They got Sonny for good this time.

First, some housekeeping: The January 6 panel has a “deal” for an interview with Pat A. Cipollone, which seems to be that he will testify only behind closed doors. Better than nothing.

The next hearing will be televised Tuesday morning, July 12.

The Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury investigating Trump’s election fraud has subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis, and Lindsay Graham. I hope they have a witness waiting room with padded walls. Graham is fighting the subpoena. And see What Lindsey Graham Did In Georgia To Keep Trump In Power at TPM.

Now on to new news — in 2020, I believe a lot of people voted for Joe Biden for POTUS because they were exhausted with the endless Trump drama and just wanted some normal. That’s very understandable. However, we don’t live in a normal country or in normal times. And even Joe Biden cannot provide enough warmth, comfort, and reasonableness to make it so.

Today’s links:

From Politico, ‘Be absolutely furious’: Dems want more from Biden after Highland Park. The takeaway: Biden is not rising to the moment. He’s not reflecting the mood of Democrats, which is angry. Very angry. People don’t want to hear the Preisdnet console them by saying we did just pass a gun bill. They want fire and brimstone.

Ashley Parker and Matt Viser write at WaPo, As some Democrats grow impatient with Biden, alternative voices emerge. In contrast to Biden, they write,

J.B. Pritzker, Illinois’ Democratic governor, delivered a fiery response that took direct aim at those blocking gun control legislation. “If you are angry today, I’m here to tell you to be angry,” he said, seething while Biden was consoling. “I’m furious. I’m furious that yet more innocent lives were taken by gun violence.”

There are multiple headlines right now about how Democrats are angry, about guns, about abortion, about Republicans, and President Biden is just not reflecting what they feel.

Of course, it’s also the case that (in some quarters) Democrats are not among the group privileged to be angry. The Daily Beast is running an article headlined Democrats Abroad Slammed for ‘Kavanaugh’s a C*nt’ July 4 Party, in which a bunch of American abroad gathered to express their anger in front of the Place du Trocadéro, the monument to the dead of World War I, in Paris. I’m not sure what Justice Kavanaugh’s many character flaws have to do with World War I, but naturally righties are making a Big Deal out of it, like they would never, ever associate some vulgarity with a politician they don’t like. Right?

Anyway — I do wish we had someone able to fight fire with fire. The Republic is under attack. The usual political processes no longer work. A lot of voters don’t get how Dems could hold the House, Senate, and White House and still be blocked from accomplishing much. In a normal world Joe Manchin wouldn’t have veto power over his own party.

But, yes, I think Democrats need to own their anger again.

The 4th of July felt bittersweet even before the news of the mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois. The “person of interest” alleged shooter — I don’t know if he’s been upgraded to “suspect” yet — seems to be one of those perpetually adolescent, useless, pissant young men we seem to produce a lot of these days. In an earlier age he would have gotten a job in some factory instead of making mediocre rap videos on the Internet. That might have kept him out of trouble.

Also in Illinois, the Republican nominee for governor, Darren Bailey, did not exactly handle the news about Highland Park gracefully. After leading some supporters in prayer, he said, “Let’s move on and celebrate the independence of this nation.”

People weren’t ready to move on. Bailey got slammed up one side and down the other.

The Bailey-Pritzker general election contest came about in part because incumbent governor J.B. Pritzker helped him win. The Chicago Tribune explained, “His victory was assisted by more than $40 million in advertising by Pritzker and the Pritzker-supported Democratic Governors Association, which ran ads attacking Irvin while labeling Bailey as ‘too conservative for Illinois.'” Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin was considered the front runner in the GOP primary for a while.

But you should see the ad the Democrats paid for; it accused him of being “100 percent pro life” and “protecting gun owners and the second amendment.” And Bailey got Donald Trump’s endorsement and “stands with the Trump agenda.” It used language to appeal to right-wing voters, in other words, even while presenting itself as an anti-Bailey ad. Richard Irvin saw the nomination slipping away and accused Democrats of “interfering” in the race. Bailey won easily.

J.B. Pritzker reckoned that Bailey would be the easiest of the Republican candidates to beat in the general, so he helped Bailey win. Pritzker may be right. Bailey has no discernible personality and apparently isn’t the sharpest crayon in the box. Let’s hope; if Bailey wins Illinois will be stuck with a right-wing nudnick as governor.

I hope you enjoy the 4th of July.

Summer Concepcion, Talking Points Memo, Jan. 6 Panel Members Say New Witnesses Have Come Forward After Hutchinson’s Testimony.

