"This disaster was an ideological choice. If states are the laboratories of democracy, cities had become its meth labs."

"San Francisco spent the covid era limiting the tools and tactics available to law enforcement. In 2019, it became the first major U.S. city to ban police from using facial recognition technology. The 8-1 vote was a knee-jerk response to an innovation that has since become a ubiquitous feature on phones and in airports and office lobbies. Aaron Peskin, the city supervisor who sponsored the bill, said the city had an 'outsize responsibility to regulate the excesses of technology' because San Francisco was viewed as the headquarters of U.S. innovation. The posturing led to an outsize increase in the crime rate and an outsize population exodus from the Bay Area."

I'm reading "Why is Trump backing off San Francisco? These results. Democrat Daniel Lurie is using technology to make the city safe again" (WaPo).

"Mom called what we did 'unschooling'..."

"... a concept championed by the home-schooling pioneer John Holt. She agreed with his assertion that 'schools are bad places for kids,' or at least for a certain kind of kid; my brother Aaron, she decided, was better suited for public school and was sent off on the bus each morning. I, on the other hand, was a 'creative global learner,' and Mom said that she was going to give me a 'free-form education' in order to 'pursue passions.' Other than math, which I began to do by correspondence course, I mostly spent my days with her visiting shops, libraries and restaurants of our rapidly-growing suburb, or else having 'project time' — drawing superheroes, rereading my David Macaulay and Roald Dahl books, or writing short stories.... Mom had been going through a hard time — ever since we’d moved to Plano, Texas, her social life was dim, her career as a children’s magazine editor had been put on hiatus, and her own mother had begun a long decline into dementia — but... 'You are better than any grown-up, Stef. You are more than all I need'...."

Writes the novelist Stefan Merrill Block, in "Home-Schooled Kids Are Not All Right" (NYT).

Here's his memoir, "Homeschooled" (commission earned).

I'm interested in seeing "unschooling" again.

"Trump’s brand of politics feeds on the lie that multicultural cities are frightening and chaotic. If he follows through on his threats to deploy National Guard troops..."

"... to Portland, it won’t be for the benefit of the people who call the city home. The intent will be to incite a spectacle of chaos, manufacturing a crisis to retroactively justify the belief that Democrat-run cities are in need of forceful takeover. The provocation will be the point. Don’t fall for it. The Portland of right-wing imagination is a city engulfed by flames and violence, a vivid warning of what will befall other places if they vote for Democrats. 'Unimaginably bad things would happen to America' if Biden were elected, Trump posted in 2020, specifically citing the 'anarchy' of Portland.... The reality is that the problems facing Portland and other cities are nothing that can’t be addressed through normal governance, and that these are on the whole vibrant and quite pleasant places to live. 'Real America' can mean things like biking to get a vegan ube latte from a purple-haired barista, and if you’d like a taste of what makes America truly great, you can find it in a coffee shop—in Portland, certainly, and probably a short ride from where you live."

Writes Jacob Grier, in "100 Cups of Coffee in a City on Fire/President Trump keeps saying Portland is an anarchic hellscape in need of the National Guard. With the help of my bike and a serious caffeine addiction, I set out to discover the truth" (Slate).

It's nice to hear progressives paying respect to the virtues of federalism.

And what's ube? It's just hair-colored yam, I mean, purple yam. I take it you just buy the yam extract — commission earned — and mix it into your milky — vegan milky — coffee.

"A Texas man whose girlfriend used abortion pills to end her pregnancy is suing a California doctor who allegedly mailed her the medication..."

"... in what appears to be a first-of-its-kind wrongful-death lawsuit — and a fresh test of federal and state abortion laws. The complaint, filed in a Texas federal court, accuses the doctor of violating state law that prohibits performing or facilitating an abortion, including by distributing pills. But California, where the physician is based, has a 'shield' law explicitly protecting providers who mail abortion pills, including to states where the procedure is banned. The case appears to be the first time an interstate wrongful-death claim over an abortion has been filed in federal court. It is also the latest legal challenge against a provider as antiabortion activists attempt to curb the flow of abortion pills, which are being mailed into all 50 states under shield laws passed after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade...."

From "Man sues over girlfriend’s abortion in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit/he first-of-its-kind wrongful-death lawsuit tests the laws blue states passed to protect abortion access after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade" (WaPo).

"Supreme Court allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood."

