Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

It’s fair to say that at this point in Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the reputation of the Russian military has shrunk by, if not 100%, something like 99%. Every film that made Russian forces seem like an unbroken mass of Dolph Lundgren clones marching perfectly along in their smartly tailored coats needs to be updated to represent the combination of sniveling incompetence and thoughtless brutality that seems closer to the truth.

In a purely physical sense, the U.S. Defense Department estimates that Russia has lost about 25% of the force it sent across the Ukraine border. On top of that, the U.K. Ministry of Defense estimates that about 25% of the Battalion Tactical Groups (BTG) that remain are “combat ineffective” due to lacking either personnel or equipment. In recent days, there have been reports of assaults from Russian forces that were far below the supposed scale of a BTG, and there have been translations like this one showing that a BTG with just two remaining tanks deliberately sabotaged one of them to keep from being sent into battle.

“Our tank, we broke it ourselves in the morning as to not go. BTRs went with out us and they have a lot of 200s [killed] and 300s [wounded] in critical condition.”

But losses on the battlefield and a withering loss of reputation aren’t the only ways the Russian military is shrinking. Based on some analysis from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, it seems like the standard BTG was literally not what it was cracked up to be.

Kos has written several times about the nature of Russia’s BTGs and what they’re meant to do.

A brigade combat team (BCT) is the U.S. Army’s basic maneuver unit. That is, the smallest deployable unit able to stand on its own (with intelligence, artillery, support, and other assets). Russia is organized around the much smaller BTG, which is what we see in Ukraine. Problem is, as that report states, it doesn’t take a lot of casualties to knock a BTG out of commission.

Exactly what constitutes a BTG has always been something of a question, but in general it’s supposed to be a somewhat self-sufficient army in the field, like a U.S. brigade combat team (BTC) . Only a BTC includes around 4,500 soldiers. A BTG contains something like 800 soldiers. Or maybe just 700. Or maybe it’s 600.

As it turns out, that last number turns out to be closer to correct, even if it’s still a smidge too high. The Ukrainian military has had a chance to see multiple BTGs in the field, and they’ve now issued a document describing a typical BTG. The document can be a little confusing because it includes numbers from a series of specialist BTGs, and the columns don’t all add up (Russia apparently does not play by U.S. spreadsheet rules). But the numbers at the bottom of the chart give away the game: 588 soldiers and officers. That’s what they’re seeing.

This helps to explain the high degree of BTGs that seem to have been easily knocked off kilter. As kos explained back at the beginning of the fight, the small size of the BTGs means that a single skirmish that takes out a few key elements can render the entire BTG unable to continue as a self-sufficient force—something that’s much less likely to happen with a larger, more robust U.S. BTC.

With that in mind, here’s a map put together by military analyst Henry Schlottman. Using the published positions of Russian BTGs that have been made available by U.S. and Ukrainian intelligence, Schlottman made an estimate of where each of those groups is focused, how much “front” each of them is addressing, and came up ultimately with a “kilometers per BTG” rating that shows where Russia is really putting in the effort. (I recommend that you click on this tweet, then on the map to see the image in its full size).

The results of looking at it this way show an order of magnitude of difference between the areas Russia seems to be beefing up for a push and those that seem more like efforts to secure any previous gains. For example, the area northeast of Kharkiv, where Ukrainian forces seem to be taking back towns and villages by the day, has a “density” of 20 km/BTG. Meanwhile, next door in the Izyum area, Russia’s big stack of men and material results in a 2.7 km/BTG figure. Poor little Popasnya is similar. Seven BTGs are focused on a very small area there, resulting in 2.9 km/BTG.

The “least dense” area on this map is down by Kherson, where the number goes up to 22 km/BTG. However, that one is a bit deceptive. Schlottman calculated that based on an extensive potential line of combat, but most of that line is actually the wide Dnipro river. Both Russia and Ukraine have their forces there concentrated within a much smaller area. 

Looking at the map this way does seem to provide some kind of information. After all, those least-dense areas are the ones where villages have been changing hands. However, the other end of the scale doesn’t seem to be true so far. Neither Izyum nor Popasna has been the scene of big Russian advances in spite of incredible numbers of BTGs shoved together in a small space.

