Whenever Berger is mentioned in the discussion here, keep thinking of the villainous Berger in the Transformers episodes “Megatron’s Master Plan 1 & 2.”
The Berger in Transformers was trying to get in power after the elected Governor/Mayor had already taken office only to find his agenda used against him by Megatron.
Traditionally in parts of Texas (and at least also in Kansas), "Okie" was used to mean fool or moron. So using being close to Oklahoma as an insult makes sense. Lol
Tariffs imposed under the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 struck down by Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote.
Of course, the conservative 3 in the majority rely on the totally made up "major questions" doctrine. While the liberal 3 in the majority say traditional statutory construction clearly indicates that congress did not intend to grant the power to unilaterally imposes tariffs in the 1977 law.
While this is undoubtedly a major victory for so many reasons, is anyone else worried that the price drop I assume this will lead to will cause people to think Trump is bringing down prices?
There are other tariffs, imposed under different laws, that are still in effect. Plus, it's not a 1 to 1 relationship with tariffs in terms of consumer pricing. So it won't be as noticeable as you might think.
And the statutes that allow TACO to implement tariffs on certain things caps it at 15%, not this extortive 50-200% bullshit he was doing at the beginning of 2025.
There will be little to no price drops. Companies will simply pocket the difference as revenue/profit as many individual consumers and businesses have no choice but to continue paying, and because inflation remains near 3%. In some sectors, particularly industrial ones, there are 12-36 month lead times on purchases/equipment, and CapEx is made in cycles lasting years, so the immediate impact will be minimal. Any business that spent real money in what they thought was this "new environment", and are now waiting on their stuff are sure as heck not going to get a retroactive discount/refund.
I've been told that "Most existing tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301 remain intact and the Trump Administration has indicated that it would lean on other trade powers to replace any tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. Hence the rather muted market reaction so far."
Also just like the inflation under Biden, people hate it but are still purchasing goods, not just necessities. Until the American consumer starts seriously paring back spending companies have little incentive to lower prices.
But can demand by the top 10% (responsible for the vast majority of spending) really be sustained at the current clip? Won't the business cycle catch up at some point even if their resource supply is sustained?
Prices go up quickly in response to bad conditions. Removing that bad condition may cause the price go back down, but it will not do so as quickly. It might not even go down at all.
Yes. Any economic upshot that may follow will reinforce the impression of soft, low-information Trump voters that he's a business wizard. There's no guarantee the economic ship will be steered in the right direction so quickly and without complication, but considering dumb luck has bailed Trump out of every self-dug hole he's found himself in over a half century in public life, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this ruling limits GOP losses next year either.
Gorsuch discussed two early congressional debates in his concurring opinion to show rejections of expanding presidential power in early U.S. history. The first involved the House of Representatives rejecting a proposal to give the president a “largely unfettered” power to establish postal routes, “even though doing so hardly would have touched on life, liberty, or property,” Gorsuch said. The second involved four representatives objecting to a bill that authorized the president to raise an army of up to 10,000 men, even though the bill ultimately passed.
“The deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man,” Gorsuch wrote.
Thomas disagreed with Gorsuch’s interpretation of early history, writing, “Justice Gorsuch’s interpretation of two ‘early congressional debates,’… is thus difficult to reconcile with what early Congresses actually did.”
He continued: “Since the 1790s, Congress has consistently delegated to the President power over foreign commerce, including the power to impose duties on imports.”
delegated with guardrails, including within IEEPA, the need for a "national emergency", something like a foreign invasion... no such national emergency exists, and therefore, the executive does not have grounds to use the powers delegated to it by IEEPA and other statutes which permit the imposition of tariffs. There is not, and never has been a situation where the executive has conditionless, unchecked, unfettered control over economic affairs.
The pro-Al group for Bores is driven by the "effective altruism" ideology. I have never understood what this Silicon Valley gobbledygook actually is. Wasn't Sam Bankman-Fried supposedly an effective altruist?
The first I had heard of "effective altruism" was Peter Singer's book "The Most Good You Can Do" which related to charitable giving. Within limits, I have incorporated that theory into my own charitable giving. What the AI bros have done is corrupted the idea to justify unbridled greed.
