https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g7d9NrVMDw
songs poems and political musings, trumpmas, dada, drumpf, the 40 days of trumpmas, trump, election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g7d9NrVMDw
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) held a press briefing on Wednesday.
By Jim Saksa
After more than two-and-a-half hours of oral argument Wednesday in Callais v. Louisiana, it’s clear that the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority wants to make it much easier for states to get away with racial discrimination in voting.
The six Republican-appointed justices only seemed split on how exactly to handle the constitutional challenge to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that they set in motion earlier this year when they ordered rare reargument in Callais on whether the state’s use of race in drawing electoral maps to remedy an unconstitutional racial gerrymander itself violated either the 14th or 15th Amendments.
If the court strikes down or significantly weakens Section 2, as looks likely, it would decimate the remainder of one of the most important civil rights laws in U.S. history, and give states carte blanche to draw electoral maps that eviscerate the political power of minority voters.
Such a ruling would also give the GOP a green light to gerrymander aggressively ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, dismantling minority districts held by Democrats — and potentially giving Republicans unassailable control of the House of Representatives for years to come, even after elections where most voters supported Democrats.
The VRA’s judicial dismantling began in 2013, when Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a 5-4 opinion in Shelby County v. Holder striking down the VRA’s “preclearance” provisions, which required certain jurisdictions with discriminatory pasts to get the federal government’s ok before changing election laws. Shelby cleared the way for Southern states to make it harder to vote, often in ways that received relatively little media attention.
The outcome could come down to Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the court’s liberals in upholding Section 2 — which prohibits racially discriminatory voting laws — in a similar case two years ago. In his concurrence then, Kavanaugh suggested he was open to a “temporal argument,” like the one used to weaken the VRA in Shelby County.
On Wednesday, Kavanaugh was joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in returning repeatedly to the temporality question, suggesting that for a remedy to be “narrowly tailored” enough to survive strict scrutiny, it must somehow be limited in duration.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that, unlike the preclearance conditions found suspect in Shelby County, Congress made a violation of Section 2 contingent on current conditions — not past discrimination — and did not set a durational sunset on the provision.
While Roberts didn’t tip his hand with his questioning, the court’s remaining conservatives seemed interested only in figuring out which argument for gutting Section 2 they wanted to endorse, not whether to do so. The lawsuit’s conservative plaintiffs, the state of Louisiana, and the Department of Justice all offered options.
While Louisiana and the plaintiffs both asked the bench to find Section 2 of the VRA unconstitutional, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan pushed for merely weakening the law.
Mooppann did his colleagues no favors during a colloquy with Justice Neil Gorsuch, where he characterized their argument as “eliminat[ing] Section 2 entirely,” while arguing that doing so would not reduce Black representation in Congress.
“Just to be fair, they’re not arguing for eliminating Section 2 entirely,” Gorsuch interjected.
The current maps were defended by the NAACP’s Janai Nelson, who noted that Louisiana has never elected a Black person to statewide office. All of Louisiana’s Black members of Congress, all of its Black state justices, and most of its Black state representatives came from “opportunity districts” created to remedy violations of Section 2.
This case began in 2022, when the Louisiana legislature drew a congressional map that packed Black voters in just one of the state’s six districts, even though they make up roughly a third of voters. A group of Black voters sued, leading to a court ordering state lawmakers to redraw the map with two majority-Black districts.
Justice Clarence Thomas seemed preoccupied with that case, Robinson v. Ardoin, focusing his questions for both sides on how the court’s remedy there came as a preliminary injunction, not a final determination.
A group of “non-African American voters,” recruited by anti-VRA activists then sued, arguing that the new map, drawn to fix an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, was itself an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Outside the arguments, supporters rallied for the VRA on the steps of the Supreme Court, highlighting the law’s impact on their lives.
“Before we got the map, and up until that time, we had a very unfair system in terms of all services,” Dr. Alice Washington, one of the intervenors in Robinson, told Democracy Docket. “We were an underserved population. Without the fair map, people are not represented, their issues are not addressed and they have no way of getting their needs and issues addressed.”
Another Robinson intervenor, Davonte Lewis, was elected to the Louisiana Public Service Commission — a race he would’ve never won, but for the VRA, he said to Democracy Docket.
“I’m only the third person in Louisiana’s history who is Black to serve on this powerful body representing one-fifth of the state,” Lewis said. “If the court strikes this down, I don’t know what it does for my constituents who finally have a voice in regulating their energy and utility bills. And what that means for our future.”
Under the 14th Amendment, the courts have required that the government can only consider race if it’s done in a “narrowly tailored” manner for a “compelling state interest.” The Supreme Court has held that redressing a racial gerrymander is a pretty compelling reason to redraw an electoral map. In 1986, the court clarified the constraints on using race in remedial mapmaking in Thornburg v. Gingles, which laid out factors for judges to consider.
The conservative justices could “clarify” or “modify” Gingles, as they alternately characterized that argument, in a manner that would implicitly — if not explicitly — require plaintiffs prove that mapmakers intended racial discrimination in order to establish a VRA violation.
