Debra Johnson

@debj11.bsky.social

Reader, writer, democrat, and advocate for marginalized people. Lived during segregation in the South. Saw Civil Rights passed & the renewal of deadly Abortion bans. Watching rights eroded. Politics matter. Read Books about BIPOC by BIPOC. No msgs.

Sisters, we have more power than you realize! We hold a majority of the population. We have many allies in the world. We need to take off the gloves and play dirty. FIGHT, VOTE, SPEAK UP, SUPPORT OTHERS, AND TAKE BACK OUR WORLD!

Bild

Following Rod Liddle's death I've been thinking again about the often unacknowledged privilege in being able to see the words of a demagogue as just things you disagree with rather than things that threaten people.

Booker: "They have become so obsessed with the millions the Bidens made that they have ignored completely the billions of dollars the Trump family is making. That is like being obsessed with a stain on the living room carpet when behind you is a mountain of excrement."

“Great news organizations like CNN and CBS News are here to tell it straight down the middle. That requires newsrooms that reflect the whole world, not one side of it. And it requires independence.”

“When it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views. I believe that news should be based on facts and truth,” he said. (cont.) Yeah, sure Felicia 🙄 www.huffpost.com/entry/david-...

David Ellison Pens Op-Ed Defending ‘My Politics’ After CBS News Disaster

“The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN,” the son of staunch Trump ally Larry Ellison wrote in a New York Times op-ed.

huffpost.com

“Sometimes people try to destroy you, precisely because they recognize your power — not because they don’t see it, but because they see it and they don’t want it to exist.” bell hooks

With the Supreme Court hearing a major climate case in the fall, activists on the right have sought to pressure Kagan to recuse because she wrote a foreword to the judicial manual. She already said she didn't even read the climate chapter & ethics experts say no need for recusal.

BildBild

Lots of efforts to prop up #SCOTUS have focused on the claim that the Court has shown itself to be “independent” of Trump. As today’s “One First” explains, “independence” may make it possible for the Court to rule against the other branches, but it’s only the means—not the end—of judicial review:

242. The "Independent Court" Narrative

Efforts to defend the Supreme Court *because* of its independence miss both the real-world impacts of its behavior and the reason *why* independence matters.

stevevladeck.com

For Slate's summer series By the People, I wrote about how D.C. v. Heller is both a paragon of popular constitutionalism and its own dark mirror. Progressives can learn real lessons from how it was won—if they ignore its bogus originalism and look at what really went down. slate.com/news-and-pol...

Conservatives Perfected the Ideal Legal Tactic. It’s Time for Liberals to Use It.

While Heller was built on phony history, it reflected a genuine, hard-fought shift in public understanding.

slate.com

I've been wondering abt this for a while. Originally a court ratified this deal. That's fairly binding as a settlement. But I think that court pulled the plug on that (perhaps I misunderstood that contingent ruling). So I don't know why this would be binding on a future admin at all.

Clara Jeffery@clarajeffery.bsky.social · 2d ago

Trump’s justice department can grant him immunity from audits but I see no reasons why a subsequent administration can’t say: that was patently illegal, toss it out, and crawl all the way up his ass.

UPDATE: Judge Pitts denied DOJ's request for a stay in the Packard (Stanford) grand jury subpoena case. Patient records remain protected. Not only did Pitts deny the stay request, he also "conclude[d] that DOJ lacks evidence to support its claimed interest or to demonstrate irreparable harm ...."

In its motion for a stay, DOJ argues that grand jury secrecy requirements under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) preclude it from offering any evidence to demonstrate its lawful and legitimate interest in provisional class members' sensitive medical information. But as the Court explained almost one month ago, "[t]hat is not quite true. It is within DOJ's authority to petition the Texas court for authorization to disclose grand jury matters in connection with this
2
Case 5:26-cv-04998-PCP Document 108 Filed 07/31/26
Page 3 of 4
proceeding." Id. at *21 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i)). The Court invited DOJ to seek such authorization and to "request that this Court review any materials in camera as needed to preserve grand jury secrecy." Id. More than four weeks later, DOJ appears to have taken no action. DOJ could have used its reply in support of its stay motion (if not the stay motion itself) to identify evidence of its legitimate interest in provisional class members' medical information or, at the least, to apprise the Court of its efforts to seek authorization to disclose such evidence. Instead, DOJ opted not to file any reply at all. The Court must therefore conclude that DOJ lacks evidence to support its claimed interest or to demonstrate irreparable harm to that interest as a result of the preliminary injunction.