Trump v CASA: The Republican Justices Are Doing What the Republican President Asks | Balls and Strikes

1 Share

On Friday, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Trump v. CASA, a case that is both generally about the authority of courts to rein in executive lawlessness, and also specifically about the authority of courts to prevent President Donald Trump from rewriting the Constitution to eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. 

The six Republican justices in the majority claimed, at least for now, to answer only the first question. But for millions of people, they have effectively answered the second one, too, and (you will never believe this) in the way Trump wants. In an opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court imposed sharp limits on federal district courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions, since, in Barrett’s view, such injunctions lack a “historical pedigree,” and are not sufficiently “analogous” to forms of relief available in English courts 250 years ago. 

As a result, the Court rolled back a trio of district court injunctions that had blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship order on a nationwide basis: Going forward, Barrett says, lower courts may enter injunctions only to the extent necessary to provide “complete relief” to the parties in a case before them. In the context of the birthright citizenship executive order, this can mean being an individual pregnant person who is suing for your unborn child’s citizenship, or being a resident of one of 22 states in which Democratic attorneys general have sued on their residents’ behalf to (temporarily) block the order from taking effect. For the time being, children born to undocumented people and non-permanent residents who fit this description will still become U.S. citizens as a matter of birthright.

Children born in the 28 states not covered by an injunction, however, are getting thrust into a constitutional gray zone. Instead, for however long it takes courts to resolve legal challenges to the order—which, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out in a concurrence, could take several years—children born to undocumented people and non-permanent residents from this point on will be relegated to a crude form of second-class citizenship. They will have trouble doing basic things like enroll in school, get an ID card, or obtain healthcare via Medicaid, as Matt Watkins explains at Slate. And if these legal challenges someday conclude with a 6-3 opinion in which the Republican justices decide to permit their favorite president to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment after all, those children could be subject to deportation at the government’s earliest convenience.

The upshot of CASA is that what was, until several hours ago, a fundamental right affirmed by the Constitution’s plain text and more than a century of Supreme Court precedent is now a privilege contingent on in which state you happen to be born, and to whom, and when. The last time the justices issued a decision like this one, the country fought a civil war over it.

Read the whole story
chrisamico
106 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

Substack Did Not See That Coming • Buttondown

2 Shares
Read the whole story
acdha
70 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
chrisamico
110 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

The Who Cares Era

6 Shares

Earlier this week, it was discovered that the Chicago Sun-Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer had both published an externally-produced "special supplement" that contained facts, experts, and book titles entirely made up by an AI chatbot. There's been a lot written about this (former Chicago Reader editor Martha Bayne's is the best), and I don't need to rehash it all. But the thing that is most disheartening to me is how at every step along the way, nobody cared.

The writer didn't care. The supplement's editors didn't care. The biz people on both sides of the sale of the supplement didn't care. The production people didn't care. And, the fact that it took two days for anyone to discover this epic fuckup in print means that, ultimately, the reader didn't care either.

It's so emblematic of the moment we're in, the Who Cares Era, where completely disposable things are shoddily produced for people to mostly ignore.

AI is, of course, at the center of this moment. It's a mediocrity machine by default, attempting to bend everything it touches toward a mathematical average. Using extraordinary amounts of resources, it has the ability to create something good enough, a squint-and-it-looks-right simulacrum of normality. If you don't care, it's miraculous. If you do, the illusion falls apart pretty quickly. The fact that the userbase for AI chatbots has exploded exponentially demonstrates that good enough is, in fact, good enough for most people. Because most people don't care.

(It's worth pointing out that I'm not a full-throated hater and know people—coders, mostly—who work with AI that do care and have used it to make real, meaningful things. Most people, however, use it quickly and thoughtlessly to make more mediocrity.)

It's easy to blame this all on AI, but it's not just that. Last year I was deep in negotiations with a big-budget podcast production company. We started talking about making a deeply reported, limited-run show about the concept of living in a multiverse that I was (and still am) very excited about. But over time, our discussion kept getting dumbed down and dumbed down until finally the show wasn't about the multiverse at all but instead had transformed into a daily chat show about the Internet, which everyone was trying to make back then. Discussions fell apart.

Looking back, it feels like a little microcosm of everything right now: Over the course of two months, we went from something smart that would demand a listener's attention in a way that was challenging and new to something that sounded like every other thing: some dude talking to some other dude about apps that some third dude would half-listen-to at 2x speed while texting a fourth dude about plans for later.

Hanif Abdurraqib, in one of his excellent Instagram mini-essays the other week, wrote about the rise of content that's designed to be consumed while doing something else. In Hanif's case, he was writing about Time Machine, his incredible 90 minute deep dive into The Fugees' seminal album The Score. Released in 2021, Hanif marveled at the budget, time, and effort that went into crafting the two-part 90 minute podcast and how, today, there's no way it would have happened.

He's right. Nobody's funding that kind of work right now, because nobody cares.