As Justice Elena Kagan noted, the Supreme Court already did that once, in a 1980 ruling that Congress responded to two years later by amending Section 2 to explicitly prohibit racial discrimination in effect.
If the court nevertheless insists that intent must be central to a VRA inquiry, then it would be all but nullifying the second part of the 15th Amendment: “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Justice Samuel Alito seemed to agree with Mooppan’s arguments that the court’s decision in 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause — which effectively validated partisan gerrymandering — changes what constitutes a sufficiently constrained racial redistricting in response to a VRA violation. Now that states can argue that their maps were redrawn for nakedly partisan ends like maximizing the number of Republican safe seats, perhaps the Gingles factors need to be updated to incorporate those goals. That could lead to a new requirement for winning a Section 2 claim — that the remedial maps aren’t likely to change an electoral map’s partisan split.
That ruling would clear the way for Republicans to redraw congressional maps across the country, and particularly in the South, to effectively gain 19 new safe U.S. House seats, as a recent analysis by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter determined. On top of the other mid-decade gerrymanders demanded by President Donald Trump, the GOP could net 27 House seats, all but precluding Democrats from winning back control of the House.
Matt Cohen and Maya Bodinson contributed to this report.

Follow along using the transcript.
https://newrepublic.com/article/198398/gop-budget-planned-parenthood-cuts

Republican administrations and lawmakers have had Planned Parenthood in their sights for decades, but the new Republican spending law achieves their long-sought goal of defunding the reproductive health and abortion care organization. Between dramatic cuts to Medicaid and the targeting of Planned Parenthood, the measure, passed in Congress and signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month, will have devastating implications for low-income Americans’ ability to access reproductive health care of all kinds.
“We’ve seen this kind of provision for years, and they’ve just never been able to pass it, and now they finally have,” said Katie O’Connor, senior director of federal abortion policy at the National Women’s Law Center. “What makes this really unprecedented is just that it comes at the same time that we’re going to see millions of people lose access to Medicaid altogether.”
The law prohibits any reproductive health clinic that performs abortions and receives more than $800,000 in federal reimbursements from receiving Medicaid funding for one year. Although it does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, it effectively defunds the organization, given its high operating budget. Abortion rights advocates say that the law also may serve as a backdoor ban on the procedure even in states where abortion is legal; the law leaves nearly 200 Planned Parenthood clinics at risk of closure, 90 percent of which are in states where abortion is legal.
“It’s going to make it harder for everybody in those states—and everybody coming from other states where abortion has already been banned or severely restricted—to access care,” said Karen Stone, vice president of public policy and government relations at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Planned Parenthood is already prohibited by federal law from using Medicaid funds to provide abortions—with the exceptions of cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment—although 20 states use their own funds to cover abortion for Medicaid particpants. It instead uses those resources to provide other kinds of reproductive health care. According to KFF, Planned Parenthood clinics serve more than two million patients per year; moreover, roughly four in 10 Medicaid recipients reported receiving medical care from a Planned Parenthood facility at some point. Planned Parenthood health centers provide health care unrelated to abortion, including cancer screenings, contraception, and testing for sexually transmitted infections. If they are cut off from federal funding, it becomes more difficult for clinics to see those low-income patients who may be in need of these services because the health centers would not be reimbursed for the care they provide.
The passage of the law has sown “chaos and confusion” for Planned Parenthood health centers across the country, said Stone. This week, a federal judge blocked the total implementation of the provision related to Planned Parenthood, although the injunction only applied to certain clinics. The Trump administration has already appealed this decision, and it will likely wend its way to the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority has been overtly hostile to abortion rights.
The passage of the new law came just one week after the Supreme Court dealt another blow to Planned Parenthood, ruling that individual states could block the organization from receiving Medicaid funds for reproductive health services. The court’s conservative majority argued that, although Medicaid patients have the capacity to choose their own provider under law, they do not have the right to file lawsuits against states that wish to block funding for the group. This particular case was not centered on abortion but rather on access to contraceptive care, which the plaintiff was trying to obtain from a Planned Parenthood clinic; even in states where abortion is severely restricted, Planned Parenthood is associated with abortion by Republican lawmakers.
“What we saw from the Supreme Court, in my mind, was already worsening the deep divide between states that ban abortion, or states that are hostile to abortion rights, and states that protect abortion rights,” said O’Connor. By defunding Planned Parenthood, O’Connor continued, the new Republican law builds upon the decision by the Supreme Court by making abortion more difficult to access across the country—not just in red states.
If clinics are closed in states where abortion is legal, it would also make it more difficult for out-of-state patients traveling to seek an abortion to obtain that procedure. “It would flatten out the differences between states, and also put a lot more pressure and challenge on places that remain open, because they’d be serving even more people as the population of clinics declines,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, and an expert on abortion law and history.