Dan Balz, Washington Post, Why Republicans should be nervous about their candidates for governor

Dana Milbank, Washington Post, Et tu, Alito? Murder of stare decisis creates legal circus maximus.

Jamelle Bouie, New York Times, Will Reactionaries Impose a Red-State Social Order on the Rest of Us?

Today’s cartoon —

These past few days have been really discouraging. The one bright spot has been that the January 6 committee is deliving on what was promised.

The Washington Post editorial board thinks that We can no longer avoid a criminal investigation into Donald Trump.  The Baltimore Sun editorial board says Prosecute Donald Trump: Evidence of criminal intent too damning to ignore. David Rohde writes at The New Yorker that A Potential Criminal Prosecution of Donald Trump Is Growing Closer. See also the Boston Globe editorial board.

We can dream.

As previously predicted, the SOTUS has issued a ruling today that cripples the EPA and limits its power to fight climate change.

Hey, they didn’t have greenhouse gas emissions in the 18th century, right?

Here is the decision, West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protecction Agency et al. I haven’t had time to read it, and most of the commentary online right now was written before the decision was released. But Ja’han Jones at MSNBC anticipated that the decision “will likely threaten the very concept of a federal government.”

So, at the very moment we really ought to be having an all-hands-on-deck response to our looming planetary disaster, the SCOTUS doesn’t want fossil fuels regulated, because reasons.

Dahlia Lithwick: “This term, the high court has proved itself to be a kind of lethal combination of the History Channel and bazooka—if you’re taking the bar exam this summer, I would suggest that the answer to every constitutional law question is, quite reasonably, ‘facepalm.'”

Republicans, naturally, are very pleased. See Adam Liptak in the New York Times.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is being sworn in today. I’m really sorry she has to deal with this crap.

In other court corruption news, see Wisconsin Court Validates a Republican Strategy to Preserve Power.

Vintage illustration French cartoon, Caricature of an old Judge, 19th Century

Also, today there are primaries in Colorado, Illinois, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. See Steve Benen for analysis. Getting Illinois over with will be a particular relief for me, I must say. The television ads for the Republican candidates have been disturbing.

Politico is reporting that the mystery witness is Cassidy Hutchinson, a onetime top aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. She knows a lot about what was going on in the White House before, during, and after January 6. This could be juicy.

Politico also says that “Hutchinson replaced her attorney earlier this month as the select committee’s hearings began; her former attorney was the Trump White House’s chief ethics lawyer, and her new attorney is a longtime ally of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.”

As ever, this is an open thread for commenting before, during and after the hearing.

See Trump reporters react to January 6 hearings. Your brain will hurt.

Update: Well, that was fun. But I want to know if we can make Trump pay for all the White House dishes he smashed while throwing temper tantrums.

We learned that Trump supporters attending the January 6 rally at the Ellipse came heavily armed. “Trump supporters gathering at the Ellipse for the president’s speech had been seen by law enforcement and Secret Service agents carrying guns, including AR-15s and Glocks,” it says here.

But Trump was upset because he wanted more people crammed into the Ellipse — better optics! — and apparently people were hesitating to go through the metal detectors. Understandably.

Trump was described by Hutchinson as similarly unworried about his supporters carrying firearms; he was mostly angry that magnetometers used to screen rallygoers were blocking some of his armed supporters from getting inside the rally grounds. And that would hurt Trump’s larger aim: creating a photo op of a very large crowd gathered to hear him speak.

So, it says here, Hutchinson testified that Trump said something to the effect of, “‘I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking [magnometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.”

So he was okay with armed people marching on the Capitol. They weren’t going to hurt him, after all.

Trump also apparently did intend to go to the Capitol and presumably show up in the room where the Electoral College votes were being tallied. He was advised this would break several laws, but he didn’t care. He ordered the presidential limo to be driven to the Capitol, and when he was refused he started to tussle with the driver and with a Secret Service agent.

I personally am sorry they didn’t let him go. Imagine how much trouble he would have gotten himself into.

Can Secret Service agents be forced to testify? Clinton’s was.

Mark Meadows (and Rudy Giuliani) asked for a presidential pardon. Mark Meadows is not looking good right now.

Liz Cheney produced evidence of attempts at witness tampering of the January 6 committee witnesses.

I think those were the highlights.

I am just now learning that on Thursday the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits Miranda rights. Thursday was the same day they struck down New York’s concealed carry law, which of course got all the headlines. In a normal world, however, a change to Miranda would have been huge news.

