballots because their registered polling place might be far away.

Fair Fight Action, a voting rights group founded by former Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, slammed the signing of SB 189, calling the measure a “voter suppression bill that emboldens right-wing activists in their efforts to kick Black and brown voters off the rolls.”

“By signing SB 189 to become law, Brian Kemp delivered a gift to MAGA election deniers,” the group said in a statement.

Andrea Young, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, called the bill a “step back for voters' rights and voting access.”

"We are committed to protecting Georgia voters and will see the governor in court,” she said in a statement.

An email to a spokesman for the governor's office, Garrison Douglas, was not immediately returned.

The bill also grants access to Georgia’s ballot to any political party that has qualified for the presidential ballot in at least 20 states or territories. The change could bolster independent candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose campaign has spooked Democrats worried it could draw support away from President Joe Biden.

Other changes in the bill include removing Raffensperger from his ex-officio spot on the State Election Board. Kemp and Republican lawmakers had previously removed Raffensperger from his voting position on the board.

Many Republicans who believe debunked theories that former President Donald Trump was cheated out of Georgia’s 16 electoral votes in 2020 view Raffensperger as a particular enemy because the Republican secretary of state has forcefully defended the election results showing Biden won.

Raffensperger and some others had lobbied for Kemp, himself a former secretary of state, to veto the bill.

The bill, additionally, says that beginning July 1, 2026, the state can no longer use a kind of barcode called a QR code to count ballots created on the state ballot marking devices. That is how votes are counted now, but opponents say voters don’t trust QR codes because they can’t read them. Instead, the bill says ballots must be read using the text, or human-readable marks like filled-in bubbles, made by the machines.

The bill also requires counties to report the results of all absentee ballots by an hour after polls close. It also lets counties use paper ballots in elections in which fewer than 5,000 people are registered, though that change will not take effect until 2025.

<[Event "BCC Championship"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Nemchenok, Jacob"]
[Black "Schmitt, Larry"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C37"]
[WhiteElo "2123"]
[BlackElo "2180"]

<Donald Trump's dominance in the 2024 Republican primaries is still being hampered by Nikki Haley's ongoing and potentially significant support.

On Tuesday, the presumptive 2024 Republican candidate continued his successful primary season with a resounding victory in Indiana, winning more than 78 percent of the vote.

However, Haley, Trump's last remaining Republican rival who dropped out of the race in March, still managed to achieve 21.7 percent of the vote, amounting to more than 128,000 votes. It's the latest sign that a sizable portion of the GOP's base still does not want to support the MAGA former president.

When broken down further, the Indiana Republican primary results showed that the former United Nations ambassador achieved more than 30 percent in several areas, such as Marion Country, where the state capital, Indianapolis, is located, and the affluent suburb of Hamilton Country.

While discussing the results Ammar Moussa, a spokesperson for President Joe Biden's 2024 campaign team, posted on X, formerly Twitter: "Nikki Haley dropped out 2 months ago. Tonight she's picking up over 100,000 votes and 22% of the primary vote in *Indiana.* Trump has a GOP base problem."

Newsweek reached out to Trump's office via email for comment.

The results in Indiana were not an outlier for Haley. The former South Carolina governor, who was seen as a more moderate Republican candidate, managed to achieve between 20 and 40 percent of the votes in several states on Super Tuesday—including Massachusetts (37 percent), Colorado (34 percent) and Minnesota (29 percent)—on her way to winning more than two million votes.

Even after she dropped out of the race, Haley still received 16.6 percent of the vote in the key swing state of Pennsylvania on April 23, more than 158,000 ballots.

The general election results in Pennsylvania in November could help determine who will enter the White House next year.

In 2020, Trump lost the swing state to Biden by just over 1 percent, or 80,555 votes. Haley achieved nearly double the votes in the GOP primary than the amount Trump lost in 2020, with no guarantee Haley's supporters will go on to support Trump in the 2024 general election.