I've dipped my toes into the EA waters before, there's basically two currents. There's the philanthropic people like you mention that want to focus on things like malaria nets and direct cash transfers to third world countries, and then there's the "longtermist" POV that's basically a sci-fi LARP about worrying for the people who could potentially exist a zillion years from now and also AGI that would kill us all. I appreciate the first perspective and like you I try to keep that as one of my main focuses when donating and find the second one just hilariously out of touch.
I've found even the first strand to have a strangely anti-human ideology. At least as I've encountered it, "effectiveness" is measured in terms of things like life time economic output, which usually shows things like basic medical interventions to be the most effective. Not to say that we should not fund these things of course, but we do them to alleviate suffering, not to increase lifetime economic output!
The "longtermists" derailed what was a modestly successful movement to refocus charitably giving on outcomes rather than stupid metrics like program expense ratios, which don't tell you whether or not the program is doing anyone any good. Even before SBF's downfall everyone stopped taking EA seriously once it became dominated by Terminator fantasies.
I thought people would appreciate that in Southern California, I was able to walk to see representative Min's (CD 47) town hall. The town hall was delayed about 10 minutes by a single protester on a topic I can't discuss here, and fortunately he exited probably just before the police lost tolerance. Min did well at addressing issues and he's a fighter. After 6 years of Porter and Min, it's hard to imagine that before 2018, I was (not) represented by people like Mimi Walters. How my district has moved.
I was impressed with Dave Min when he ran to replace Katie Porter in CA-47. He was sharp and ready to roll. He embodies similar traits as Porter but of course comes with a different background.
I think a Dem would be doing well to match Spanberger’s 6 point loss here in a special. The district is probably the most Republican part of Virginia Beach.
The special election electorate will probably be more Dem-friendly than in the 2025 general election, so I could see a Democrat doing better than Spanberger did. Actually winning the district, though, will be tough but not impossible. We've had at least one special election where the Democratic candidate outperformed Harris by more than 15 points (Taylor Rehmet in the Texas state Senate special comes to mind).
FYI that's with informed ballot. Voters are asked who they prefer after being given these descriptions:
"Anita Earls - the Democrat - a civil rights attorney and an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court since 2019. As Justice, she will continue to uphold the rights enshrined in the North Carolina Constitution — access to healthcare, a sound basic public education, and the right to vote."
"Sarah Stevens - the Republican – has served in the North Carolina House of Representatives since 2009. Stevens believes the law should be applied as written and judges shouldn't create laws from the bench. On the Supreme Court, Stevens will respect our state's constitution and apply the principles of conserving liberty to every case."
"On the Supreme Court, Stevens will respect our state's constitution and apply the principles of conserving liberty to every case"
What a bunch of bullshit after the shenanigans she pulled with Berger in the legislature and the partisan games Paul Newby pulled after their party flipped control of our state Supreme Court in 2023.
She should be nowhere near a judicial seat, let alone elected to one.
I am not a fan of informed ballot polls, but to have any value you have to phrase the opponents profile as close as possible to how you think they will present it. So in this case the phrase is more or less what it needs to be as that is the terms conservatives always use.
"On the Supreme Court, Stevens will respect our state's constitution and apply the principles of conserving liberty to every case"
I'm sorry I know that Change Research is a left leaning pollster, but this line skirts close to reading like a rightwing talking point or vapid dogma like "protect our freedoms" or "keep our country safe"
I'm really curious as to what will happen in the runoff election, not so much in the primary.
It's clear Paxton is likely to head to the runoff given he's been consistently leading in polls for months. Cornyn seems to be headed to the runoff although with Hunt's presence in the race, Cornyn is likely going to be in a more vulnerable position given he's had to deal with Hunt and Paxton with his polling numbers not showing he's gotten leverage.
I think it's 50-50 whether Cornyn actually makes the runoff right now, in which case who knows how Paxton-Hunt goes. Unlike general electorates, primary electorates often move quick based on unique factors/perceptions, and sometimes a blowout can be brewing under the radar (thinking Jon Tester whopping John Morrison in '06 or Dan Molloy sneaking past Ned Lamont in '10).