The Miranda case was Vega v. Tekoh. The decision did not eliminate the Miranda rule outright, but it seems to me that it does eliminate it in effect. As Justice Kagan explained in her dissent, defendants now have no way to seek remedy if an un-Mirandized statement is used against them in court. Law enforcement cannot be sued for failing to respect Miranda. A court still is not supposed to use a statement obtained by abuse of the defendant without a lawyer present, but if it does, well, tough.

Kagan wrote,

“Today, the Court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda. The majority observes that defendants may still seek ‘the suppression at trial of statements obtained’ in violation of Miranda’s procedures. But sometimes, such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he has suffered? The point of § 1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy ‘is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees.’ The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy.”

I’m guessing that stripping Miranda of teeth is something from the Federalist Society’s wish list.

Still to come: In a decision that could be issued this coming week, SCOTUS is expected to put limits on the ability of the EPA to limit carbon emissions at power plants. And that’s possibly not all.

Legal experts are waiting to see if the ruling in West Virginia v. EPA begins to chip away at the ability of federal agencies — all of them, not just EPA — to write and enforce regulations. It would foreshadow a power shift with profound consequences, not just for climate policy but virtually everything the executive branch does, from directing air traffic to protecting investors.

Imagine. The SCOTUS would be weakening government from doing much of anything that protects citizens. It’s as if we are not supposed to be able to govern ourselves. We’re living in an imperium per iudices, I tell you.

So at a time when gun violence is a huge national concern, SCOTUS limits the government’s powers to regulate firearms. When climate change threatens to destroy the planet, SCOTUS is expected to limit the government’s powers to reduce greenhouse gases. Let’s hope they don’t do that, but we’ll see. It seems we’re not allowed to use our government to address 21st century problems

Back in 2010 I wrote a post titled Constitutional Trial and Error that argued for a living Constitution, not a dead one. The Founding Fathers gave us an outline of government that succeeding generations could apply to their own circumstances to govern themselves, I said. And making the Constitution work in the real world involved a lot of trial and error even in the early years of our republic, when the guys who wrote it were still alive. The Constitution didn’t explicitly give government power to do a lot of things it does now, like build highways and print paper money. It didn’t even explicitly say the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what the Constitution meant; that came about through the Marbury case in 1803, and the notion didn’t completely take hold until much later in the 19th century, Eventually people figured out what worked and what didn’t, and precedents developed.

When the Constitution was written there were no railroads, no airlines, no energy grid, no Internet, no such thing as outsourced jobs, and people didn’t know what germs were. Yet the “originalists” on the Court insist we are limited to addressing only conditions that existed in the 18th century? See my 2020 post on Originalism, A Tyranny of the Dead.

In fact, the Originalists are crappy historians. Do see The Supreme Court’s Faux ‘Originalism’ by Joshua Zeitz at Politico; it’s excellent. The Court’s decisions on firearm rights from Heller (2006) on are based on historical ignorance. The right to bear arms was very much tied to service in the militia, which from the Colonial period and through the time of the Articles of Confederation and in the early constitutional republic was the main defense from invasion and insurrection.

At the time the Constitution was written the entire U.S. regular military consisted of a standing army of maybe 600 officers and men and a naval fleet of six wooden frigates. And it had a huge territory to defend. Were it not for the buffer created by the Atlantic Ocean just about any European power could have crushed us. The militia was created by Congress under the authority given it in the Constitution (Aticle I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16) to provide defense. And it really was well regulated. It wasn’t just any collection of meatballs wearing camo and waving assault weapons around. Per the Militia Acts passed in 1792 all white men between the ages of 18 and 45 were required to enroll in the militia, and they were also required to obtain and maintain their own regulation arms so they would be ready to fight. If you know this, the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment makes some sense. Obviously, if someone could stop citizens from being armed, this would weaken the millitia.

And since the militia eventually became the National Guard, which is not self-armed, one could argue that the 2nd Amendment no longer serves its original purpose. But the current “originalist” justices ignore the militia clause and the history behind it and just go right to “shall not be infringed.”

Likewise, per English common law of the time, abortions were legal in the American Colonies until the time of quickening, which is when the fetus can be felt moving. This is roughly at 12 to 15 weeks gestation, although it could be much later. But Justice Alito completely ignores this bit of history and instead takes his legal precedence from some 17th century guy who sentenced witches to be burned at the stake to argue that abortion was never part of U.S. history or tradition, so it can’t possibly be a protected right.

We’re living in an imperium per iudices, and the iudices are wackjobs.

An 18th century trial.

GOP politicians, Fox News, and law enforcement were more than prepared for any violence at protests of yesterday’s SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe.

For example, Fox News reports that police were forced to use tear gas on crowds of protesters surrounding the Arizona state house, and that legislators were “held hostage” inside. But a careful reading of the news story doesn’t reveal that protesters were violent, just that the legislators were afraid of them.