Christopher Borick, a professor of political science and director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Pennsylvania, told Newsweek: "Nikki Haley's significant share of the vote in the GOP primary in Pennsylvania is an absolute warning sign for Trump."

"Her 16 percent share of the vote is quite a signal for the Trump campaign that they have work to do in shoring up the Republican base in a crucial battleground," he said.

Borick added that Haley performed best in the suburbs among highly educated and wealthier Republicans who maintain "significant reservations" about Trump.

"In 2020, those Philadelphia suburbs played a pivotal role in propelling Biden to a fairly narrow victory, and the results in the primary indicate a challenging landscape for Trump to navigate this year," he said.

"To be sure, the primary results show Biden with his own struggles maintaining his 2020 coalition, but Trump's weak spots seem to have been highlighted to a greater degree."

In an interview with Lancaster news station WGAL, Trump downplayed the significance of Haley still getting 16 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania as it is a "very small number" that he will sweep up come November.

"All of those people are going to come to me because, first of all, what's their choice? Biden? He's the worst president in the history of our country," Trump said.

"There's never been a president so bad. He's incompetent. So they're all coming to me. We see it already, they're all coming to me."

The GOP primaries continue with elections in Maryland, Nebraska, and West Virginia on May 14. Trump will likely be confirmed as the GOP's 2024 nominee at the Republican National Convention in July.>

<The cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts for households, small businesses and the estates of wealthy individuals enacted under President Donald Trump has expanded to $4.6 trillion, according to new estimates from Congress’s fiscal scorekeeper.

That puts a massive price tag on what is likely to be a top issue in Washington next year as lawmakers grapple with the future of Trump’s tax cuts, which are slated to expire at the end of 2025.

Congress will also confront the deficit impact of renewing the cuts, as the US faces as “daunting” fiscal outlook, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel said in an interview at Bloomberg News’s Washington bureau on Wednesday. Extending the personal income tax cuts will cost $3.8 trillion alone. Other tax cuts set to expire in 2025 include restrictions on the estate tax and valuable write-offs for small business owners.

The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate, released Wednesday, is more than double the $1.9 trillion cost of the original Trump tax cuts — a more expansive bill which also included permanent reductions in corporate taxes.

The anticipated cost of extending the tax cuts could move lawmakers to seek ways to offset the deficit impact through spending cuts or by scaling back the size of the rate reductions. President Joe Biden has proposed nearly $5 trillion worth of new tax hikes on businesses and high-earners. Presumptive Republican nominee Trump has pledged to renew the tax cuts, but hasn’t released a specific tax plan.

The expiring portion of the tax cuts also includes reductions in individual tax rates and an expansion of the child tax credit. Last year, CBO estimated renewing the sunsetting tax cuts would cost $3.5 trillion.

Swagel said personal income tax cuts don’t stimulate economic growth as much as the permanent business tax cuts.

He said that CBO raised its projection for this year’s budget deficit upward from the $1.6 trillion estimate issued in February, approaching $2 trillion. The recently enacted $95 billion Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan aid package, an FDIC bank rescue and increased federal student loan forgiveness all are worsening the deficit outlook for the year and decade.

Swagel said on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power” that the sooner lawmakers act to address deficits, the less painful spending cuts or tax increases will be.

“We know the current situation is not sustainable. But we don’t know when that moment will come, when markets lose faith in the willingness of the United States to take on the deficit,” he said.

CBO in February said deficits would rise to $2.6 trillion by 2034. At that point, deficits would be above 6% of gross domestic product, a level reached only during World War II, the Great Recession and the 2020 pandemic. CBO also found that debt held by the public would rise by 2034 to 116% of GDP, the highest ever recorded.

Swagel also addressed the economic effects of immigration, pointing to CBO research that found the influx of foreign workers is expected to boost GDP by about $7 trillion over the next decade by swelling the labor force and increasing demand.

While those findings spurred a flurry of fresh number-crunching among Wall Street economists, prompting some to revise up their economic forecasts, Swagel said the impact from immigration on inflation has so far been limited.>

No-one can say <doe 174 the criminal> failed to take care of his own.