WaPo reports.  Free-access link.

At issue for the justices was whether a provision of the federal Medicaid Act allows individual Medicaid patients to sue to obtain care from their provider of choice.... Several justices during oral argument seemed eager to provide clarity to help lower courts determine when a statute simply confers a benefit to an individual and when it goes further, empowering those individuals to sue to enforce that benefit or right. The Supreme Court has typically set a high bar for allowing lawsuits against the government, seeking to shield public officials from liability....

"Shortly after President Trump praised the National Guard for their work in Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass reminded residents that the troops had not arrived."

"'Just to be clear, the National Guard has not been deployed in the City of Los Angeles,' she said on social media."

Written in the NYT, 3 hours ago.

More detail, again from the NYT, published 3 hours ago:

National Guard troops will arrive in Los Angeles County within the next 24 hours, the Trump administration’s top law enforcement official in Southern California said, to quell protests over immigration enforcement that are “out of control.”

Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli, the interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said in an interview on Saturday night that the 2,000 troops were needed to keep the peace in the sprawling region.... "They threw rocks at the officers,” Mr. Essayli said. “We had Molotov cocktails thrown. We had all kinds of assaults on agents. The state has an obligation to maintain order and maintain public safety, and they’re unable to do that right now in Los Angeles. So the federal government will send in resources to regain order.”...

Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed back against the president’s order, calling it “purposefully inflammatory.” Mr. Trump had federalized the National Guard “not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,” Mr. Newsom said.

“The governor doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. Essayli, a former Republican state legislator who before his federal appointment in April was a frequent critic of Mr. Newsom, a Democrat.

"Yeah, that's crap," said Governor Tony Evers, accused of encouraging state employees to break federal law.

"That's what they would say no matter what. We're not encouraging them to break the law. In fact, one of the things that ICE is arresting people for, we're seeing all that, frankly, is not law-breaking. And then what do you do? So I think having caution right up front I think is important. Think about the farmers in the state of Wisconsin, they have all sorts of undocumented people.... And you know if Donald Trump starts going after them, we will become a shadow of the state we are right now. We're not taking any rights away from ICE. They run the show. We just want to make sure there's an attorney there, see the documents, what's going on, can we do this someplace else rather than our place of work, and make it more reasonable?"

Quoted in "Gov. Evers says 'not encouraging' state employees to break the law in new ICE directives/Evers talked with 'UPFRONT' in a wide-ranging interview during the NFL draft in Green Bay" (WISN).

Sometimes the conditions are right for liberals to see the value of the structural safeguard called federalism. 

"[T]he American Academy of Pediatrics has so far continued to endorse the treatments as effective in relieving the psychological distress many transgender youths experience..."

"... as a result of the incongruence between their sex and their gender identity. The Trump administration’s order calls the practice of medical transition for youths 'a stain on our nation’s history' and the medical guidelines 'junk science.' It directs federal agencies to withhold funding for hospitals and medical schools that carry out transgender medical care for patients under the age of 19, referring to it as 'maiming.' In a lawsuit filed last week challenging the order’s constitutionality, the attorneys general of Washington, Oregon and Minnesota noted the title, 'Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,' saying it was 'false and repugnant.'"

From "How Trump Uses Language to Attack the Idea of Transgender Identity/Using words like 'maiming' and 'junk science,' the directives try to portray trans people as lacking honesty and integrity, and thus unworthy of legal rights" (NYT).

Here's a free-access link to a Washington Post article about that lawsuit — "Three states sue Trump for attack on gender-affirming care for minors/The lawsuit represents the strongest rebuke at the state level of Trump’s executive order targeting transgender healthcare."

Trump isn't going to shut down the federal Department of Education.

I'm reading "Trump Chooses Longtime Ally Linda McMahon to Run Education Dept./A friend and financial backer of Donald J. Trump’s, Ms. McMahon, who led the Small Business Administration during his first term, remained close to him during the campaign" (NYT):

While Mr. Trump has repeatedly called for an outright dissolution of the agency, any effort to shutter it would require congressional action and support from some Republican lawmakers whose districts depend on federal aid for public education....

So it's just something to talk about, not actually do. So what is McMahon really going to try to do? She's the chairwoman of the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action.