Why not? Well, that goes back to the other thing kos has written about on a number of occasions: the inability of Russia to coordinate their forces and conduct large-scale combined arms operations. As long as Russia can only send forces down the line one or two BTGs at a time, it doesn’t matter that they have 20 more in theater. In some ways, all those additional forces are more of a problem than a help because they put a strain on—say it with me—logistics, logistics, logistics. 

Looking at the kilometer per BTG doesn’t give a very good idea of where Russia is going to be effective. However, it probably is a pretty good idea of where they want to be effective. That alone makes the map worth studying.

Oh, and don’t be too concerned if the Ukrainian forces on the other side of those lines seem puny in comparison. Those Ukrainian numbers are in brigades. Here are the components of a typical Ukrainian brigade—in this case the 24th, which is based in western Ukraine. 

• Headquarters and Headquarters Company
• 1st Mechanized Battalion
• 2nd Mechanized Battalion
• 3rd Mechanized Battalion
• Tank Battalion
• 3rd Motorized Infantry Battalion, “Volya”
• Brigade Artillery Group
• Headquarters and Target Acquisition Battery
• Self-propelled Artillery Battalion (2S3 Akatsiya)
• Self-propelled Artillery Battalion (2S1 Gvozdika)
• Rocket Artillery Battalion (BM-21 Grad)
• Anti-tank Artillery Battalion (MT-12 Rapira)
• Anti-aircraft Missile Artillery Battalion
• Engineer Battalion
• Maintenance Battalion
• Logistic Battalion
• Reconnaissance Company
• Sniper Company
• Electronic Warfare Company
• Signal Company
• Radar Company
• CBRN-defense Company
• Medical Company

Each one of those battalions within the brigade is itself about 400 soldiers and 40 to 50 vehicles. In other words, this is a much larger structure than a BTG. And one that’s much harder to take out.

Just as with Russian forces, some of these brigades are going to be patched up and pieced together, with companies and battalions that have suffered heavy losses. Even so, none of them are likely to be “combat incapacitated.” 

Listen to Markos and Kerry Eleveld talk Ukraine and speak with Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler on how hitting back at Republicans helps win elections on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast

This post was originally published on this site

Americans across the country are reacting with rage after a leak of a draft opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was published by Politico Monday. In it, the highest court defended their decision to reverse Roe v. Wade and rule in favor of Mississippi’s abortion ban—ultimately allowing for several states to pass anti-abortion laws of their own, as reproductive rights will no longer be protected at the federal level.

Within hours of the report being published protestors and demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court, demanding that the 1973 law be preserved. The country is rightfully angry and we can only hope this anger contributes to change and allows for the justices to rethink their decision, as the leaked opinion was just a draft and not their final decision. 

Here’s a roundup of how Americans across the country feel including legislators in various states and what they plan to do. Feel free to drop a comment with your thoughts. Right now, we feel; tomorrow, we act. 

Starting it off is fan-favorite Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has always been at the center of the fight. Warren is rightfully expressing the rage most Americans are feeling right now.

Of course, Warren isn’t alone. Democratic governors across the country also reacted, and reiterated their dedication to preserving reproductive rights.

“In light of the reported decision of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, [Colorado] remains a state where freedom is respected and where any person has the ability to live, work, thrive, and raise a family on their own terms,” said Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.

“While states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona are engaging in the unwelcome intrusion of government into deeply personal and religious decisions, Colorado remains a refuge where any person has the ability to live, work, thrive, and raise a family on their own terms.”

Some people were more concerned about the document being leaked than the decision shared. Republicans across the country expressed their concern despite being glad to hear SCOTUS supported their anti-abortion policies.

“This unprecedented leak is concerning, outrageous, and a blatant attempt to manipulate the sacred procedures of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those responsible should be held accountable. My prayer is that Roe v. Wade is overturned and that life prevails,” said Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican.

Others hopped on the trend, too.

“I have advocated for the reversal of Roe v. Wade all my political career. The leak from someone within the court is reprehensible and should lead to an investigation, but I do hope the court returns authority to the states,” said Republican Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson.

And, of course, some were excited that they may be able to advance their agenda sooner than later.

“If this report is true and Roe v. Wade is overturned, I will immediately call for a special session to save lives and guarantee that every unborn child has a right to life in South Dakota,” said Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem.

One good thing coming from this leak is the unity in us all coming together for this fight to protect bodily autonomy and access to safe, legal abortion. We cannot go back. As Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz tweeted: “Not on my watch.”