<Rarely is a presidential candidate on a glide path to the White House, with unexpected developments known for derailing momentum.

While President Biden and former President Trump easily secured the delegates necessary to clinch their respective parties’ nominations, and the race has largely proceeded as anticipated, a game-changing situation — or two — could upend the race in the six months before November’s election.

Several issues are already simmering, from global crises the White House is managing to Trump’s legal troubles.

Here are five possible twists that could shake up the presidential race in the coming months.

Health concerns force Biden, Trump from the race

Biden, at 81 years old, and Trump, who will be 78 on Election Day, are the two oldest presumptive major party nominees in U.S. history.

While murmurs among commentators about the parties choosing someone else have largely quieted down, some health event sidelining one or both candidates before November does not seem inconceivable.

Both candidates have emphasized their ability to serve as president amid questions about their physical and mental health.

In February, Biden’s physician wrote, following a physical exam of the president, that he is “fit for duty” and does not have any new health conditions.

Trump’s physician released a letter in November saying he is in “excellent health,” his labs were within “normal health limits” and his cognitive exams were “exceptional.” But the letter was considerably vague and did not provide specific details on what the labs showed.

Neither has a publicly diagnosed, significant health condition, but a major medical event remains a possibility for both men, as even younger presidents have experienced in the past.

A wider international conflict breaks out

International turmoil is already a backdrop of the presidential race, with two major conflicts ongoing. And despite U.S. troops not directly engaging in either conflict, the political impact is being seen.

The Biden administration had been pushing congressional Republicans to approve additional financial support for Ukraine in its war with Russia for months before the aid package passed last month.

At the same time, Biden has been navigating a tricky situation with the war in the Middle East, which has exacerbated tensions within his coalition from 2020. Protests have popped up on college campuses in recent weeks in opposition to continued financial aid for Israel.

Critics have also organized an effort to vote “uncommitted” as a protest against Biden in the Democratic primaries.

So far, both these conflicts have not pulled the U.S. in directly. But if they were to spill over — if Russia were to attack a NATO country, for example, or Iran were to get more involved in the Israel-Hamas war — direct military involvement may be deemed necessary.

That kind of development could boost or set back Biden’s campaign, depending on the public’s view of the conflict....>

<....RFK Jr. or other third-party candidates gain more traction

Despite the third-party candidates in the race mostly polling in the single digits, both major parties have recently gone on offense against independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has at times polled just above 10 percent.

The Democratic National Committee has formed a team to address third-party and independent candidates running this year. Trump has also recently turned his attention to Kennedy, calling him a “Democratic plant” and “not a serious candidate.”

Even with Kennedy sometimes cracking double digits, he would still need to improve to potentially make the debate stage in the fall. If he does, the first three-person general election debate in three decades could add another element of unpredictability.

In addition to Kennedy, Cornel West is running as an independent, and Jill Stein appears likely to be the Green Party nominee again. Still, both are receiving no more than 1 or 2 percent support in the polls currently.

A surge for one or more of these candidates could change the outlook for the race. While they’re all long shots for the presidency, a rise from any could yield uncertain results.

Economy experiences a downturn or recession

The economy is often a key campaign issue in presidential elections, and polls have shown the topic to be a top concern for voters this year.

Although unemployment has consistently remained at a historically low rate — under 4 percent — polls show many Americans are pessimistic, especially in light of lingering inflation that has dropped significantly in the past year but remains above the Federal Reserve’s target of 2 percent.

Biden has sought to balance emphasizing his administration’s success in maintaining low unemployment with recognizing the continued higher prices raising the cost of living. While the economy remains stable, that could be a viable strategy.

But if an economic downturn or a recession were to happen, Biden would be in a considerably tougher spot to try to convince Americans of his economic message. On the other hand, a drop in inflation allowing the Fed to lower interest rates for the first time in months could spark the optimism that the president needs.

Trump is convicted or acquitted in New York case

The twist that is most expected to come — as soon as a few weeks from now — is the return of a verdict in the first criminal trial of a former president.