(It's worth pointing out that Hanif wrote this using Stories, a system that erased it 24 hours later. Another victim of the Who Cares Era.)

Of course we're all victims of the biggest perpetrators of this uncaring era, as the Trump administration declares "Who Cares?" to vast swaths of the federal government, to public health, to immigrant families, to college students, to you, to me. As Elon Musk's DOGE rats gnaw their way through federal agencies, not caring is their guiding light. They cut indiscriminately, a smug grin on their faces. That they believe they can replace government workers—people who care an extraordinary amount about their arcane corner of the bureaucracy—with hastily-written AI code is another defining characteristic of right now.

I keep coming back to the word "disheartening," because it all really is.

Without getting into too many specifics, I recently was involved in reviewing hundreds of applications for something. Over the course of reviewing, I was struck by the nearly-identical phrasing that threaded through dozens of the applications. It was eerie at first, like seeing a shadow in the distance, then frustrating, and ultimately completely disheartening: It was AI. For whatever their reasons, a bunch of people had used a chatbot to help write their answers to questions that asked them to draw from their own, unique, personal experience. They had fed their resumes or their personal websites or their actual stories and experiences into the machine, and it had filled in the blanks, Mad Libs-style. I felt crushed.

Until.

Until I read an application written entirely by a person. And then another. And another. They glowed with delight and joy and sadness and with the unexpected at every turn.

They were human.

They were written by people that cared.

In the Who Cares Era, the most radical thing you can do is care.

In a moment where machines churn out mediocrity, make something yourself. Make it imperfect. Make it rough. Just make it.

At a time where the government's uncaring boot is pressing down on all of our necks, the best way to fight back is to care. Care loudly. Tell others. Get going.

As the culture of the Who Cares Era grinds towards the lowest common denominator, support those that are making real things. Listen to something with your full attention. Watch something with your phone in the other room. Read an actual paper magazine or a book.

Be yourself.

Be imperfect.

Be human.

Care.

Read the whole story
chrisamico
121 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
acdha
141 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Bragg Soldiers Who Cheered Trump's Political Attacks While in Uniform Were Checked for Allegiance, Appearance

1 Share

It was supposed to be a routine appearance, a visit from the commander in chief to rally the troops, boost morale and celebrate the Army's 250th-birthday week, which culminates with a Washington, D.C., parade slated for Saturday.

Instead, what unfolded Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, bore little resemblance to the customary visit from a president and defense secretary. There, President Donald Trump unleashed a speech laced with partisan invective, goading jeers from a crowd of soldiers positioned behind his podium -- blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics.

As Trump viciously attacked his perceived political foes, he whipped up boos from the gathered troops directed at California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom -- amid the president's controversial move to deploy the National Guard and Marines against protesters in Los Angeles -- as well as former President Joe Biden and the press. The soldiers roared with laughter and applauded Trump's diatribe in a shocking and rare public display of troops taking part in naked political partisanship.

Read Next: Army Birthday Celebration Falls in Shadow of LA Military Deployment, Immigration Policy Protests

For this story, <a href="http://Military.com" rel="nofollow">Military.com</a> reached out to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's office as well as the Army and the 82nd Airborne Division directly with a series of questions that ranged from the optics of the event to social media posts showing the sale of Trump campaign merchandise on the base, to the apparent violation of Pentagon policies on political activity in uniform.

Internal 82nd Airborne Division communications reviewed by <a href="http://Military.com" rel="nofollow">Military.com</a> reveal a tightly orchestrated effort to curate the optics of Trump's recent visit, including handpicking soldiers for the audience based on political leanings and physical appearance. The troops ultimately selected to be behind Trump and visible to the cameras were almost exclusively male.

One unit-level message bluntly said "no fat soldiers."

"If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out," another note to troops said.

Service officials declined to comment when asked about the extent to which troops were screened, whether soldiers displaying partisan cheers on television -- a violation of long-standing Pentagon rules -- would be disciplined or if soldiers who objected to participating in the event, citing disagreements with the administration, would be disciplined or admonished in any way.

"This has been a bad week for the Army for anyone who cares about us being a neutral institution," one commander at Fort Bragg told <a href="http://Military.com" rel="nofollow">Military.com</a> on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation. "This was shameful. I don't expect anything to come out of it, but I hope maybe we can learn from it long term."

Experts were quick to come out and say that the public silence from military leadership is a missed opportunity to reinforce the military's nonpartisan nature. Meanwhile, the political leadership at the head of the Defense Department was far from apologetic.

"Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media," Sean Parnell, a top Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to <a href="http://Military.com" rel="nofollow">Military.com</a>. "Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers."

Adding to the spectacle, a pop-up shop operated by 365 Campaign, a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based retailer that sells pro-Trump and other conservative-coded memorabilia, was set up on-site with campaign-style merchandise on Army property. Soldiers were seen purchasing clothing and tchotchkes, including "Make America Great Again" chain necklaces to faux credit cards labeled "White Privilege Card: Trumps Everything."