November’s elections matter. We need to elect pro-abortion rights officials at the federal level to help Democrats pass legislation protecting abortion rights. 

Contribute now to support abortion funds providing financial assistance to people seeking abortion care.

This post was originally published on this site

Ever since oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson case against abortion rights, anyone paying attention knew the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to gut the landmark Roe v. Wade decision ensuring Americans access to abortion as a constitutional right.

But the leaked draft opinion penned for the high court majority by Justice Samuel Alito isn’t just a blow to Roe, it’s “a maximalist assault on progressive constitutionalism” that opens the floodgates to any rights Americans enjoy that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern notes, the opinion fails to treat abortion rights as unique or distinct in any way from other unenumerated rights the Supreme Court has conferred on Americans, such as the right to privacy, raise children, use contraception, or marry the person of their choosing regardless of the color of their skin or their gender.

Toppling Roe is just the beginning of a series of previous Supreme Court rulings in the crosshairs of the right-wing majority. In fact, during the recent confirmation hearings Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas delivered a diatribe about the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision granting same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry.

Indeed, Alito went out of his way to harshly dismiss both Obergefell and the court’s landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which established the right of same-sex couples to be intimate (i.e., privacy) without government interference. That decision is broadly considered to be the first major win for gay and lesbian activists at the Supreme Court and became foundational to nearly every other ruling establishing fundamental constitutional rights for LGBTQ Americans.

So what else is on the chopping block after Roe? It doesn’t take a genius to get a sense of where conservatives are heading.

In Michigan, the Republicans running to be the state’s next attorney general all agreed in a February debate that the 1965 ruling striking down state bans on the sale of contraception had been wrongly decided. Griswold v. Connecticut is foundational to privacy rights and the precursor to decisions like Lawrence and Obergefell.

Or how about sitting GOP Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana telling a reporter that he would be perfectly fine with the issue of interracial marriage reverting back to a states’ rights issue.

Question: “You would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states?”

Braun: “Yes. If you are not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you are not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too.”

Braun later tried to walk it back because it’s nothing short of a radical reversal of fundamental civil rights law in modern America.

But basically the repeal of any Supreme Court ruling safeguarding the rights of Americans as we know them today is potentially in the offing. Buckle up!

This post was originally published on this site

“Pro-choice Republican” senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins would have you believe that they didn’t see the immediate end of abortion rights coming. That they had absolutely no clue the Trump justices they were trading votes on (both voted yes on Gorsuch; Murkowski was “present” on Kavanaugh, yes on Barrett; Collins was yes on Kavanaugh, no on Barrett) would do something so radical. Never mind that the guy who nominated them promised as a Republican hopeful that the best way to end abortion in the U.S. was “by electing me president.”

Trump repeated that as the Republicans’ nominee. He promised in a debate that overturning abortion rights would “happen, automatically in my opinion” because of the Supreme Court candidates he would nominate.

There weren’t any secrets here about what he was doing, and what the people he was promising a very cushy job for the rest of their lives would do for him in return. (By the way, Collins refuses to say, even now, that she won’t support him in 2024.)

Nonetheless, both Collins and Murkowski are playing disingenuous today, following the leak of Alito’s draft opinion in the Mississippi case that will end national abortion rights. Collins released a statement expressing her total surprise. “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” Collins said.

Contribute now to support abortion funds providing financial assistance to people seeking abortion care.

Campaign Action

Never mind that Kavanaugh had already shown his stripes on overturning precedent on abortion and lots else—two full years ago! “Obviously,” Collins added, “we won’t know each justice’s decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case.” Right. We’re totally in the dark about what the extremists on the court really intend to do, never mind that Alito put it all out there on paper.

Murkowski was little better. The leaked decision draft “rocks my confidence in the court right now,” she told reporters. Again, she and Collins are possibly the only two people in the abortion-rights community who did not see this coming. Or, that’s what she’d have us believe, anyway.

“Roe is still the law of the land,” she added, which is a good point. “We don’t know the direction that this decision may ultimately take,” Murkowski also said, resorting to remarkably obtuse again. “Sen. Collins and I in February introduced a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade. I thought it made sense then and I think it makes perhaps more sense now.”