"Every now and then, a judge hands down a decision that is so ill-advised that it is impossible to read without burying your face in your palm. New York State Judge Jeffrey Pearlman’s opinion in Williams v. Board of Elections of the State of New York is such a case.
Pearlman’s opinion is so out of step with the current US Supreme Court’s approach to racial gerrymandering cases — the Court’s Republican majority opposes nearly all laws that are race-conscious in any way — that it is hard to imagine it surviving on appeal. But the case also gives the Supreme Court’s Republican majority a vehicle that they could potentially use to accelerate one of their major policy initiatives — eliminating the federal Voting Rights Act’s safeguards against gerrymandering, and permitting Southern red states to draw GOP-friendly maps that are currently still illegal."
The judge is interpreting the New York Constitution. Yes, if there's a conflict the supremacy clause requires the state to yield. But that was not the issue facing Judge Pearlman.
And the Supreme Court already is deciding a case that could eviscerate section 2 of the VRA involving one seat.
We don’t even know that. I’d heard from a few places (can’t remember exactly which) that Roberts and Gorsuch were antsy about gutting the rest of the VRA.
"From me: The most fascinating money in politics race in America is happening in North Carolina. The incumbent, Valerie Foushee, benefited from millions in dark money 4 years ago; now her opponent has a 10:1 in Super PAC spending.
Foushee's backers in 2022 were AIPAC & crypto; it was the most expensive primary in NC history.
The crypto came from Sam Bankman-Fried; he's in jail.
After Gaza, a local grassroots campaign pressured her, and last year she rejected all AIPAC support.
Her opponent in 2022 was Nida Allam, the only Muslim elected in NC history. Allam finished second that year. Now she's getting support from an array of social justice and progressive PACs, and Foushee doesn't have her patrons.
But right when Allam entered the race last December, Hakeem Jeffries appointed Foushee to a commission on AI. It seemed like a gambit to get her AI money. There's a poll running in the district asking about AI right now.
But support from Big Tech firms would also be problematic for Foushee... because there's a big fight over a proposed data center in the district, which would eat up more power capacity than the entire town it would be built in.
It's a wild story about big-money politics circa 2026, how it can backfire, and how progressives who once were steamrolled by it are now vowing not to unilaterally disarm.
I'm told the top AI-related Super PAC is spending for Foushee in NC04. She's co-chair of House Dems' Commission on AI.
Full report not yet available, but about $60,000 in ads were placed on the local ABC affiliate this weekend.
There's a big AI data center fight in the district."
Anyone with a better knowledge of Texas' voter-geography able to make wildly unreliable tea leaf reading on what the turnout differences by county mean for the two primaries?
I was thinking more in the sense of what we can read (large error bars not withstanding) into the turnout by county and what it means for Talarico vs Crockett and Paxton vs Cornyn vs Hunt.
Oh, yeah, that’s probably not going to be possible. I’ve seen ET people say Crockett should be happy with the vote so far and that Talarico should be happy with the vote so far. It’s really a mixed bag and it entirely depends on who is actually voting and who they’re voting for (I know, cliched to death).
About the only thing you can say for certain is that Democratic turnout is unusually and extremely high. Anything else relies on interpretations that may or may not be right. Texas has countywide voting, so a voter can vote at any polling station and 50% of the entire primary vote will come from election Day historically speaking, so that’s a ton of votes yet to come.
I’m gonna be just straight up with y’all, you really cannot tell anything from Texas early voting at this point other than “Wow turnout seems to be really high especially for Dems”
We have no idea who turnout is benefitting at this point and we won’t know until Election Day!
I'd like it if a stronger or better known candidate were running, but then again Ferguson had never held office before ousting an incumbent in the 2010 Dem primary.
Any other candidates have only a few more days to file (deadline is next Tuesday)
Trump says he'll sign a Section 122 tariff to impose a 10% across-the-board tax on imports (we'll see how they phrase it). The statutory authority expires after 150 days without congressional approval - triggering votes in Congress on his tariffs after Labor Day in a midterm year
Such as US Attorney appointments, where judges struck back and invalidated those like Lindsey Halligan and Alina Habba when it became clear Trump was trying to game the 120 day provision to allow him to keep nominees in place for up to four years without getting Senate confirmation.