Trump’s trial over alleged hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels has been ongoing for a few weeks and could wrap up before the summer starts. The trial may be the only one of the four cases Trump is facing that takes place before Election Day.

If Trump is found not guilty, he will likely declare victory and it proves the charges were politically motivated, as he has claimed.

If Trump is convicted, it would be unprecedented, but the impacts are unclear. Polling has been mixed on whether a conviction in this case would notably hurt Trump.

One poll found 57 percent of those surveyed consider the hush money charges to be serious, and the same amount say Trump shouldn’t be president if convicted of a serious crime. Another poll found that those who said a conviction would make them reconsider support for Trump overwhelmingly would not vote for Biden.

But even a small change one way or another could make the difference.>

We need no Orban--yeah, your scumbag tinpot dictator, <antichrist>.

<A Georgia appeals court on Wednesday agreed to review a lower court ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to continue to prosecute the election interference case she brought against former President Donald Trump.

The move seems likely to delay the case and is the second time in as many days that the former president has gotten a favorable ruling that could push any future trials beyond the November election, when he is expected to be the Republican nominee for president. A day earlier, the judge in his Florida classified documents case indefinitely postponed that trial date.

Trump and some other defendants in Georgia had tried to get Willis and her office removed the case, saying her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee in March found that no conflict of interest existed that should force Willis off the case, but he granted a request from Trump and the other defendants to seek an appeal of his ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals.

That intermediate appeals court agreed on Wednesday to take up the case. Once it rules, the losing side could ask the Georgia Supreme Court to consider an appeal.

Trump's lead attorney in Georgia, Steve Sadow, said in an email that the former president looks forward to presenting arguments to the appeals court as to why the case should be dismissed and why Willis “should be disqualified for her misconduct in this unjustified, unwarranted political persecution.”

A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment on the Court of Appeals decision to take up the matter.

In his order, McAfee said he planned to continue to address other pretrial motions “regardless of whether the petition is granted ... and even if any subsequent appeal is expedited by the appellate court.” But Trump and the others could ask the Court of Appeals to stay the case while the appeal is pending.

McAfee wrote in his order in March that the prosecution was “encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.” He said Willis could remain on the case only if Wade left, and the special prosecutor submitted his resignation hours later.

The allegations that Willis had improperly benefited from her romance with Wade resulted in a tumultuous couple of months in the case as intimate details of Willis and Wade’s personal lives were aired in court in mid-February. The serious charges in one of four criminal cases against the Republican former president were largely overshadowed by the love lives of the prosecutors.

Trump and 18 others were indicted in August, accused of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn his narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia.

All of the defendants were charged with violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, law, an expansive anti-racketeering statute. Four people charged in the case have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty.

Trump and other defendants had argued in their appeal application that McAfee was wrong not to remove both Willis and Wade, writing that “providing DA Willis with the option to simply remove Wade confounds logic and is contrary to Georgia law.”

The allegations against Willis first surfaced in a motion filed in early January by Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for former Trump campaign staffer and onetime White House aide Michael Roman. The motion alleged that Willis and Wade were involved in an inappropriate romantic relationship and that Willis paid Wade large sums for his work and then benefitted when he paid for lavish vacations.

Willis and Wade acknowledged the relationship but said they didn’t begin dating until the spring of 2022, after Wade was hired in November 2021, and their romance ended last summer. They also testified that they split travel costs roughly evenly, with Willis often paying expenses or reimbursing Wade in cash.>

<During her confirmation hearing in 2022, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson introduced herself to Congress as an originalist. This surprising move from a presumptively liberal justice signified to many the triumph of originalism as the accepted methodology of the Supreme Court. Jackson was following in the footsteps of Justice Elena Kagan, who famously declared that “we are all originalists now” during her own confirmation.

Kagan, however, came to regret that quip after watching her conservative colleagues implement a series of GOP policy preferences in the name of applying the Constitution’s “original” meaning, which is what originalism claims to be. She is surely not the only progressive with second thoughts: The legal left’s embrace of originalism was a major influential development in the 12 years between Kagan’s and Jackson’s elevation to the court—one that’s arguably waning today, despite Jackson’s appointment. After three terms of precedent-smashing activism by the Supreme Court’s 6–3 conservative supermajority, almost always under the banner of originalism, the methodology looks more intellectually bankrupt, manipulable, and dangerous than ever.

Some liberals have responded with accusations that this supermajority peddles “fauxriginalism,” cherry-picking history to fit Republicans’ favored results. This allegation is certainly true, but doesn’t answer the underlying question: Is it even a good idea to concede that the “original meaning” of the Constitution—even if it could be reliably ascertained—is the authoritative one? Jackson’s approach illustrates the benefits and risks of trying to beat originalists at their own game from the left. And with each passing term, the payoff looks smaller and smaller.

For progressives, the problems begin with the origin of the theory. Conservative scholars, politicians, and activists developed the idea of originalism in response to Brown v. Board of Education—yes, the decision that desegregated public school—arguing that the Framers of the 14th Amendment would never have intended to integrate public education. They may have been right about that claim: The same Congress that proposed the 14th Amendment in 1866 segregated the District of Columbia’s public schools, while a supermajority of states that ratified the amendment also strictly separated education by race. That doesn’t mean the push toward integration was the wrong move for our country and our 20th-century understanding of what equal rights ought to mean legally. Regardless, in the coming decades, the burgeoning conservative legal movement refined and pushed the theory to combat other contested Supreme Court decisions, including Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut (birth control), Miranda v. Arizona (self-incrimination), Reynolds v. Sims (malapportionment), and Regents v. Bakke (affirmative action).

Today, originalism is the house style of the Federalist Society, the lavishly funded network of conservative lawyers who provide intellectual cover for the Republican Party’s preferred policies. It’s propounded, to some degree, by all six conservative justices, who have placed it at the center of their continual smash-and-grab campaign against progressive precedent. When the Supreme Court overruled Roe, its justification boiled down to a single claim: Abortion was largely illegal when the 14th Amendment was ratified, so it may still be criminalized today. When the court established a new right to carry guns in public, it deployed the same reasoning: People could allegedly carry guns in public when the Second Amendment was ratified, so they have a right to do so today. And when the court struck down affirmative action? Same story: The original meaning of the equal protection clause requires the law to be “colorblind,” the court declared.

This last decision gave Jackson an opportunity to flaunt her skills as a progressive originalist, as did an earlier case designed to gut the Voting Rights Act’s remnants. In both, she delivered: The justice drew heavily upon the work of historians, like Eric Foner, who reject the “colorblind” conception of the 14th Amendment in favor of a nuanced interpretation that allows for “race-conscious” remedies to protect minorities’ equal citizenship. Jackson pitched this theory in a lengthy monologue during oral arguments in the voting rights case—her second day on the bench—as if to warn her conservative colleagues that their bogus originalism would no longer go unchallenged. And perhaps her shaming strategy worked, since the court ultimately delivered an unlikely victory for the Voting Rights Act.....>

<....Jackson’s approach here echoed the work of advocacy groups that seek to employ originalism for progressive ends, most prominently the well-respected Constitutional Accountability Center. The goal here is to engage with conservative judges on their own turf, demonstrating that their own methodology would actually yield a liberal result if they did it honestly. In short, these advocates try to out-originalist the originalists. And on select topics, the tactic can work marvels. Race is one example, since the conservative fixation with a “colorblind” Constitution so obviously contradicts the historical record. Federal power is another, since the Framers clearly gave Congress sweeping powers to regulate commerce. (That’s why Jackson’s most important majority opinion so far is an originalist defense of Congress’ ability to create private rights through its spending power.) Many protections for criminal defendants, too, like the right to trial by jury and the guarantee against self-incrimination, have strong historical foundations.