About that bill. Yes, it’s better than what the Supreme Court is going to do, but it most certainly doesn’t not compare to the Women’s Health Protection Act, which they say “goes too far.” See, as far as these two “pro-choice” Republicans are concerned, pregnant people shouldn’t have a choice if someone in power decides that their abortion would infringe on someone else’s “religious liberty.”

They don’t believe a pregnant person should be able to get an abortion without being subject to laws forcing them to see anti-abortion propaganda before their procedure. They don’t believe pregnant minors should be able to conceal their abortions from parents or guardians, despite the potential risk to their personal safety at home.

That’s the substance of their supposed effort to preserve abortion rights. Swiss cheese. The context of this is that they know they can’t break a Republican filibuster on it. Their favorite partners in obstruction, Democrats Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, have already made that clear. Their statements in response to the leaked decision reiterate how important the filibuster is to “protect” reproductive health rights. Uh, huh.

None of this is to say that the extremist five who will overturn Roe and who knows what else in the coming months aren’t flat out liars. Because they are. But that character trait runs in Republicans, because Collins and Murkowski lied just as fervently when they said they believed this:

Which takes us back to this: the Supreme Court as it stands is illegitimate. It is full of liars, people who lied to the Senate under oath. Not to mention insurrectionists. It needs to be dealt with. It needs to be expanded.

And Collins and Murkowski either need to wake up to reality, or stop lying to their constituents. 

This post was originally published on this site

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said last fall that he would seek a rehearing after the conservatives from a three-judge appeals panel ruled against historic state law banning private, for-profit prisons. This includes detention facilities that imprison immigrants.

In a significant step forward for California—and the immigrant communities that passionately fought for the law’s passage in 2019—the state will get a new hearing in front of an 11-judge appeals panel. The three-judge panel’s Oct. 2021 ruling has also been thrown out, San Francisco Chronicle reported.

RELATED STORY: California attorney general seeks rehearing following ruling against state’s ban on private prisons

Bonta as a state assemblyman authored AB 32, which would block the state from entering into new private prison contracts, or renewing existing ones. “We are sending a powerful message that we vehemently oppose the practice of profiteering off the backs of Californians in custody,” Bonta said at the time. “We are committed to humane treatment for all.”

The bill targeted a deadly immigration detention facility operated by notorious private prison profiteer GEO Group, which, predictably, sued. While a George W. Bush-appointed judge initially ruled against GEO Group, the private prison profiteer appealed. Two of the judges were appointed by the previous administration. The third and lone dissenting judge was appointed by the Obama administration.

This rehearing means that California will now face off against the Biden administration. When the previous administration lost its coup attempt and left office on January 20, 2021, the new administration took over in urging the courts to block AB 32. “Biden’s Justice Department has backed the Trump administration’s position and argued that federal law does not authorize state regulation,” the Chronicle reported.

The Biden administration’s defense of GEO Group and its abhorrent facility is at odds with the president’s executive order directing the Justice Department to not renew private prison contracts, and his campaign pledge “that the federal government should not use private facilities for any detention, including detention of undocumented immigrants.” The Dignity Not Detention Coalition said last fall that a ruling in favor of GEO Group “would allow these detention centers, which have a long track record of serious abuse, to remain open.”

GEO Group also has the backing of the federal government as a court last fall ordered the company to pay $23 million in damages for violating minimum wage laws in Washington state. The Northwest ICE Processing Center facility had been forcing detained immigrants to work for $1 a day, and sometimes nothing at all. Rather than having to pay immigrants beyond what the court had required, the multi-billion company instead shut down this “Voluntary Work Program.”

In seeking a rehearing last fall, Bonta said that “for-profit, private prisons and detention facilities that treat people like commodities pose an unacceptable risk to the health and welfare of Californians. AB 32 puts people over profits.”

RELATED STORIES: Conservative judges overturn California’s ban on private prisons—with an assist from the Biden admin

‘A model for the nation’: California bans private prisons, private immigration detention facilities

Inspectors report nooses in cells, medical neglect in surprise visit to private immigration prison

This post was originally published on this site

President Joe Biden has issued a statement emphasizing his commitment to keeping abortion accessible following the release of an alleged leaked draft opinion by Politico that states the Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights.

In the statement issued Tuesday, Biden noted that a women’s right to an abortion is a “fundamental.” He added that: “Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned.”

Biden did also question the legitimacy of the draft, noting that it was not confirmed as drafts often change, meaning it’s possible this could not be reflective of the court’s final decision. “We do not know whether this draft is genuine, or whether it reflects the final decision of the Court,” he said.