Good question. Moreno says he wants a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs into law, so I’d assume it’s possible via 51 votes. The bigger problem for Trump/GOP would be getting the House to pass it though imo. Collins is in IDGAF, I’m losing, so I’ll support Trump on everything and reveal my true colours mode, mocking the idiots who put her in power for two decades and Murkowski would probably be the only GOP Senator who wouldn’t sign on.
True, but my view remains the less freaks like Noem in Congress the better (especially if she’s on the outs with the WH and could just get fired and slink away to whatever cave she crawled out of)
Brian Bengs is running as an Independent candidate although formerly a Democrat who ran against Senator John Thune back in 2022 to get less than 30% of the votes.
Julian Beaudion is the Democratic Candidate running although Bengs has argued based on experience that Beaudion has no chance at winning the general election as a Democrat.
Thanks for that extensive write up of the worst guy in our state.
Even Carolina Forward thinks Berger could lose his seat.
Whenever Berger is mentioned in the discussion here, keep thinking of the villainous Berger in the Transformers episodes “Megatron’s Master Plan 1 & 2.”
The Berger in Transformers was trying to get in power after the elected Governor/Mayor had already taken office only to find his agenda used against him by Megatron.
Today’s TX-32 update sure is… something
Traditionally in parts of Texas (and at least also in Kansas), "Okie" was used to mean fool or moron. So using being close to Oklahoma as an insult makes sense. Lol
Okie was used as an insult in a lot of places to disparage people displaced by the dustbowl
Tariffs imposed under the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 struck down by Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote.
Of course, the conservative 3 in the majority rely on the totally made up "major questions" doctrine. While the liberal 3 in the majority say traditional statutory construction clearly indicates that congress did not intend to grant the power to unilaterally imposes tariffs in the 1977 law.
The dissenters are Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh.
Of course! Would've thought Kavanaugh would've been in the majority on this.
While this is undoubtedly a major victory for so many reasons, is anyone else worried that the price drop I assume this will lead to will cause people to think Trump is bringing down prices?
There are other tariffs, imposed under different laws, that are still in effect. Plus, it's not a 1 to 1 relationship with tariffs in terms of consumer pricing. So it won't be as noticeable as you might think.
And the statutes that allow TACO to implement tariffs on certain things caps it at 15%, not this extortive 50-200% bullshit he was doing at the beginning of 2025.
And those things are typically sectoral rather than “I don’t like the President of Liechtenstein’s tone so, 100% tariffs” like he’s done
The admin thinks they can keep the current framework in place using other justifications/authority.
Betting on corporations passing savings on to consumers is usually a bad bet.
If prices do drop, it will be because Trump's tarriffs got overturned. Ergo his policies were raising prices.
There will be little to no price drops. Companies will simply pocket the difference as revenue/profit as many individual consumers and businesses have no choice but to continue paying, and because inflation remains near 3%. In some sectors, particularly industrial ones, there are 12-36 month lead times on purchases/equipment, and CapEx is made in cycles lasting years, so the immediate impact will be minimal. Any business that spent real money in what they thought was this "new environment", and are now waiting on their stuff are sure as heck not going to get a retroactive discount/refund.
I've been told that "Most existing tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301 remain intact and the Trump Administration has indicated that it would lean on other trade powers to replace any tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. Hence the rather muted market reaction so far."
Also just like the inflation under Biden, people hate it but are still purchasing goods, not just necessities. Until the American consumer starts seriously paring back spending companies have little incentive to lower prices.
But can demand by the top 10% (responsible for the vast majority of spending) really be sustained at the current clip? Won't the business cycle catch up at some point even if their resource supply is sustained?
Prices go up quickly in response to bad conditions. Removing that bad condition may cause the price go back down, but it will not do so as quickly. It might not even go down at all.
SCOTUS only stands up to Trump when it will help Republicans writ large
Yes. Any economic upshot that may follow will reinforce the impression of soft, low-information Trump voters that he's a business wizard. There's no guarantee the economic ship will be steered in the right direction so quickly and without complication, but considering dumb luck has bailed Trump out of every self-dug hole he's found himself in over a half century in public life, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this ruling limits GOP losses next year either.