Other liberties treasured by progressives, however, do not end up saved by progressive originalism. The Supreme Court’s historical analysis in Dobbs may have been sloppy and inaccurate, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s no evidence Americans thought the 14th Amendment safeguarded abortion back in the 1860s when it was written. Selectively deploying originalism when it bolsters progressive aims does not solve the underlying problem: that, as Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins has put it, the theory champions the views of “the few white men who made laws and shaped lives during the mostly racist and misogynistic very old days.” This flaw may be most pronounced in cases involving the civil rights of those whom the authors of the Constitution scorned or ignored.

Consider, for instance, a group of people who were excluded from the political process—indeed, from public life—when the 14th Amendment was ratified: women. Sex equality is rooted in the amendment’s equal protection clause, which became law in 1868. During this period, though, in most of the country, women had virtually no rights at all. Married women could not own property, sign contracts, or file lawsuits under the doctrine of “coverture,” which subsumed their legal identity into that of their husband. Men could legally beat their wives under the doctrine of chastisement, which allowed for “moderate” physical violence in the home. As one court put it in 1868 while upholding the acquittal of a man who whipped his wife, the judiciary could “not interfere with family government in trifling cases.” (This history suddenly became relevant when the lower courts struck down a law barring domestic abusers from possessing firearms.)

Conservative litigants are not even shy about citing this evidence when defending discriminatory laws. South Carolina placed it front and center when arguing for same-sex marriage bans in 2015. The state cited congressional debates over the 14th Amendment’s impact on coverture laws that denied women equal citizenship. At the time of the amendment’s adoption, some congressmen fretted that the new amendment might restrict the ability of states to discriminate against women. Contemporaneous comments from the primary author of the 14th Amendment himself, Rep. John Bingham, assured them that the new promise of equality would not interfere with state control over “domestic relations.” His comments reflected a broad consensus from the time, reflected in the congressional record, that the amendment would not establish equality, or even a baseline of civil rights, for women. (South Carolina cited this history to show that discrimination against both women and gay people remained constitutional, by the way.) If the Supreme Court adopted this reading of the equal protection clause, it would have to overturn every past ruling against sex discrimination, making husbands the “head and master” of their households once again.

Progressive originalists generally respond to this obstacle by defining rights at a higher level of generality. The Constitutional Accountability Center, for example, argues that the equal protection clause forbids discrimination against women and gay people by outlawing “class-based” legislation. By denying rights to an entire group of people, the theory goes, the government condemns them to second-class status, stamping them with an impermissible badge of legal inferiority....>

<....It’s a fine idea—but is it really originalism? The answer probably depends on whether you want to salvage originalism or supplant it. If you want to salvage it, then sure: It’s perfectly acceptable to define rights so broadly, on such an abstract level, that they can be squared with the “original meaning” of the Constitution. As George Washington University law professor Peter J. Smith has persuasively argued, that is in fact precisely what today’s conservatives already do when mounting an originalist defense of Brown v. Board of Education. Evidence that the 14th Amendment’s Framers supported school segregation is overwhelming. So Brown’s defenders on the right define “equal protection” with sufficient abstraction to mandate integrated public education.

Should progressives want to salvage originalism, though? Why step in to shore up a flailing theory that was born out of contempt for Black children, women, and criminal defendants? A theory that the Supreme Court is currently manipulating to impose conservative policy goals like nationwide public carry under the thin guise of judicial review?

Because originalist justices like Clarence Thomas are so incredibly bad at interpreting history, cherry-picking facts and crediting debunked sources, it may be tempting to conclude that they’re just doing it wrong. But why do it at all? The strong argument for progressive originalism is the hope that advocates can convince conservative judges to issue liberal decisions if they just present enough historical evidence. That hope feels increasingly hollow. When Thomas is presented with proof that his past views were rooted in bogus history, he simply dismisses it. Activist scholars flood the nation’s law journals, which are not peer-reviewed, with tendentious or outright false historical claims, which conservative justices then cite as the gospel truth. This is less like a legitimate judicial or academic enterprise than like a scam to reverse-engineer outcomes to fit a partisan agenda. Pointing out inaccuracies is not going to change the outcomes.

