Saturday, October 18, 2025

Podcast and entertainment thread for Oct 18

 


Peaceful weekend.

What is an American?


Just because a mouse lives in the cookie jar, does not make him a cookie.”

This folk wisdom is attributed to Casper ten Boom in The Hiding Place.

It has obvious relevance in the setting of mass migration and changing national identities.

Not everyone who is physically present and residing in a particular country has enough in common with the citizens of that country to identify with them.

The notion of an Englishman, or a Cambodian, or an Egyptian implies a certain level of commonality with those who share the same identity.

Given that many immigrants to the United States claim the entitlements and privileges of Americans, it is reasonable to ask “What is an American?” What do Americans have in common that justifies their sharing an identity?

Any attempt at defining Americanism is bound to be overly ambitious, particularly within the constraints of a 1,200-word essay. The result will necessarily be somewhat subjective. Nevertheless, something must distinguish Americans from non-Americans.

There are different ways in which one may attempt to define an American. The question may elicit technical, sentimental, or practical definitions. The question here is taken to be substantive; i.e., what does claiming to be an American mean in practice?

The question does not seem to have a precise answer because there is a great deal of variation in the attitudes, values and experiences of people who are undeniably American.

Nevertheless, there are certain essential qualities to those features that define an American.

The things that Americans have in common, and by which they can identify as Americans, must be enduring and robust.

Not only do Americans have things in common with their contemporaries, but with their predecessors as well.

What defines an American is not a set of rigidly shared values, a common language, or a homogeneous American culture.

Americans can think, believe, and want different things. What Americans have in common is not what they think, but rather what they respect.

An American is someone who respects a distinctly American worldview, even if they do not totally agree with it.

This worldview is the equilibrium about which political fashions, ideological fads, and cultural influences ebb and flow. It is enduring, and grounded in such principles as the recognition of the nuclear family as the organizing unit of society, respect for the rule of law, and the ability for individuals to make their lives better or worse depending on their own choices and actions.

It values personal responsibility, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and the authority of parents.

It also demands the uniform application of the laws to deter antisocial and harmful behaviors.

It recognizes an inherent right to self-defense and the right to peacefully challenge the actions of government.

The American worldview is demonstrated by those things that Americans commonly regard as virtues; e.g., self reliance, keeping one’s word, observing the law, and behaving with a sense of responsibility for the common good of the country.

Being an American is not a matter of believing dogma. One can be an American and disagree that individuals should have a right to bear arms, or that freedom of expression includes offensive ideas. An occasional American may believe that certain groups should enjoy special privileges or that that all cultures are equal.

But regardless of these individual beliefs, Americans respect that the distinctive and prevailing American worldview does not agree with them, and is unlikely to do so in the near future. A worldview does not change over a few election cycles or in response to cultural fads, intimidation, or propaganda. 

An American who wishes to change the prevailing worldview must do so through the long, arduous and uncertain process of non-violent persuasion.

Of all of the potential elements of the American worldview, the most fundamental is that proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; that “All Men are Created Equal.” It is the idea that human beings have a dignity that transcends considerations of race, tribe, or creed.

This claim invites obvious objections. Certainly, the principle that all men are created equal was not a universally observed tenet at the American founding.

Critics might charge that the history of slavery, the Trail of Tears, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and such demonstrate that the founding ideal was perhaps no more than a slogan. But this charge, which can be illustrated by indisputable facts, misses the larger truth.

The phrase “All Men are Created Equal” was not a description of an established practice, but rather a declaration of a truth that was shaping the moral sensibilities of the West. This evolving idea can be seen in the primary institution that America’s detractors rely upon to discredit it: slavery.

The idea that the absolute ownership of human beings was wrong because of some characteristic common to all humanity arose no later than the first century A.D.

The Roman emperors Claudius and Nero enacted laws providing for some small measure of the humane treatment of slaves.

The Stoic philosopher Seneca advised treating slaves well.

Gregory of Nyssa declared in the fourth century that slavery was always wrong because man was created in the image of God.