“Protesters threatened to break the AZ Senate entryway glass,” Republican Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers tweeted, as members were in the middle of voting on a series of bills.

The situation escalated into a “hostage” situation as lawmakers were instructed not to exit the building, Republican Arizona State Senator Kelly Townsend said.

The Republican Caucus of the State Senate later called the protest an attempted “insurrection.”

But they didn’t actually break the entryway glass, I take it. Nor did they break into the building. It was a “sizable” crowd, the news story said. If they had intended to break the glass and enter the building, I suspect they would have.

“We are currently there being held hostage inside the Senate building due to members of the public trying to breach our security,” Townsend tweeted Friday night. “We smell tear gas and the children of one of the members are in the office sobbing with fear.”

It wasn’t the protesters throwing the tear gas, but law enforcement.

“While working inside we were interrupted by the sound of bangs and smell of tear gas,” Rep. Sarah Liguori tweeted Friday evening. “Protestors cleared from the Capitol.”

Heavily-armed officers were seen in and around the legislative building.

Granted, I wasn’t there, but one does suspect a gross overreaction. In America we are still allowed to protest outside statehouses, last I heard. But I guess not in Arizona.

There was some violence in Iowa.

The unidentified male driver of a Ford truck rammed into several protesters — all of them women — at the tail end of a procession, rolling over one woman’s ankle and sending her to the hospital, witnesses said.

Charming fellow. Was this covered by Fox News? One suspects not. The article goes on to say that police had interviewed the driver but … did not arrest him? Seriously?

Here’s another guy who may have some issues:

A Republican consultant called for people to “shoot to kill” abortion-rights protesters who he alleged would resort to violence after the Supreme Court‘s overturning of Roe v. Wade, according to a post circulating Friday on social media.

The Twitter page for PatriotTakes, self-described as a group of researchers “monitoring and exposing right-wing extremism,” shared a screenshot of the post from Colton Duncan. In the post, which appears to have been deleted from Duncan’s social media, Duncan wrote that when Roe gets reversed, “nasty, ugly gender-confused animals will torch American cities and do everything they can to tear down the fabric of America.”

The post goes on, “They should either be shot, or god-willing, apprehended before that has to happen. These depraved animals are our enemy. Let me repeat that. They are our enemy. Do not feel one iota of pity for them.” Later in the post, Duncan instructs readers who live in big cities to “arm yourselves” and “shoot to kill” if they find themselves in a situation where their safety or livelihood is threatened.

The safety and livelihood of all women of childbearing age is potentially being threatened, mind you.

There was violence at the Rhode Island state house. A man identified as Josh Mello waded into a pro-abortion rights rally and began yelling at the crowd. I take it he was a counter-protester. It appears there was some shoving and scuffling.

One of the demonstration’s organizers, Jennifer Rourke — a board member of The Womxn Project and candidate for a State Senate District 29 seat in Warwick — rushed over to try to defuse the situation. “This (conflict) is not what this is about,” Rourke, who is also a co-founder of the R.I. Political Cooperative, told the Globe on Saturday.

Video from the demonstration shows Rourke holding her hands up and repeatedly asking people, in English and Spanish, to move away. She asked Mello to leave, and she said he agreed.

As Mello climbed state house stairs, however, another man began punching him. Police moved in. But then they arrested another man, neither Mello nor his assailant, for unspecified reasons.

And then it got even more freaky, when Jennifer Rourke’s political opponent for the Rhode Island Senate seat,  off-duty Providence police officer Jeann Lugo (a man, I finally figured out) rushed into the crowd and began punching Rourke in the face. Lugo is now on administrative leave and has dropped out of the race for Senate. He has also deleted his Twitter account. Rourke is planning to press charges.

Lugo told the Boston Globe:

In response to questions from the Globe, Lugo on Saturday did not deny punching Rourke.

“As an officer that swore to protect and serve our communities, I, unfortunately, saw myself in a situation that no individual should see themselves in,” Lugo said in an email to the Globe. “I stepped in to protect someone that a group of agitators was attacking.”

The thing is, there are a number of videos in circulation of this incident. They are jumbled and hard to follow, but none indicate that Rourke was threatening anybody.

What strikes me, though, is the double standard. Police were out in force to stop violence at the pro-abortion rights protests. They expected violence. They pro-actively cleared out the Arizona protest that hadn’t yet become violent. But somehow no one ever prepares for violence when it’s the Right gathering to express political views. Even though they are a lot more likely to really be violent. Why is that?