The sun downing Truth Social post tonight is going to be something else
It has been reported that Clarence Thomas has called out Neil Gorsuch for his vote.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clarence-thomas-calls-out-neil-gorsuch-in-supreme-court-dissent/ar-AA1WKNP2?ocid=BingHp01&pc=W931&cvid=d1aede604c584d738a41888a0ef4c424&ei=11
.
.
.
Gorsuch discussed two early congressional debates in his concurring opinion to show rejections of expanding presidential power in early U.S. history. The first involved the House of Representatives rejecting a proposal to give the president a “largely unfettered” power to establish postal routes, “even though doing so hardly would have touched on life, liberty, or property,” Gorsuch said. The second involved four representatives objecting to a bill that authorized the president to raise an army of up to 10,000 men, even though the bill ultimately passed.
“The deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man,” Gorsuch wrote.
Thomas disagreed with Gorsuch’s interpretation of early history, writing, “Justice Gorsuch’s interpretation of two ‘early congressional debates,’… is thus difficult to reconcile with what early Congresses actually did.”
He continued: “Since the 1790s, Congress has consistently delegated to the President power over foreign commerce, including the power to impose duties on imports.”
delegated with guardrails, including within IEEPA, the need for a "national emergency", something like a foreign invasion... no such national emergency exists, and therefore, the executive does not have grounds to use the powers delegated to it by IEEPA and other statutes which permit the imposition of tariffs. There is not, and never has been a situation where the executive has conditionless, unchecked, unfettered control over economic affairs.
Thomas isn't even trying....
In other words, all Thomas has spin.
He’s got nothing.
The pro-Al group for Bores is driven by the "effective altruism" ideology. I have never understood what this Silicon Valley gobbledygook actually is. Wasn't Sam Bankman-Fried supposedly an effective altruist?
The first I had heard of "effective altruism" was Peter Singer's book "The Most Good You Can Do" which related to charitable giving. Within limits, I have incorporated that theory into my own charitable giving. What the AI bros have done is corrupted the idea to justify unbridled greed.
I've dipped my toes into the EA waters before, there's basically two currents. There's the philanthropic people like you mention that want to focus on things like malaria nets and direct cash transfers to third world countries, and then there's the "longtermist" POV that's basically a sci-fi LARP about worrying for the people who could potentially exist a zillion years from now and also AGI that would kill us all. I appreciate the first perspective and like you I try to keep that as one of my main focuses when donating and find the second one just hilariously out of touch.
I've found even the first strand to have a strangely anti-human ideology. At least as I've encountered it, "effectiveness" is measured in terms of things like life time economic output, which usually shows things like basic medical interventions to be the most effective. Not to say that we should not fund these things of course, but we do them to alleviate suffering, not to increase lifetime economic output!
The "longtermists" derailed what was a modestly successful movement to refocus charitably giving on outcomes rather than stupid metrics like program expense ratios, which don't tell you whether or not the program is doing anyone any good. Even before SBF's downfall everyone stopped taking EA seriously once it became dominated by Terminator fantasies.
This comic more or less explains it:
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/485
I thought people would appreciate that in Southern California, I was able to walk to see representative Min's (CD 47) town hall. The town hall was delayed about 10 minutes by a single protester on a topic I can't discuss here, and fortunately he exited probably just before the police lost tolerance. Min did well at addressing issues and he's a fighter. After 6 years of Porter and Min, it's hard to imagine that before 2018, I was (not) represented by people like Mimi Walters. How my district has moved.
I was impressed with Dave Min when he ran to replace Katie Porter in CA-47. He was sharp and ready to roll. He embodies similar traits as Porter but of course comes with a different background.
Min ran against Porter in CD 45 in 2018. I voted for Min in the primary, but was thrilled when Porter beat Mimi Walters narrowly in the general.
https://www.wtkr.com/news/in-the-community/virginia-beach/longtime-virginia-beach-delegate-barry-knight-dead-at-71
VA state Del. Barry Knight (R) dead at 71
Knight's district voted 57-42 for Trump, 53-47 for Sears, 56-44 for Reid, and 58-41 for Miyares. He won re-election 57-43 last year.
A Democratic pickup in the special election would be a very heavy lift, but not completely impossible.
I think a Dem would be doing well to match Spanberger’s 6 point loss here in a special. The district is probably the most Republican part of Virginia Beach.
The special election electorate will probably be more Dem-friendly than in the 2025 general election, so I could see a Democrat doing better than Spanberger did. Actually winning the district, though, will be tough but not impossible. We've had at least one special election where the Democratic candidate outperformed Harris by more than 15 points (Taylor Rehmet in the Texas state Senate special comes to mind).
NC-Sen: Cooper up 50-40.
https://changeresearch.com/north-carolina-voters-february-2026/
Anita Earls also up 45-43 in the Supreme Court race.
FYI that's with informed ballot. Voters are asked who they prefer after being given these descriptions:
"Anita Earls - the Democrat - a civil rights attorney and an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court since 2019. As Justice, she will continue to uphold the rights enshrined in the North Carolina Constitution — access to healthcare, a sound basic public education, and the right to vote."
"Sarah Stevens - the Republican – has served in the North Carolina House of Representatives since 2009. Stevens believes the law should be applied as written and judges shouldn't create laws from the bench. On the Supreme Court, Stevens will respect our state's constitution and apply the principles of conserving liberty to every case."
"On the Supreme Court, Stevens will respect our state's constitution and apply the principles of conserving liberty to every case"
What a bunch of bullshit after the shenanigans she pulled with Berger in the legislature and the partisan games Paul Newby pulled after their party flipped control of our state Supreme Court in 2023.
She should be nowhere near a judicial seat, let alone elected to one.
I am not a fan of informed ballot polls, but to have any value you have to phrase the opponents profile as close as possible to how you think they will present it. So in this case the phrase is more or less what it needs to be as that is the terms conservatives always use.
True. But considering how nasty and partisan NC Rs have been since 2011, I expect Stevens' profile to be more MAGA slanted.
"On the Supreme Court, Stevens will respect our state's constitution and apply the principles of conserving liberty to every case"
I'm sorry I know that Change Research is a left leaning pollster, but this line skirts close to reading like a rightwing talking point or vapid dogma like "protect our freedoms" or "keep our country safe"
Finally hits 50%!
"In: poll of #Texas Independents conducted by Tavern Research:
"@JohnCornyn led on every major policy tested... Yet independents selected.
@WesleyHuntTX -41% over Cornyn -38% when asked who would be the better senator."
@KenPaxtonTX generated a divided response...
@jamestalarico over @JasmineForUS - 76%-24%"
https://x.com/hollyshansen/status/2024853350152376765
I'm really curious as to what will happen in the runoff election, not so much in the primary.
It's clear Paxton is likely to head to the runoff given he's been consistently leading in polls for months. Cornyn seems to be headed to the runoff although with Hunt's presence in the race, Cornyn is likely going to be in a more vulnerable position given he's had to deal with Hunt and Paxton with his polling numbers not showing he's gotten leverage.
I think it's 50-50 whether Cornyn actually makes the runoff right now, in which case who knows how Paxton-Hunt goes. Unlike general electorates, primary electorates often move quick based on unique factors/perceptions, and sometimes a blowout can be brewing under the radar (thinking Jon Tester whopping John Morrison in '06 or Dan Molloy sneaking past Ned Lamont in '10).
Why are we risking the end of the VRA for one extra seat in New York to be held by Dan Goldman?
"A new Supreme Court gerrymandering case is nightmare fuel for Democrats
A questionable lawsuit seeking to redraw a Republican district risks turbocharging Trump’s gerrymandering campaign."
https://archive.ph/0UYaw
https://www.vox.com/politics/479580/supreme-court-new-york-gerrymandering-williams-malliotakis
"Every now and then, a judge hands down a decision that is so ill-advised that it is impossible to read without burying your face in your palm. New York State Judge Jeffrey Pearlman’s opinion in Williams v. Board of Elections of the State of New York is such a case.
Pearlman’s opinion is so out of step with the current US Supreme Court’s approach to racial gerrymandering cases — the Court’s Republican majority opposes nearly all laws that are race-conscious in any way — that it is hard to imagine it surviving on appeal. But the case also gives the Supreme Court’s Republican majority a vehicle that they could potentially use to accelerate one of their major policy initiatives — eliminating the federal Voting Rights Act’s safeguards against gerrymandering, and permitting Southern red states to draw GOP-friendly maps that are currently still illegal."
The judge is interpreting the New York Constitution. Yes, if there's a conflict the supremacy clause requires the state to yield. But that was not the issue facing Judge Pearlman.
And the Supreme Court already is deciding a case that could eviscerate section 2 of the VRA involving one seat.
If they put an injunction on, that's not a ruling on the merits. They would have to hear the case before issuing a decision.
The VRA is alreaady likely to be overturned in Callais. Not sure there's any risk with the NY lawsuit.
We don’t even know that. I’d heard from a few places (can’t remember exactly which) that Roberts and Gorsuch were antsy about gutting the rest of the VRA.
I don't think the NY lawsuit is going to change any minds that weren't made up on Callais.
To make things even more interesting, George Santos ought to announce his candidacy for FL-19.
"From me: The most fascinating money in politics race in America is happening in North Carolina. The incumbent, Valerie Foushee, benefited from millions in dark money 4 years ago; now her opponent has a 10:1 in Super PAC spending.
Foushee's backers in 2022 were AIPAC & crypto; it was the most expensive primary in NC history.
The crypto came from Sam Bankman-Fried; he's in jail.
After Gaza, a local grassroots campaign pressured her, and last year she rejected all AIPAC support.
Her opponent in 2022 was Nida Allam, the only Muslim elected in NC history. Allam finished second that year. Now she's getting support from an array of social justice and progressive PACs, and Foushee doesn't have her patrons.
But right when Allam entered the race last December, Hakeem Jeffries appointed Foushee to a commission on AI. It seemed like a gambit to get her AI money. There's a poll running in the district asking about AI right now.
But support from Big Tech firms would also be problematic for Foushee... because there's a big fight over a proposed data center in the district, which would eat up more power capacity than the entire town it would be built in.
It's a wild story about big-money politics circa 2026, how it can backfire, and how progressives who once were steamrolled by it are now vowing not to unilaterally disarm.
I'm told the top AI-related Super PAC is spending for Foushee in NC04. She's co-chair of House Dems' Commission on AI.
Full report not yet available, but about $60,000 in ads were placed on the local ABC affiliate this weekend.
There's a big AI data center fight in the district."
https://prospect.org/2026/02/20/north-carolina-congressional-race-big-money-aipac-foushee-allam/
https://x.com/ddayen/status/2024857838087278837
https://x.com/ddayen/status/2024903503668543711
It's my district, and I am completely 'meh' on each candidate. So I stuck with Foushee.
Foushee comes off as aloof and above it all. I voted for Allam.
Fair critique of Foushee's persona. I don't love it, either.
I'd take Foushee or Allam over a MAGA Republican, so I'll vote for whomever wins the primary.
Oh yeah, absolutely. No qualms voting for either in November, nor even requiring a held nose!
To be fair, there's never going to be a MAGA Republican in the current shape of your district.
I guess both of them are too left-wing for you?
Probably more stylistic than anything. Lefty-ness is fine.
Lower profile/constituent service focus is better for my tastes.
Current update on TX early primary voting from VoteHub.
https://x.com/VoteHub/status/2024905628851015718
It's good so far! I'm pleased.
The interactive site (where you can view by county) is here.
https://votehub.com/early-vote-tracker-tx-primary-26
Anyone with a better knowledge of Texas' voter-geography able to make wildly unreliable tea leaf reading on what the turnout differences by county mean for the two primaries?
I don’t have that knowledge, but here’s someone else who does on a Collin County comparison:
https://x.com/umichvoter/status/2024661098146709704
Collin County, Texas
Early Voting first three days
2024
🔴 GOP primary 11,371 (76%)
🔵 DEM primary 3,618 (24%)
2026
🔴 GOP primary 13,283 (53%)
🔵 DEM primary 11,508 (47%)
I was thinking more in the sense of what we can read (large error bars not withstanding) into the turnout by county and what it means for Talarico vs Crockett and Paxton vs Cornyn vs Hunt.
Oh, yeah, that’s probably not going to be possible. I’ve seen ET people say Crockett should be happy with the vote so far and that Talarico should be happy with the vote so far. It’s really a mixed bag and it entirely depends on who is actually voting and who they’re voting for (I know, cliched to death).
About the only thing you can say for certain is that Democratic turnout is unusually and extremely high. Anything else relies on interpretations that may or may not be right. Texas has countywide voting, so a voter can vote at any polling station and 50% of the entire primary vote will come from election Day historically speaking, so that’s a ton of votes yet to come.
https://x.com/_fat_ugly_rat_/status/2024511840189907285
I’m gonna be just straight up with y’all, you really cannot tell anything from Texas early voting at this point other than “Wow turnout seems to be really high especially for Dems”
We have no idea who turnout is benefitting at this point and we won’t know until Election Day!
https://thedailyrecord.com/2026/02/20/maryland-opens-midcycle-redistricting-closed/
Maryland state Sen. Bill Ferguson (D) says congressional redistricting is over
I smell a primary. Get rid of him.
He already has one.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/bobby-lapin-1/homepagetop?
I'd like it if a stronger or better known candidate were running, but then again Ferguson had never held office before ousting an incumbent in the 2010 Dem primary.
Any other candidates have only a few more days to file (deadline is next Tuesday)
Does the Maryland Legislature have a discharge petition or anything like that?
Meanwhile up north:
https://x.com/CanadianPolling/status/2024694883689091433
(Models Available For Subscribers)
Alberta Federal Polling:
CPC: 48% (-16)
LPC: 45% (+17)
NDP: 5% (-1)
GPC: 1% (+1)
PPC: 1% (-)
Others: 1%
Mainstreet / Feb 12, 2026 / IVR
(% Change w 2025 Federal Election)
Visit
@338Canada
for polling details: https://338canada.com
lmao
Would translate into 19 Liberal seats to 18 Con lol
Bold strategy Cotton.
https://x.com/Fritschner/status/2024917940324245946
Trump says he'll sign a Section 122 tariff to impose a 10% across-the-board tax on imports (we'll see how they phrase it). The statutory authority expires after 150 days without congressional approval - triggering votes in Congress on his tariffs after Labor Day in a midterm year
Can he just wait a day after expiration, and then reimpose for another 150 days? Methinks they will try absolutely anything
Not tariff-specific but there have been court rulings against trying to game these deadlines in other areas
Such as US Attorney appointments, where judges struck back and invalidated those like Lindsey Halligan and Alina Habba when it became clear Trump was trying to game the 120 day provision to allow him to keep nominees in place for up to four years without getting Senate confirmation.
Hah!
Would the Senate need to be at 60 votes to approve it or just a simple majority like the reconciliation bills?
Good question. Moreno says he wants a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs into law, so I’d assume it’s possible via 51 votes. The bigger problem for Trump/GOP would be getting the House to pass it though imo. Collins is in IDGAF, I’m losing, so I’ll support Trump on everything and reveal my true colours mode, mocking the idiots who put her in power for two decades and Murkowski would probably be the only GOP Senator who wouldn’t sign on.
The 10% across the board was taken from today’s dissent, which noted that Nixon imposed a 10% across the board tariff in 1971.
Oh sweet Jesus. Crossposting from The Downballot Bluesky.
SD-Sen:
https://bsky.app/profile/the-downballot.com/post/3mfbcph3h3s2x
DHS head, former Gov., and deranged person Kristi Noem is considering leaving DHS to challenge Sen. Mike Rounds in the GOP primary.
On one hand, her leaving DHS would be good for us all. On the other hand, I feel bad for all the poor people who may now have her as Senator.
Rounds is a fairly normal conservative so Noem would be a gargantuan downgrade
In rhetoric and obnoxiousness. But the voting record would be 99% the same.
True, but my view remains the less freaks like Noem in Congress the better (especially if she’s on the outs with the WH and could just get fired and slink away to whatever cave she crawled out of)
Probably not going to happen but who knows in this political world. Same with Pete Hegseth as Governor of Tennessee.
Rounds would easily beat her in a primary though.
Brian Bengs is running as an Independent candidate although formerly a Democrat who ran against Senator John Thune back in 2022 to get less than 30% of the votes.
Julian Beaudion is the Democratic Candidate running although Bengs has argued based on experience that Beaudion has no chance at winning the general election as a Democrat.