The Dominican Friar Bartolome de las Cases advocated against the enslavement of indigenous people in the Spanish colonies in the Americas, although he did not at first object to the importation of African slaves.

Western thought as it continued to develop during the Enlightenment contemplated at least some form of spiritual and civic equality.

This trend persisted into and beyond the founding of the United States.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories.

Slavery was gradually being rejected in France, Britain and elsewhere in Europe on decidedly moral grounds. The dawning recognition that all men are created equal in some significant way was a Western idea that was recognized and adopted by the American Founders. It is part of the American worldview.

The culmination of this idea of the inherent dignity of the human person led both to the abolition of du jure slavery throughout the world and the adoption of the presumption that all men are equal before the law.

Being an American does not mean accepting the premise that all men are created equal, but it does require respecting the role of that principle in the American character and in American life. This means respecting the idea that religious belief does not confer privileges to violate the rights of nonbelievers, or that the law can be ignored in interactions with people outside of the tribe, special identity group, or ideological faction.

Being an American means not coming to America parasitically, solely “for a better life,” but rather to be part of a better society.

Being an American also means having some measure of affection for the idea of America.

It does not mean blind patriotism or ignoring the inevitable flaws inherent in any society or country. It does mean respecting the values that are traditional in America, even if one does not share them. It means that, if one wants to change those values, he does so in a manner that respects the rule of law, non-violent dispute resolution and the dignity of others.

It means valuing a high trust society and cherishing the blessings of American liberty.



So is Trump the 'Fascist' that Leftists Keep Saying He is?


It seems that no political conversation in America is complete these days without somebody calling somebody a fascist, and if you are unlucky to be caught up in one of those discussions, you will no doubt hear one name shouted out louder than all the others. And that name is spoken more often than all of the other top ten most evil fascists of all time. I am referring, of course, to the 47th president of the United States, Donald John Trump.

For many left-of-center Americans, Trump has risen to the top of their lists of the most heinous, the most evil and the most dangerous enemies of democracy.

For them, he is the progenitor of all fascists that have scorched the Earth with their death and destruction, no matter Trump has killed no one and has, himself, been the target of at least two assassination attempts on his life.

Just yesterday, Donald Trump was in Israel helping to celebrate the return of Israeli hostages after brokering a ceasefire with some real fascist captors, Hamas. That may have earned him a few points with most of the world (certainly with the Israelis), but his critics will tell you that his presence in Israel standing next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom they also regard as a fascist and a war criminal, lost him all the points he gained.

Before we get too far down the field, let's see what the geniuses at ChatGPT have to say about what constitutes a "fascist."

The AI engine said:

A fascist is someone who backs a mass-mobilizing ultranationalist rebirth project that rejects liberal democracy, concentrates power in a single leader or party, treats political violence as purifying, and subordinates individual rights to the imagined unity and purity of the nation.

Taking the definition apart, I have difficulty ascribing an "America first" posture as being fascistic. Ronald Reagan used the phrase, "Make America Great Again" in his 1980 campaign, and Bill Clinton used it in his remarks in 1992. Many presidents before Donald Trump were supporters of an America-first doctrine like Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat while Harding and Coolidge were Republicans.

If we're going to go fascist-label-crazy then I suppose we'll have to include Reagan, Clinton, Wilson, Harding and Coolidge into the club because each believed that a strong, prosperous and united America was a bulwark against fascism, not part of its DNA.

And the term ultranationalist, I would argue, cannot be applied to Donald Trump. An ultranationalist is someone who holds an extreme view of nationalism that elevates the nation above all other values, often demanding cultural/ethnic homogeneity, viewing outsiders or internal minorities as threats, and accepting harsh (sometimes authoritarian or violent) measures to secure the nation’s “unity” and “purity."

While Trump may be using extreme measures to re-secure America's border, he is not opposed to legal immigration nor does he hate minorities.

While Trump believes in a strong America, he does not view the U.S. as a nation to be respected over its values. On the contrary, he believes that the nation is its values and those values must be protected. 

The next item:

concentrates power in a single leader or party, treats political violence as purifying, and subordinates individual rights to the imagined unity and purity of the nation.