Despite the draft and what decision is made, he stayed hopeful that should it be true we are not at a complete loss. He called on voters to make a difference in the upcoming elections and elect pro-abortion rights officials at the federal level to help Democrats pass legislation protecting abortion rights.  

“If the court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” Biden said. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.”

The statement also shared that the White House counsel’s office and the Gender Policy Council have been working on options to respond to potential outcomes in the Supreme Court case.

Biden’s statement gives us hope because it signals consistency. Since being elected, Biden has emphasized his support of abortion rights. In January, on the 49th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade case, he issued a statement with Vice President Kamala Harris emphasizing how the constitutional right to an abortion “is under assault as never before.”

“It is a right we believe should be codified into law, and we pledge to defend it with every tool we possess,” the statement said. “We are deeply committed to protecting access to health care, including reproductive health care—and to ensuring that this country is not pushed backwards on women’s equality.”

His statement then focused on newly passed abortion laws in Texas and the Mississippi law that is currently challenging the landmark case.

”We must ensure that our daughters and granddaughters have the same fundamental rights that their mothers and grandmothers fought for and won,” the joint statement said.

The country is currently in shock following the leaked draft. Said to have been drafted in February, the 67-page draft opinion claims that Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey are both not grounded in the Constitution.  

“We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives,” the draft opinion states.  

According to the draft opinion, the high court plans to overturn the landmark case. If done, at least 26 states will ban abortion, impacting more than 40 million women of child-bearing age, The Guttmacher Institute said in a report.

The New York-based research organization also noted that in 2021, at least 22 states passed their own versions of abortion laws that would begin as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned. The states included Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Contribute now to support abortion funds providing financial assistance to people seeking abortion care.

This post was originally published on this site

You might have expected that Republican lawmakers would have been giddy last night with the leaked news that the newly far-right Supreme Court is on the cusp of granting their half-century-old dream, the dream of erasing abortion rights that was the very reason the party began putting forth those new archconservative nominees to begin with. Nope. Republican lawmakers were and continue to be absolutely furious, alleging that the rare (but hardly unprecedented) leak from the court is an outrage that must not be allowed to stand.

And so a parade of willing seditionists, defenders of corruption, and those who keep voting to block investigations into any of it in order to advance Republican power have spent the last 24 hours screaming about the norms while saying little to nothing about the raw cruelty of Alito’s leaked far-far-right opinion, or its hints that the Trump-packed court intends to use the Alito framework to undo rights ranging from LGBT marriage to contraception to anti-“sodomy” laws.

No, the Republican Party that both mounted an attempted coup and is still working, to this day, to block the investigations into who organized the effort and who they had help from—they’re very mad about the Alito-written draft opinion getting leaked. It didn’t even take an hour for that to become The Talking Point.

Contribute to abortion funds by providing financial and practical support to people seeking abortion care in hostile states.

The Senate’s two most visible insurrection backers weighed in, of course. Sen. Ted Cruz was outraged by the “blatant attempt to intimidate the Court through public pressure rather than reasoned argument,” which you know is bullshit because insurrection. At the same time, Sen. Josh Hawley immediately went weird conspiracy crank because apparently not even history-shaking reality is as exciting as the theories in his own head.

There’s no part of that that makes sense, which is how you know Josh Hawley wrote it himself. He also has a solution: The Libs Made Me Fascist Harder!

Elsewhere in Team Active Sedition, we find that same “intimidating,” coupled with a “radical left.” It’s not attempting to overthrow the U.S. government or packing the courts with unqualified hardliners that’s radical; it’s some clerk or technical worker inside the Supreme Court leaking the end of abortion rights in this nation before Team Sedition’s justices have fully crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s.

The man who broke the court himself, Mitch McConnell, repeats the notion that the real “mob rule” is a random leaker inside the Supreme Court. “Escalation,” “radical left,” “attack,” and “intimidate” are all used, giving the impression of coordinated violence akin to, say, insurrection to describe reporters getting a leaked document from an unknown government source.