With originalism’s reputation so tarnished, maybe progressives should stop co-opting the right’s brand altogether. Maybe they should embrace constitutional values like equality without squeezing them into a framework that was literally designed to shut out minorities from full citizenship. Maybe rather than trying to beat conservatives at their own game, progressives should present a competing vision of constitutional interpretation to the public—one which acknowledges that original meaning is often unknowable, and too frequently shackled to the antiquated views of dead white men. And maybe that would give disillusioned Americans a reason to believe in the rule of law once again.>

<The U.S. oil industry is drawing up ready-to-sign executive orders for Donald Trump aimed at pushing natural gas exports, cutting drilling costs and increasing offshore oil leases in case he wins a second term, according to energy executives with direct knowledge of the work.

The effort stems from the industry’s skepticism that the Trump campaign will be able to focus on energy issues as Election Day draws closer — and worries that the former president is too distracted to prepare a quick reversal of the Biden administration’s green policies. Oil executives also worry that a second Trump administration won’t attract staff skillful enough to roll back President Joe Biden’s regulations or craft new ones favoring the industry, these people added.

Six energy industry lawyers and lobbyists interviewed by POLITICO described the effort to craft executive orders and other policy paperwork that they see as more effective than anything a second Trump administration could devise on its own. Those include a quick reversal of Biden’s pause on new natural gas export permits and preparations for wider and cheaper access to federal lands and waters for drilling.

The initiative is just one example of the efforts underway from multiple advocacy groups with strong policy agendas — including abortion-rights opponents — to fill in the gaps for Trump’s potential return to the White House. The presumptive Republican nominee has been a vocal supporter of the oil and gas industry, but the companies often chafed at the effects of his policies as president, including his trade wars and the legal challenges that thwarted some of his pro-fossil-fuel actions.

Trump, who is spending many of his days facing trial in a Manhattan courtroom, has had little time to delve into policy issues with industry officials. In his absence, oil industry officials said they’re not sure who speaks for him on the issues they want to address. And while generally unhappy with Biden’s attempts to rein in their industry, some have expressed nervousness about what policies Trump might pursue.

"Other than what Donald Trump says off the cuff, I don’t think they’re taking much advice on energy strategy,” Frank Maisano, senior principal at the government relations firm Bracewell, said of the ex-president’s campaign. “He’s going to complain about gas prices, he’s going to complain about [natural gas], but only in the general sense because the details are complex."

So oil industry lawyers have decided to fill the breach. Industry representatives have already prepared some executive orders for Trump to sign if he reaches the White House, said Stephen Brown, director of energy consulting firm RBJ Strategies and a former refining industry lobbyist. Undoing Biden’s actions would be a major target.

“You’ll see a lot of Biden regulations that have come out in the past six months checked one way or another,” Brown said in an interview. “It’s going to be like shooting fish in the barrel — there's just so much to go after.”

The Biden policies they would seek to unravel include a new fee on leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas equipment on federal land. The industry also wants to change an Environmental Protection Agency risk management rule focused on preventing refinery accidents, Brown said.

One energy company lawyer said he was working on executive order language on gas exports and “a real five-year plan” for offshore oil leases for a second Trump administration.

“Supportive industries are going to have to prop up a second Trump administration with expertise,” said the person, who was granted anonymity to discuss confidential planning. “We’re going to have to write exactly what we want, actually spoon feeding the administration. There’s 27-page drafts moving around Washington.”

The Trump campaign’s Agenda 47 website has listed broad-stroke promises: Cut taxes on oil companies, speed up work for oil and pipeline projects and reverse Biden’s pause on gas export permits. But the industry people said they’ve seen little indication from Trump or those in his orbit what actions he would take to make those promises a reality.

Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt declined to say who is advising Trump on energy issues, only reiterating the campaign’s previous statements that outside groups don’t reflect official strategy or policy.