It is no secret that Donald Trump wants power to realize his goals, but he is not advocating political violence as a means to achieve them nor is he trying to take away people's rights for either an imagined or real unity and purity of the nation.

He is willing to let his actions stand the test of the courts and will obey their rulings when they have been through the entire appellate process.

This is not the mark of a fascist that would overrule the courts and take the law into his own hands.

Many of his critics would point to the events of Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC as a moment that would define Donald Trump's motives and validate his "fascistic" tendencies.

On that very day, he told his supporters to proceed in a peaceful manner to the Capitol building to make their voices heard, and at no time did he encourage violence.

This is not the trademark of a fascist.

ChatGPT did give me a list of the "top ten" world-recognized fascists, and nowhere was Donald Trump on that list.

However, the names did include leaders of nine European countries and one Asian country: Germany, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, Norway and Japan.

There are, however, warning signs of fascism that every nation should be aware of and they are:

• The myth of national decline and rebirth calling for an urgent call to “save” the nation

• An exclusionary view of citizenship (ethnic or cultural litmus tests)

• A tendency towards militarism and readiness to use force against perceived “enemies” both internal and external

• Illegal suppression of dissent; loyalty tests; leader-centered politics

• Revisionist/irredentist aims (recovering “lost” territories or past glory)

Both critics and supporters of Donald Trump have a duty to come together and debate the above five points and leave the "fascist" epithet out of the conversation until all voices are heard.

Can a fascist also be a dictator and are both the same?

dictatorship describes a form of rule (one person wielding unchecked power), while fascist rule describes a specific ideology and movement. A fascist regime is almost always a dictatorship — but many dictators aren’t fascists. Trump does not wield unchecked power. He is limited by our Constitution and the separation of powers. Neither he nor His MAGA movement advocate for a one-party system though they are understandably happy that the Democrats are in disarray.

The left has never let the facts about fascism influence their opinion of Donald Trump. To them, he is a fascist and will always be one.

That is the sad part of American political discourse today. The facts of any matter are deemed irrelevant by the American left because of their pathological hatred for Donald Trump. They are unable to discuss any issue without first calling Trump a fascist. Charlie Kirk's assassination is emblematic of the reality that certain Americans are incapable of a spirited conversation or debate without resorting to name-calling or violence.

Fascism has many faces.

There is another form of abuse that has worked its way into our body politic, and it's similar to fascism in the way that it depends on the cruel, unjust and unaccountable use of power to intimidate those who would exercise their right to conduct an open and civil dialogue.

I'm speaking of tyranny, more specifically the tyranny expressed by the radical left's coercion and ruthless condemnation and vilification of their opponents. This is not to say that there are no right-wing practitioners of tyranny. There are, but nowhere near the degree that we see every night on the left-leaning news media.

Fascism is here to stay.

As long as there is freedom of speech there will be those who cry "fascism" and not be called to task for it.

In America, every one may be heard and is subject to the judgment of the court of public opinion. At present, there is no statute of limitations on insensitivity, stupidity or the willful disregard of basic civility. Our Constitution affords us all certain inalienable rights, and among them is the right to be wrong, but, thankfully, it does not forbid society from punishing those who are repeat offenders.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


DNI Tulsi Gabbard Announces Two Key Intelligence Appointments


Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announces the appointment of two officials to oversee key positions within the DNI office.

Jack Dever will serve as the ODNI General Counsel and Chris Fox will serve as the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Within the machinery the ICIG and General Counsel (GC) perform critical tasks related to the overall oversight of the intelligence hub.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard welcomes Jack Dever as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) General Counsel following U.S. Senate confirmation. As General Counsel, Dever is responsible for providing legal guidance to the ODNI and the Intelligence Community.

“Jack’s commitment to our nation, forged through years of honorable service, continues as he assumes this new role to serve once again. His proven leadership—spanning military service and distinguished roles across the government and private sector—make him an asset to our mission at ODNI. He will serve with the highest standards of integrity, strengthening the security of our country and upholding the Constitution,” said DNI Gabbard. “We are thrilled to welcome Jack to our team.”