What’s important here, however, is to remember that McConnell is the most prolific liar in all of government now that Trump is gone. He literally gives speeches like this on a daily basis, all explaining that “the left” are the real radicals and that he is a man of high principle who would never do the things he just did. Mitch McConnell invented new rule after new rule to make sure the Supreme Court slid to the current archconservative dismantlers even as America continued to vote for Democratic presidents to undo it. There’s nobody who’s been more radical; a press leak may be embarrassing, but it’s neither an insurrection nor a spate of new laws blocking Americans from their ballots.

Yeah. Yeah, that’s it. Alito’s hyper-cruel opinion must be hidden from the public lest Alito feel vulnerable about it. Every theocratic fascist is secretly a wilting flower, which is why we’re getting all these new laws banning books that make people like Sam Freaking Alito feel bad.

OH MY GOD I’m just going to start filtering out any tweets or news stories that so much as mention Susan Collins’ name. Susan Collins could be replaced with a potted plant and it would make absolutely no difference in anyone’s lives, ever. Imagine basing a whole political career on the theme of being the single most gullible person in America—and getting reelected for it.

But the talking point is the talking point, and it’s still going.

Hey, it’s Guy Who’s All About Projecting Dignity While His Party Collapses Into Fascism:

Also Sen. Lindsey Graham said something, and I don’t even care. Lindsey saved his top career meltdown for the purpose of railroading a serial sex predator through the confirmation process rather than abide testimony against him. We all already know what he thinks about the “dignity” of our court systems.

Instead, here’s another reminder that this other guy remains neck-deep in the attempt to nullify an American election rather than recognize the right of Americans to pick non-Republican winners:

What a toad this guy is. But the notion that “a Supreme Court leak is the real insurrection” has gotten a lot of traction among the people who … don’t think actual insurrections are bad.

All right, that one’s simply amazing. It should come with its own theme song.

There is a distinct link between the curtailing of abortion rights and rising fascism, by the way.

There are two things to note that make Team Sedition’s posturing here even more grotesque than it first appears—aside from the uncanny link between restricting reproductive justice and authoritarianism/fascism. The first is that we sincerely don’t know who could have leaked this opinion or why, and we probably won’t know for a long time. There’s just as much reason to expect a conservative abortion opponent inside the court leaked the document to blame a secret liberal inside the court; if conservative justices were feeling uneasy about the sheer magnitude of what Alito intends to unravel, leaking the document would paint a target on whichever conservative justices were threatening to back out.

So it’s yet again the case that the Republicans insisting that their enemy, “the left,” are responsible for the latest crimes against Washington decency are basing those claims on fictions inside their own heads. They don’t know who leaked any more than the rest of us do, and they don’t know why.

The other detail that Republican outrage is conveniently ignoring is that while Supreme Court leaks are rare, they’re far from unprecedented. And leaking about Roe, in particular, is quite precedented!

Unlike an attempt by House and Senate Republicans to nullify an American presidential election based on false claims and party-pushed hoaxes, leaks from the Supreme Court are not, in fact, unprecedented assaults on our democracy.

Listen to Markos and Kerry Eleveld talk Ukraine and speak with Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler on how hitting back at Republicans helps win elections on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast

One can even make the case that our Supreme Court justices might behave a bit better if there were more leaks into how they arrive at their decisions, given this new court’s unwillingness to even issue written explanations of some of their most radical orders. Perhaps we would learn more about why the wife of a Supreme Court justice felt so confident about her own role in an attempted pro-Trump coup, and why that justice voted to block further evidence from coming to light. Perhaps we would learn why the court is currently pretending, very very hard, to be confused over whether constitutionally protected rights can be scrubbed out by any state willing to hire private bounty hunters to do it for them.

Perhaps we’d learn why Alito’s opinion leans so heavily into arguments that not just abortion rights need to be erased, but that civil rights legislation needs to be rolled back by several generations—back to the days when American women couldn’t open bank accounts without their husband’s permission, much less have control over their own human selves. Perhaps, though, we’d just learn that the current Supreme Court is just as devoted to forcing Republican rule onto the rest of us as the Josh Hawleys of the party are. They just don’t have to explain themselves when they do it.

Contribute to abortion funds by providing financial and practical support to people seeking abortion care in hostile states.

RELATED LINKS:

Leaked draft of Supreme Court opinion shows justices have voted to overturn Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court confirms authenticity of leaked Roe v. Wade draft opinion, opens investigation

Republicans plot national abortion ban as Democrats fail to even run on expanding the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has gone completely rogue, and promises worse. Expanding it is the only answer

Fight back! A list of a few reproductive justice organizations you can support today

This post was originally published on this site

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday both its confirmation of a draft decision indicating a plan to overturn Roe v. Wade and its order to investigate the leak of the draft. 