[T]he America First Policy Institute has set out a more immediate list of changes it says could be achieved through vastly changing the department’s priorities. Those include stopping schools from “promoting inaccurate and unpatriotic concepts” about American history surrounding institutionalized racism, and expanding voucher programs that direct more public funds to parents to spend on home-schooling, online classes or at private and religious schools.

"More than 20 States in our country have a Trump abortion ban, many with no exceptions even for rape and incest, and if he wins we all know he will sign a national abortion ban to outlaw abortion in every state."

Said Kamala Harris, at her Eau Claire rally yesterday, clipped below.

I was listening live, and this argument really struck me at the time. But, on reflection, I thought it was an inaccurate representation of what Trump has been saying. I think he's been saying that he wants to leave abortion regulation to the states and keep the federal government out of it.

But why should we trust him? Nevertheless, I do think it's wrong to say "we all know he will sign a national abortion ban." It's justified to scare us with the possibility, but "we all know he will sign a national abortion ban"? No, I don't know it.

"This is a clarifying political vote that will put every Republican on record as to whether or not they believe in a constitutional right to contraception...."

"They can try to rationalize a vote, but that will not be how it is interpreted by women who want a right to contraception. If the bill doesn’t pass into law, it will be because Republicans oppose protecting American’s right to contraception."

Said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, quoted in "Schumer Plans Vote on Contraception Access, Teeing Up a Campaign Issue/Democrats are planning to spotlight Republicans’ opposition to legislation protecting birth control access nationwide, as part of an election-year push" (NYT).

Trump responded to a question about this bill: "We’re looking at that. Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policies than others." So: leave it to the states. The benefits of federalism. But that's a little hard to understand, and Democrats are pushing Republicans to speak in these mystifying terms that cause anxiety about what's really going on.

After Trump got a chance to see the reaction in the media, he stepped away from the federalism talk and said that he would "never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control" or a "ban on birth control."

"Throughout Monday afternoon, Trump raged at Graham in post after post on the social media platform after Graham said he 'respectfully' disagreed with Trump’s conclusions about abortion policy."

"Graham, in posts shared on X, argued that the court’s ruling on Roe 'does not require that conclusion legally.' 'The states’ rights only rationale today runs contrary to an American consensus that would limit late-term abortions and will age about as well as the Dred Scott decision,' Graham said. 'The science is clear — a child at fifteen weeks is well-developed and is capable of feeling pain.' Graham has been a staunch proponent of federal limits on abortions. Most recently, he has pushed for a ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy....  'The Democrats are thrilled with Lindsey, because they want this issue to simmer for as long a period of time as possible,' Trump said. In another post, Trump argued that by allowing states to make their own abortion laws, 'we have taken the Abortion Issue largely out of play.' 'We cannot let our Country suffer any further damage by losing Elections on an issue that should always have been decided by the States, and now will be,' Trump said...."

From "Trump rages against [Lindsey] Graham on abortion in rare break between allies/The posts from the former president came after the senator said he ‘respectfully’ disagreed with Trump’s stance on abortion Monday" (WaPo).

Graham's support for a federal statute limiting abortion undercuts an argument that abortion opponents will want to make if Congress ever creates a right to abortion in the form of a federal statute. But if protecting the life of the unborn is your highest priority, that's where you go as a matter of principle. The idea of leaving it to the states seems like a pragmatic compromise.

"I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be President of the United States."

"In other words, you know, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is, you know, just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. So whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal, national means. Why does -- you know, if you weren't from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin or you were from Michigan and it really -- you know, what the Michigan secretary of state did is going to make the difference between, you know, whether Candidate A is elected or Candidate B is elected, I mean, that seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it?... Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?"

Said Justice Elena Kagan in today's oral argument in Trump v. Anderson (transcript here).

Kagan's question was reinforced by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: "Can I just ask you about... the concern about uniformity and the lack thereof if states are permitted to enforce Section 3 in presidential elections.... I guess my question is why the Framers would have designed a system that would -- could result in interim disuniformity in this way where we have elections pending and different states suddenly saying you're eligible, you're not, on the basis of this kind of thing?"

"The move sets up a high-stakes fight over the drug, mifepristone, that could sharply curtail access to medication that is used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States."

"It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the pill more than two decades ago. The Supreme Court is now in the unusual position of ruling on abortion access even after its conservative majority declared that it would leave that question to the states...."

From "Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Abortion Pill Access/The justices announced that they would hear a case challenging a federal agency’s approval of the commonly used pill" (NYT).