“I am honored to serve our great country. I very much appreciate the trust placed in me by President Trump and Director Gabbard and look forward to earning that trust in support of the American people every day,” said Jack Dever, ODNI General Counsel.

Dr. Jack Dever’s extensive career includes military service as a Signals Intelligence Korean Linguist and Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer, with deployments earning him a Bronze Star and Purple Heart, followed by roles as Assistant General Counsel at the FBI and Assistant U.S. Attorney handling national security cases. In the private sector, he held executive positions at General Electric, Wells Fargo, and UBS, and was CEO of Lockhaven Solutions, a cybersecurity consulting firm. Dr. Dever is a leader in cybersecurity and veterans’ advocacy, co-founding initiatives like Task Force Movement and the Center for National Security and Human Rights Law, while holding a Doctorate in Juridical Science in Cybersecurity Law.”

Additionally, Chris Cox comes from a background that includes CIA covert operations.  The ICIG position is a critical role for oversight and ensuring the Intelligence Community overall is not running any operations counter to the interests of the Trump administration.

We all saw how a corrupted ICIG position can damage our constitutional republic from the inside when Mary McCord’s former counsel, Michael Atkinson took the job in 2017.  Atkinson was responsible for changing the internal processes within the CIA to frame President Trump for a weaponized impeachment effort (Ukraine background).

We are still hopeful the Michael Atkinson transcript of his testimony to the joint Schiff/Nadler impeachment committee might be released from the House.  In an effort to shield the impeachment operation, former House member Adam Schiff classified the Atkinson testimony hiding it from public review. [using silo rules]

Presumably, current House Speaker Mike Johnson could locate and release the Atkinson transcript to CIA Director John Ratcliffe and/or DNI Tulsi Gabbard for review and potential declassification/public release.  This is one of the key documents that can assist the public in seeing exactly how the silo system was weaponized against the office of the President.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard welcomes Chris Fox as Intelligence Community (IC) Inspector General (IG) following U.S. Senate confirmation. As the IC IG, Fox is responsible for conducting independent and objective oversight of the IC, promoting efficiencies, and detecting fraud, waste, and mismanagement across the Intelligence Community.

“With nearly two decades of experience in national security spanning military service, intelligence operations, legal practice, and entrepreneurship, Chris steps into this role with the integrity, fortitude, and commitment to country needed to serve as Inspector General for the Intelligence Community,” said DNI Tulsi Gabbard. “I know he’ll approach the role of IC IG with the same dedication he’s shown throughout his time in service, ensuring our Intelligence Community upholds the highest standards of accountability and trust.”

“I’m deeply honored to take on this critical role,” said IC IG Chris Fox. “Under my leadership, the Office of the IC IG will focus on building trust across the Intelligence Community and, above all, with the American people. Beyond identifying fraud, waste, abuse, and misconduct, our mission is to strengthen intelligence operations through independent oversight and an unwavering commitment to seeking the truth.”

IC IG Fox brings nearly two decades of national security experience spanning military service, intelligence operations, legal practice, and entrepreneurship. He began his career serving in the U.S. Air Force as a Special Warfare Airman and Joint Terminal Attack Controller, with combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. After returning from his overseas military service, IC IG Fox joined the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. He later served in the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, at Matrix International as a Mission Manager leading global intelligence operations, in CIA’s Directorate of Operations as a Specialized Skills and Covert Action Officer, and at Six Technologies, managing intelligence for the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program.” [source]

2026 is going to be a critical year when it comes to Intelligence Community activity; specifically including FISA-702 reauthorization.


Amid Tariff Fights, Trump Now Considering Attending Supreme Court Arguments


RedState 

Never let it be said that Donald Trump is overly burdened by what many consider traditional norms. In what would be a historic first, President Trump is reportedly considering personally attending the oral arguments in a tariffs case before the United States Supreme Court

President Donald Trump said he may attend next month’s Supreme Court oral arguments in a key tariffs case that could decide the future of his trade policy.

His attendance would make Trump the first sitting president ever to witness Supreme Court arguments in person.

The White House did not immediately respond for further comment.

You don't say. 

The president defended the unusual move by pointing out that a limitation on his tariffs would spell serious issues for the national economy:

"We have a big case coming up in the Supreme Court, and I will tell you, that’s one of the most important cases in the history of our country," Trump said Wednesday from the Oval Office. 

"If we don’t win that case, we will be a weakened, troubled, financial mess for many, many years to come," Trump added, "That’s why I think I’m going to go to the Supreme Court to watch."

The Trump administration oversaw consecutive months of record-breaking tariff collections in August and September, with revenues reaching a combined $62.6 billion.

Tariff revenues have skyrocketed since Trump began implementing his plan. But it's hard to see what the president hopes to gain with this move. The left and the legacy media (but I repeat myself) will be sure to spin this as an attempt by President Trump to intimidate the Supreme Court by his presence, but that's a canard; the fact that this would be the first time a sitting president attended is not likely to be any influence on the proceedings. The only thing that may affect the final decision would be some kind of outburst on the part of the president, which would delight the left and annoy the justices.

It's also very likely that President Trump's closest advisors will be cautioning against this. The president has nothing to gain by such a move. It's not as though he won't be represented; this is a case where he should have confidence that the people arguing his case know what they're doing and should be left alone to do their jobs.

Legal wrangling aside, the policies have been a windfall for the United States government.

Total duty revenue for fiscal year 2025 climbed to $215.2 billion, according to the "Customs and Certain Excise Taxes" figures released Sept. 30 by the Treasury Department.

Trump has defended his use of tariffs as a way to correct what he describes as years of trade imbalance. Trade has been a cornerstone of his economic agenda.

Indeed, tariffs as a bargaining tool were on the president's agenda from the beginning. They were a major campaign point. This is what a majority of American voters voted for. The legal case will come before the Supreme Court in due time, and the president should watch from the White House, rather than the Supreme Court gallery.



Here Are 6 Key Moments From SCOTUS Arguments In Landmark Race-Based Redistricting Case


Here are the biggest moments from Supreme Court oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais.



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in a pair of high stakes redistricting cases that could significantly reshape American electoral politics.

Known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, the matter focuses on a dispute over the use of race in Louisiana’s congressional map. While the state’s initial map included a single black-majority district, a lawsuit and subsequent legal battle led lawmakers to redraw the map to include a second black-majority district, producing another legal battle that centered on the state’s allegedly unlawful use of race when creating the new map.

During oral arguments, the justices probed parties on the facts of the respective cases and the longstanding judicial conflict over provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Section 2) and 14th Amendment (equal protection clause). Here are some of the biggest moments from the hearing.

Jackson Said What About the Disabled?

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has never been one to shy away from making ill-advised statements, whether they be in interviews or opinions. So, it wasn’t surprising when the Biden appointee suggested race be considered by states in redistricting because black Americans are systemically “disabled” and don’t have legitimate access to the elections process.

“Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings,” Jackson said, effectively arguing that it doesn’t matter whether such discrimination is intentional or not.

“I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. … We are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right? They’re disabled … We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”

Thomas Asks a Simple (Yet Meaningful) Question

As the longest serving member of the current court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as a critical voice of reason in many matters that come before the highest bench in the land. One of the ways he does this is through simple, yet meaningful, questions to parties in oral arguments.

While questioning Louisiana Solicitor General Ben AguiΓ±aga, Thomas asked “what role” the federal district court’s block on the state’s initial map “play[ed] in development of” the new map that included a second black-majority district. The state solicitor general disclosed that the court’s order is the “only reason” Louisiana drew a new map.

“Justice Thomas, [that court decision] is the only reason [this new map] exists,” AguiΓ±aga said. “We fought tooth and nail in the Robinson litigation itself in telling the courts that we did not think the Constitution permitted us to draw a second majority-black district. As you know, under protest, we drew [the new map] because the threat was that the federal courts would do it if we didn’t.”

“We would never pass [the new map] in the first instance without Robinson, Justice Thomas,” he added.

DOJ Official Silences Sotomayor

Arguing on the side of Louisiana, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan got into a testy exchange with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor over the Pelican State’s creation of a second-black majority district.