A letter from the office of public information calls the leaked draft, obtained by Politico Monday night, “authentic”—but clarified that it “does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

RELATED STORY: Fight back! A list of a few reproductive justice organizations you can support today

Justice John G. Roberts condemns the leak as a “betrayal of confidences” and writes that it was “intended to undermine the integrity of the operations,” adding that it will “not succeed.”

Roberts went on to refer to the leak as “a singular and egregious breach” of trust and an “affront to the Court, and the community of public servants who work here.” Roberts says that he’s directed the Marshal of the Court to open an investigation into the leak.

Yale law professor and former Supreme Court clerk Amy Kapczynski speculates that the leak came from a “conservative fanatically committed to every word of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft.”

Kapczynski’s Twitter thread highlights the timing of the leak.

“If a liberal was mad about it, why wait until April to send it to Politico?  The op will be out in June.  What are the benefits of releasing it early? And a BIG downside—the focus on the leak itself instead of the opinion,” Kapczynski tweeted. 

Kapczynski says draft “majorities circulate first, and then concurrences and dissents. So this is about the right timing for concurrences to come out. I think best bet is that Chief Justice Roberts circulated one recently, adopting a more moderate position… Maybe Roberts says abortions ok in some time frame, preserving exceptions for the life of the woman, etc. And Kavanaugh is tempted by it—maybe not enough to vote for it, but enough to demand some changes to the Alito opinion.”

Essentially, Kapczynski says leaks are a well-sharpened tool conservatives use to show they’re bold enough to break the rules and public trust to get what they want… and then blame the left. But, in the end, the leak isn’t the story. The opinion is. 

Contribute to abortion funds by providing financial and practical support to people seeking abortion care in hostile states.

This post was originally published on this site

Texas is off the table as pathway for the ambitious T-MEC Corridor, a railway project meant to connect Mazatlán in Mexico’s Sinaloa state with Winnipeg in Canada’s Manitoba province. Mexican Economy Minister Tatiana Clouthier spoke about the decision during this year’s Latin American Cities conference presented by the Americas Society Council of the Americas. Much of what Clouthier had to say had to do with the conference’s theme of nearshoring, the practice of outsourcing to a nearby country. In Clouthier’s case, parts of that nearby country (the state of Texas in the U.S.) have been inhospitable to the T-MEC Corridor, so the route will instead run through New Mexico. It was originally planned to go through the Lone Star State until Gov. Greg Abbott temporarily required “enhanced” inspections of commercial trucks traveling from Mexico to Texas.

The added inspections, which Abbott claimed would counteract potential smuggling and address safety concerns, ultimately turned up nothing and led to Texas losing $4 billion over the stunt, which lasted just 10 days. Not content to shoot himself in the foot just once, when Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador voiced his displeasure over the added checks, Abbott threatened to do it again. For that reason, Clouthier said last week that Mexico is “now not going to use Texas.” “We can’t leave all the eggs in one basket and be hostages to someone who wants to use trade as a political tool,” she added.

Clouthier’s remarks centered on what would ultimately benefit Mexico as a sure bet, so it makes sense that she would shirk Abbott’s volatility and route the T-MEC Corridor through Santa Teresa, New Mexico, which sits just 20 miles west of downtown El Paso, according to the Dallas Morning News. New Mexico officials hailed the development, with Border Industrial Association President Jerry Pacheco telling the paper that already he’s seen the difference in how Mexico interacts with New Mexico based on Abbott’s decisions. The brief period of added inspections, which lasted from April 6 to April 15, led to hours of backups for border crossings, wasting both time and money. Pacheco said that during that time—and even now—communities in Mexico and the U.S. are finding that Santa Teresa is a faster route comparatively.

“It’s been very interesting, but since Gov. Abbott’s truck inspections went away, our traffic numbers remain higher than normal in terms of northbound cargo shipments, which leads me to believe that what I thought would be a temporary fix is actually going to stick in the long term,” the Santa Teresa-based Pacheco told the Dallas Morning News. Pacheco admitted that the T-MEC project is still in its early stages but that New Mexico being brought up as a key component of the route is “a positive thing.”