My favorite Ron DeSantis moment: Asked which U.S. President would inspire him, he said Calvin Coolidge.

From the transcript of last night's debate:

One of the guys I’ll take inspiration from is Calvin Coolidge. Now, people don’t talk about him a lot. He’s one of the few presidents that got almost everything right. He understood the proper role of the federal government under the Constitution. We need to restore the U.S. Constitution as the centerpiece of our national life. And that requires a president who understands the original understanding of the Constitution, who has a good sense of the Bill of Rights, and who knows how we’ve gone off track with this massive fourth branch of government, this administrative state which is imposing its will on us and is being weaponized against us. So, silent Cal knew the proper role of the federal government. The country was in great shape when he was President of the United States, and we can learn an awful lot from Calvin Coolidge.

I was genuinely touched.

For the record, Chris Christie, asked first, said Ronald Reagan; Nikki Haley, asked second, said George Washington and Abe Lincoln; and Vivek Ramaswamy, asked last, said Thomas Jefferson.

"The antagonisms between red states and blue cities are all the more notable because the urban areas in the crosshairs are mostly majority-minority..."

"... with many mayors and district attorneys of color. These actions go 'squarely against the Republican philosophy of small government and more freedom,' said Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb, a Black Democrat who has struggled to pass local tobacco and gun control ordinances because of constraints enacted by Ohio’s Republican-controlled legislature.... Columbia University law professor Richard Briffault faults states for hypocrisy: 'They’re in favor of home rule when it’s the feds, but not when it’s states versus locals.' The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution at its annual gathering this summer 'to undertake an all-out campaign' against state preemption, which it identified as racist and punitive...."

Writes Molly Hennessy-Fiske, in "Antagonisms flare as red states try to dictate how blue cities are run" (WaPo).

The Wisconsin Capitol looms ominously in The New York Times today.

I'm seeing this Jamelle Bouie piece this morning:

 

The issue, as you may have guessed, is legislative districting, which strongly favors Republicans, and the current threat to impeach the new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Janet Protasiewicz, who got elected after declaring that the districting in Wisconsin is "rigged."

Bouie writes:

"Unfortunately, it seems there is little appetite in the Biden administration for confronting the marijuana problem."

"But the longer the federal government waits to step in, the worse the dangers will become — and the stronger the cannabis industry will grow politically. Best to tame the beast before it’s too big to control."

Writes Robert Gebelhoff, in "Marijuana is getting out of hand. The federal government must step in" (WaPo).

What exactly is this "problem" (other than the conceptual chaos of states "legalizing" something that's still a crime federally)? It seems that if you're not going to take the federal crime seriously, you need federal regulation:

Was Trump's use of the word "riggers" a veiled racial slur?

 I'm reading "Trump prosecutor Fani Willis faces racist abuse after indicting ex-US president/Georgia prosecutor subjected to flurry of threats after Trump makes thinly veiled reference to N-word after latest charges" (The Guardian).

Right after Willis announced the indictments, Trump wrote on Truth Social: "They never went after those that Rigged the Election. They only went after those that fought to find the RIGGERS!"

The Guardian notes: "Willis is African American. So too are the two New York-based prosecutors who have investigated Trump, the Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg who indicted him in April over alleged hush-money payments, and Letitia James, the state attorney general who is investigating Trump’s financial records."

How can one ever know? "Rig" has been such a common word in this years-long controversy. But I'd never noticed the use of the word "rigger" before. In my entire 20-year archive, the word "rigger" has never appeared — not in my writing and not in anything I've quoted. It's an unusual, unnecessary word. I'd avoid it. 

"Rather than allowing the criminal process to proceed in the ordinary course, Chairman Jordan and the committee are participating in a campaign of intimidation, retaliation and obstruction."

Said Alvin Bragg, quoted in "Bragg Sues Jim Jordan in Move to Block Interference in Trump Case/Mr. Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, had subpoenaed a former prosecutor who worked on the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald J. Trump" (NYT).

Why not allow the congressional proceedings to proceed in the ordinary course? Why not allow the 2024 presidential campaign to proceed in its ordinary course? 

Whose "ordinary course" has the right of way in this busy intersection? 

A federal judge might decide. (Bragg is asking a federal judge to decide to give the Manhattan D.A. priority over the House Judiciary Committee.) But is that in the ordinary course of federal court jurisdiction?