In debating the racial and political motivations behind the creation of maps like Louisiana’s, Mooppan noted the racial double standard that exists where if the block of voters in question were white, there wouldn’t be a debate about whether there should be an additional district tailored to their community.

“If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. None,” Mooppan said. “And so what is happening here is their argument is, because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t get a second district. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.”

Gorsuch Traps NAACP Lawyer

During his line of questioning, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch got NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyer Janai Nelson — who was arguing in favor of the second black-majority district — to all but endorse states engaging in racial discrimination in the redistricting process.

After a lengthy back and forth attempting to pin down her position on the matter, Gorsuch noted how “sometimes federal district courts order maps” and that it appears that what Nelson is arguing is that “sometimes [it is] acceptable for a federal district court to order a map that intentionally discriminates on the basis of race.”

Rejecting Gorsuch’s “formulation,” Nelson claimed that “states and plaintiffs, as they put forth illustrative maps, cannot put forth maps that discriminate and that use race in an excessive fashion.” “The only actor that has broader leeway,” she continued, “are states because we give states breathing room” and “wide latitude in order to balance their political interests and concerns.”

“So, federal district courts can’t discriminate on the basis of race in remedies, but states can?” Gorsuch asked, to which Nelson replied, “Federal district courts can only order maps that are constitutional, and, again, the constitutional boundaries are between [Thornburg v. Gingles] and [Shaw v. Reno].”

This prompted Gorsuch to ask, “You said states ‘have more breathing room.’ So, do they have the ‘breathing room’ to intentionally discriminate on the basis of race?”

While Nelson said that states “don’t have breathing room to intentionally discriminate on the basis of race,” she then appeared to undermine that position in her subsequent follow-up.

“They have breathing room to use race to remedy their own discrimination,” Nelson said.

‘End Point’ to Race-Based Redistricting

During one notable exchange, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh probed Nelson on the issue of an “end point” to the use of race-based remedies in policy areas like redistricting. He specifically noted how the Supreme Court’s prior precedents in “a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time … but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point.”

“And what exactly do you think the end point should be or how would we know for the intentional use of race to create districts?” Kavanaugh asked.

Nelson said that “a race-based remedy can and should … and usually does have a time limit and a durational limit,” citing “Section 2 court-ordered remedies” as an example. “What is not grounded in case law,” she continued, “is the idea that an entire statute should somehow dissolve simply because race may be an element of the remedy.”

Kavanaugh interjected, clarifying that it’s not the statute but “the particular application of the statute that entails the intentional deliberate use of race to sort people into different districts.” He once again asked her what “the time limit on that should be, or [if] there really shouldn’t be a time limit.”

“I think you might be saying there shouldn’t be a time limit unless Congress chooses one?” Kavanaugh asked, to which Nelson replied, “I am saying that. I’m saying there should not be a time limit. But I … also think it’s critical to emphasize that Section 2 does not require a race based remedy in all circumstances.”

(Read Jonathan Turley’s breakdown on the “end point” issue here.)

Jackson Loses Her Cool

In indicating her support for the party backing the second black-majority district, Jackson lost her cool when probing AguiΓ±aga about the remedies that states undertake when federal courts find they violated Section 2 of the VRA in redistricting.

“I don’t understand why your answer to Justice Kagan’s question about is this a compelling state interest is ‘no.’ The answer is obviously ‘yes,’ that you have an interest in remedying the effects of racial discrimination that we identify using this tool,” Jackson said. “Whether you go too far in your remedy is another issue, right?”

AguiΓ±aga started to reply that “step zero in all these cases” like the litigation over Louisiana’s first map “is the plaintiffs came in and said we want another majority-black district,” but was abruptly cut off by Jackson, who asked, “I thought they came in and said we are not receiving equal electoral opportunity because our votes are being diluted?”

“Which is the same way of saying we deserve a second majority-black district,” AguiΓ±aga replied.

“No, it’s not,” Jackson snapped, “because that — again, just trust me on this — the … second district is a remedy that one could offer for a problem that we’ve identified. And the whole Robinson litigation was about identifying the problem.”