Permitting the sale of overtly partisan merchandise on an Army base likely runs afoul of numerous Defense Department regulations aimed at preserving the military's long-standing commitment to political neutrality. The Army has historically gone to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of partisanship.

Parnell did not respond to follow-up questions about the sale of MAGA campaign gear directly to troops but Col. Mary Ricks, a spokesperson for Fort Bragg, said that “the vendor’s presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar occurrences in the future” in a statement provided after this story was first published.

Trump used much of his speech to slam California Democrats and tout his ongoing and unprecedented surge of nearly 5,000 federalized Guard soldiers and Marines to quell immigration protests.

"We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again," he proclaimed to soldiers, adding that Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass are "incompetent" and falsely said they're aiding "insurrectionists" while goading troops into booing them.

"I bet none of those soldiers booing even know the mayor's name or could identify them in a lineup; they're nonexistent in the chain of command," an 82nd Airborne noncommissioned officer told Military.com. "So, any opinion they could possibly have can only be attributed to expressing a political view while in uniform."

Trump is far from the first president to use the troops as a backdrop for a speech that had political notes. But experts say this speech crossed a line and showed the military's ethics can be vulnerable.

"What I think is so remarkable about Bragg is that it's really a breakdown on the military side," Risa Brooks, an expert of civil-military relations at Marquette University, told <a href="http://Military.com" rel="nofollow">Military.com</a>.

"It shows it's possible -- that the military's professional ethics could fail," she said.

In 2022, Biden received criticism for delivering a speech outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia that aimed to warn the public about the authoritarian impulses of then-former President Trump and his supporters.

He was flanked by two Marines in dress uniform.

Republicans and reporters immediately jumped on Biden, slamming him for politicizing the military.

"The only thing worse than Biden's speech trashing his fellow citizens is wrapping himself in our flag and Marines to do it," Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote on social media at the time.

Another Trump administration official, James Hutton, said Biden "used U.S. Marines as props" and slammed the move as "despicable conduct in attacking more than half of Americans."

Ari Fleischer, a conservative commentator at the time, said the speech was not only "inappropriate" but that the Marine Corps had "some explaining to do" for allowing the speech to occur.

Neither Fleischer, Hutton nor Issa appears to have made any posts criticizing Trump's speech as of publication.

Going back decades, presidents have all used troops as background and set dressing for addresses and appearances that at times skirted the line between the nonpartisan nature of the military and the politics of the presidency.

Biden's White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, noted to reporters after Biden's speech in 2022 that "it is actually normal for presidents from either side of the aisle to give speeches in front of members of the military, including President ... Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush."

"It is not an unusual sight or is not an unusual event to have happened," she added.

Brooks also agreed and noted that many of the instances of troops being used as props "are mostly instigated by the civilian side."

However, many of those examples were presidents choosing the setting to speak to the troops about military policy and issues that affected them personally, and with the exceptions of polite applause and laughs at presidential jokes, troops have not been especially vocal or reactive to the rhetoric being offered.

"Trump has gone farther than any other politician in the tenor and content of his comments, overtly treating events with troops in the audience as campaign rallies, and overtly and directly criticizing his opponents," Brooks said.

Long before the unprecedented speech at Fort Bragg this week, Trump has been blurring the lines between politics and military events. In the early days of his first term, he spoke to troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida and told the assembled troops "we had a wonderful election, didn't we?"

"And I saw those numbers, and you liked me and I liked you. That's the way it worked," he added.

Trump also went on to use the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes to sign a ban on travel from Muslim-majority countries during his first term. Marines appeared in a 2020 Republican National Committee video that he shot at the White House. That same year, then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley appeared alongside Trump in Lafayette Square outside the White House after federal officials forcibly cleared a street of peaceful protesters for a photo opportunity in front of a local church.

Milley later apologized for his presence.

Despite the silence from military brass this week, other experts, military observers and a handful of former leaders, have condemned the speech or the ensuing silence.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, best known for serving as the task force commander that coordinated military relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina, called the speech "inappropriate."

"I never witnessed that s..t like this in 37 years in uniform," Honore wrote on social media Tuesday.

"Once you see one instance of this happening, it potentially normalizes it," Brooks warned. "It opens the door to more instances and more overt violations of the nonpartisan ethic."

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with a statement from Fort Bragg provided to <a href="http://Military.com" rel="nofollow">Military.com</a> after the story was published.

Related: Trump Deploys Hundreds of Marines to LA in Growing Military Response to Immigration Raid Protests

Story Continues

© Copyright 2025 <a href="http://Military.com" rel="nofollow">Military.com</a>. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from <a href="http://Military.com" rel="nofollow">Military.com</a>, please submit your request here.

Read the whole story
chrisamico
122 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

End Office Happy Hours

1 Share
Read the whole story
chrisamico
128 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

No One Goes to Happy Hour After Work Anymore. The Reason Why Is Grim.

1 Share
Read the whole story
chrisamico
128 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories