Happy Fourth of July. Go read Ava and C.I.'s "Media: Corrupt Court, Corrupt YOUTUBE" if you haven't already.
Doo-Doo Ron Ron DeSantis continues to struggle to appeal to people. Ewan Palmer (NEWSWEEK) reports:
However, DeSantis has failed to take advantage of Trump getting indicted in both the New York falsifying business records case and Special Counsel Jack Smith's classified documents investigation, where the former president has denied 37 charges respectively. DeSantis has not made any traction in the GOP primary polls while also seeing his favorabilty rating plummet.
Just 35.9 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of DeSantis, compared to 45.2 percent who say they view him unfavorably as of June 29, according to FiveThirtyEight's national average tracker, although experts point out the campaign is still in its early stages.
DeSantis's unfavorable rating among potential voters has been steadily rising since late March, when he recorded a split 39.3 percent favorable rating. This includes the time after he confirmed his 2024 bid in late May in an error-strewn Twitter Space online announcement.
The new DeSantis video quickly drew bipartisan criticism from the LGBTQ community.
Former Trump adviser and ambassador Richard Grenell, who is gay, wrote on Twitter that the video was "undeniably homophobic."
Log Cabin Republicans, a group for LGBTQ conservatives, called the video "divisive" and "desperate."
"Conservatives understand that we need to protect our kids, preserve women's sports, safeguard women's spaces and strengthen parental rights, but Ron DeSantis' extreme rhetoric goes has just ventured into homophobic territory," the group wrote on Twitter. "DeSantis' rhetoric will lose hard-fought gains in critical races across the nation. This old playbook has been tried in the past and has failed - repeatedly."
Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner, the Olympic gold medal-winning decathlete, transitioned to her new identity in 2015. She also features in the anti-LGBTQ+ advert. In a tweet, Jenner wrote DeSantis has "hit a new low" with the campaign.
"But he's so desperate he'll do anything to get ahead—that's been the theme of his campaign. You can't win a general, let alone 2028 by going after people that are integral parts of the conservative movement," Jenner tweeted.
DeSantis boasted about the new law on social media after the law banning state funds from going toward DEI initiatives in Florida's public colleges and universities went into effect on Saturday.
DeSantis, a Republican who is running in the 2024 presidential election, released a new video Sunday night highlighting his opposition to DEI initiatives, which conservatives have targeted. DEI programs are implemented by businesses or schools with the intention to help foster a more inclusive environment for marginalized groups, but critics argue these initiatives are divisive and lead to unequal treatment.
The video—posted to Twitter by DeSantis' official government account, rather than his campaign profile—sparked condemnation from Conway, who has made headlines for her own political activism.
"No because literally what the f*** is this... it's giving white, christian nationalism," Conway, a staunch critic of Republican politicians, tweeted.
Conway first rose to national prominence after breaking from her parents' more conservative politics. Kellynne Conway served as a counselor for former President Donald Trump and remains supportive of him. George Conway is a longtime Republican attorney who has been critical of Trump, switching his political affiliation to independent during the Trump administration.
“So that ad was released on June 30th, the last day of Pride month,” noted Cabrera after showing a brief clip from the ad.
“Brendan, your reaction first to the DeSantis campaign ad, especially, again, at the end of Pride month. Do you see that resonating with voters?” Cabrera asked the former top adviser to House Speakers John Boehner (R-OH) and Paul Ryan (R-WI).
“No, I don’t. And it’s the kind of thing that you would expect from a fringe candidate, not the person who is second in the race. You know, the most notable alternative to Donald Trump,” Buck responded to the ad, adding:
I don’t think it’s good politics. Look, the Republican Party has had a bad history on these issues, but I’m fairly confident that we’ve moved forward quite a bit. And that what Ron DeSantis is talking about is not the future of the Republican Party.
The one caveat that I will say that maybe this is, there is some strategy here for Ron DeSantis. Ron DeSantis’s entire brand has been built around making enemies. Getting people on the left, not to like him. And if I’m looking for a rationale for this, it’s that he was throwing out more red meat to stir up controversy, to remind people that he has made a lot of enemies on the left. Who your enemies are is currency in the Republican Party today.
“So that might be what he’s up to. But long-term politics, someone who trying to make the case that he is a credible, electable alternative to Donald Trump, it makes absolutely no sense,” Buck concluded.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Since the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision 13 months ago, which overturned Roe v. Wade and deprived women of the constitutional right to access abortion, the ultra-right majority on the court has engaged in a rampage against basic democratic rights and the social rights of the working class.
This culminated Friday in two decisions with the same 6-3 split among the justices: to declare unconstitutional the Biden administration’s limited reduction of student loan debt owed to the US government; and to endorse the “right” of a commercial web designer to refuse to create materials for the wedding of a gay couple.
The class character of the first decision is obvious: an executive action by the federal government to bail out wealthy bank depositors is constitutional, but not a limited action to help debt-burdened students. The second decision destroys a constitutional right to be free of discrimination, while paying lip service to the First Amendment. The court declares that the web designer can justify her bigotry on the basis of “freedom of religion.”
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court this morning issued its ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis. David Cole, Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union, offered the following response:
“The Supreme Court held today for the first time that a business offering customized expressive services has the right to violate state laws prohibiting such businesses from discrimination in sales. The Court’s decision opens the door to any business that claims to provide customized services to discriminate against historically-marginalized groups. The decision is fundamentally misguided. We will continue to fight to defend laws against discrimination from those who seek a license to discriminate.”
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Colorado filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the First Amendment challenge to a Colorado civil rights law requiring businesses open to the public to treat customers equally.
June 30, 2023 - In response to the Supreme Court ruling that businesses may deny services to LGBTQI+ people, the Center for Constitutional Rights released the following statement:
Today, in its latest display of its political activism, the Supreme Court sanctioned discrimination by giving businesses that engage in "expressive conduct" a license to deny services to LGBTQI+ people. We have known for a long time that in the eyes of the Court, there are only two Constitutional rights that matter: the First Amendment right to religious expression and the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Nonetheless, today’s decision was crushing. It deals another blow to a community already under attack in legislatures across the country, by the very same movement that claims the allegiance of six justices on the Supreme Court.
Public accommodations laws regulate what businesses must do, not what they must think, if they seek the public benefit of accessing the public marketplace. Such nondiscrimination laws, like the one in Colorado, are designed to ensure that LGBTQI+ people can freely shop for services like everyone else, rather than being required to shop for businesses that don’t discriminate against them. The right-wing justices have once again signaled that their mission is to dismantle laws that protect marginalized communities and to use the law to back punitive and exclusionary social hierarchies. As Justice Sotomayor lays out in the dissent, “[t]hose who would subordinate LGBT[QI+] people have often done so with the backing of law.”
In this case, the Court was so determined to carry out its mission that it bypassed Constitutional requirements of standing by weighing in on an imaginary dispute concocted by conservative legal activists and issuing an advisory opinion, so that they could legislate policy.
The Religious Liberty Clauses of the First Amendment have been historically used to protect minority religions against discrimination by majoritarian orthodoxy and to advance a pluralistic, egalitarian democracy. It is thus especially perverse that this Court would delight in producing the exact opposite, anti-democratic result: granting orthodox Christianity an imagined constitutional freedom to discriminate against the minority LGBTQI+ community. And, as Justice Sotomayor emphasized, the decision is not limited; it could give license for businesses to discriminate against interracial couples because of the (pervasive) extremist-evangelicalist commitment to segregation.
Together with yesterday’s decision invalidating affirmative action, this ruling lays bare the values of this Court. In six justices’ view, the Constitution says it is just fine for a business to exclude someone on the basis of their protected status (LGBTQI+), but it is unconstitutional for a university to include someone on the basis of their protected status (race). This is bigotry masquerading as law. And, in so ruling again, this Court continues to advance a Jim Crow jurisprudence in which the white, male, Christian insider’s freedom is made meaningful only through the subjugation of vulnerable populations. For this conservative movement, as for John Calhoun or George Wallace, discrimination fuels their feelings of freedom. These six individuals somehow retain the power to impose their 18th Century values on a democratic majority that believes in equality and fairness. The Court has little legitimacy left.
We reject these cruel and unlawful decisions, and the cowardly attempts by a right-wing movement to wield the Constitution to protect white power and deny the human rights of the multitude. But human rights cannot be suspended by reactionaries in robes. And they cannot be secured by even enlightened court rulings. If there is solace to be found today, it is in the knowledge that that task before us is the same as it was yesterday: to resist, organize, and unite. Our potential collective power, and only that, offers hope of liberation and full human dignity for LGBTQI+ people and other marginalized communities.