Another element of uncertainty lies in timing. Because the provision is written to be in effect for one year, it would need to be extended by Congress for it to continue to be in effect. “There may be various Band-Aids and stopgaps that people can use to cover the difference in the short term, but that would not work or be sustainable in the longer term, so that’s another wild card,” continued Ziegler. For example, while donors could step in to help defray costs and alleviate funding shortfalls to cover immediate needs, those funding streams may not be tenable over the long term; moreover, it would put pressure on abortion and reproductive health care funds intended to assist low-income patients in receiving care that might otherwise be too expensive.
A June report by the Guttmacher Institute, a think tank focused on reproductive rights, found that other federally qualified health centers would not be able to easily replace the care currently provided by Planned Parenthood affiliates. In 2020, Planned Parenthood served roughly one-third of the contraceptive clients that visited family planning centers funded through the social safety net. If Planned Parenthood were to be excluded from Medicaid reimbursement, Guttmacher found that federally qualified health centers would need to increase their capacity to provide contraceptive care by 56 percent.
Moreover, in the longer term, the law’s cuts to Medicaid will exacerbate these challenges when certain provisions are implemented in 2028. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new law will result in 10 million people losing health coverage over the next decade. This in turn would devastate their ability to access reproductive health care and health centers’ capacity to serve them.
“Medicaid, for low-income folks, is critically important to their ability to access contraception, STI testing—all of the whole range of sexual reproductive health care services,” said Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at Guttmacher. “That also then has this ripple effect on abortion [care]. So, as you start cutting off people’s access to certain kinds of health care services and clinics’ ability to serve them, those clinics end up potentially closing.”
In 2023, more than 21 percent of women aged 15 through 49 received health care coverage through Medicaid, and more than half of all women living below the federal poverty level relied on Medicaid coverage. The cuts to Medicaid are also likely to have a significant effect in rural areas, where nearly one in four people rely on that program for health care coverage. Meanwhile, the uncertain future of Planned Parenthood clinics would exacerbate issues with obtaining care: According to Planned Parenthood, 60 percent of health centers at risk of closure are located in medically underserved areas, rural communities, and areas with a shortage of primary health care professionals.
“We’re just going to see this ripple effect of people not having coverage and not necessarily being able to get health care, and at the same time, you put a target on the clinics themselves that are there to serve those populations,” said Friedrich-Karnik. “So it’s just going to be this huge void, and you’re going to be left with millions of people unable to access the health care that they need.”
McDowell County, North Carolina, loves Donald Trump, and showed it by voting for him 74-25% in 2024. As The News and Observer noted, “The county of about 45,000 in the mountains of western North Carolina is still recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Helene a year ago. Its difficulties have been made worse by a low level of federal relief funding and bungling by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Trump and his Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem.”
As we’ve discussed, MAGA-loving states are poor and depend heavily on the federal government, which means they’re funded disproportionately by blue states and urban America. So when they vote for a Republican Party that holds nothing but disdain for poor Americans, they are voting for a government that systematically wreaks havoc on them. And they’re too ignorant to even realize it.
Related | Look just how much red counties depend on the government they hate
“Here in the western part of the state, which is a red area, I’ve actually enrolled people in the ACA who are so excited to have coverage,” Amy Stevens, who helps people get health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act, told The News and Observer. “But then they say, ‘You didn’t enroll me in that Obamacare, did you? I don’t want any of that.’”
Well, they got some of that—and in the process, they got health care.
“I have so many stories of people who got insurance for the first time and were able to get to the doctor and find out they had chronic health issues they knew nothing about,” Stevens added.
It wasn’t their beloved Republican Party that made that care possible. It was us—liberals who actually believe that the U.S. government can and should make people’s lives better. We believe health care isn’t a privilege for the wealthy, but a basic right for everyone.
We believe no one should lose their home because they got sick, that children shouldn’t go without medicine because their parents can’t afford it, and that our collective strength comes from lifting each other up—not pretending everyone can fend for themselves in this capitalist hellscape.
We pay our taxes—never complaining that much of those taxes get siphoned to rural America—because we believe in building a country where everyone has a fair shot, not just those who live in cities or in wealthy coastal enclaves. We build the systems that keep rural hospitals open, send disaster aid to small towns, fund the postal service despite its inefficiencies, expand broadband opportunities, and make sure a kid in McDowell County can see a doctor just like a kid in Manhattan.
But those conservative voters, benefiting from Democratic policies and liberal America’s tax dollars, spat in our faces and doubled down on division, hatred, and bigotry by voting for Trump. Such ingratitude!
They got what they wanted and elected him back into office. And the result? Over 1 million people in North Carolina are now set to lose their health care. McDowell County, already overly reliant on the charity of blue-state taxpayers, will bear a particularly heavy brunt.
That sounds tragic for them. But there’s a silver lining: They're finally getting the day they voted for.
Thank you for choosing Daily Kos.
You have a lot of options when it comes to reading the news, and we're thankful that you've chosen Daily Kos. We are a proudly progressive, independent outlet—free from the special interests that come with corporate sponsors and the agendas of billionaire backers.
Daily Kos's biggest source of income is small donations from readers like you. We like it that way because it makes us accountable to you—our readers—and no one else, and we want to keep it that way.
If you want to see more progressive, independent news, then please take one minute right now to donate $5 or more to Daily Kos.