Sierra Club managing attorney Elena Saxonhouse said adherence to the fossil fuel industry’s agenda would be a continuation of the previous Trump administration, in which industry insiders — including former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler and oil industry lawyer Dave Bernhardt — were appointed to Cabinet-level positions to lead agencies dealing with energy and pollution regulations.....>

<....“It’s not surprising to me,” Saxonhouse said in an interview. “It’s absolutely what we would expect for a second Trump term. The administration would be looking out for polluters' interests and not for public health or the environment.”

Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy at the League of Conservation Voters and former EPA scientist, said it’s a fairly widespread norm for outside groups to write policy proposals and white papers to inform an incoming administration's policies. But an industry writing exact language for an incoming president to sign is "beyond the pale," he said.

"It is not shocking, but perhaps a little bold and gross that the oil industry is writing text for executive orders," Davis said in an interview.

In a statement, Biden's campaign spokesperson James Singer said the president believes in building an energy economy for the future by standing up to special interests and producing record amounts of energy.

“Donald Trump is selling out working families to big oil. Oil companies get huge tax breaks while screwing over consumers and making record profits,“ he said.

Trump hosted energy executives at a dinner last month at his Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, where he criticized offshore wind power and said he would end the Biden administration’s pause on new gas export licenses, an industry lawyer who attended the event told POLITICO.

And he's used his stump speeches to blame Biden for increased energy costs, linking those to inflation and higher interest rates.

“We must be the most affordable energy and electricity place anywhere on the planet,” Trump said in last year’s rollout of his proposed second term agenda. “Right now we have energy that is weak, substandard and unaffordable. It’s made by the wind.”

Biden’s policies have pushed clean energy development largely through the hundreds of billions of dollars in his signature Inflation Reduction Act as well as the bipartisan infrastructure law. But oil production and natural gas exports have also reached record highs during his term.

While Biden has not delivered on his 2020 campaign promise to end new oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters, his administration’s regulatory actions have raised the costs for drilling, tightened rules on methane pollution and slowed the pace of lease sales. Those actions in particular are the ones the industry would like to see rolled back first, according to oil and gas executives....>

<....While interest groups regularly write policy frameworks and white papers for incoming administrations from both parties, it would be less common for them to write ready-made executive orders or rules for a new president to sign, said Mark Squillace, a former Interior Department official under President Bill Clinton.

“It’s not particularly surprising that they’d be engaged,” Squillace, now a natural resources law professor at the University of Colorado, said of the oil industry advocates. “These are people who have a strong interest and expertise in an issue. Sometimes the Trump administration might be inclined to sign whatever is put in front of their nose.”

Trump regularly said things that pleased the industry’s collective ears during his first term, but the industry members said the executive orders his aides wrote did little to further the companies' goals. One specific example they cited — Trump’s executive order on “America-First Offshore Energy," a plan to promote offshore oil drilling — had little impact amid low oil prices and his administration’s eventual failure to put together a five-year drilling plan.

That concern continues, others said. They said the industry doubts that Trump would be able to staff an A-team of experts needed to reverse the parts of Biden’s energy policies they don’t like.

“There’s a lot of skepticism on what team a new Trump administration could bring in with energy,” said a person at an industry trade association who was granted anonymity because the person was not authorized to talk to the media. “The previous time around it was the B team, the C team. Now we’re wondering if it’s going to be the F team.”

Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief of staff during the Trump administration, said the ex-president regularly talks to people in the oil industry to discuss policy ideas and doesn’t rely on any particular advisers. Gunasekara stressed she wasn’t speaking as a campaign surrogate.

What a second Trump administration would likely do upon taking office is scour the Biden administration’s policy actions and decide “do we rescind it, do we amend it or do we keep it as is,” Gunasekara said in an interview. She wrote a section on reshaping the EPA for the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a sprawling set of policy recommendations written by Trump supporters and former aides.

Trump’s main energy policy aim would be “to jump start the economy and reduce the cost burden on the American people that they've been feeling ever since Biden walked into the White House,” Gunasekara added.>

You don't like the use of French here, <antichrist>? Too f***ing bad. Stay away, along with the <reprobate of the heartland>, your fellow agent of evil.