"Haidt’s thesis is broader than just 'new thing bad.' In The Anxious Generation and his public commentary you find a dismissal of young people as a thinking, feeling group: they are anxious because of phones, they empathize with Gaza because of phones."

Important piece by @lookheron.bsky.social tracing how the steady neoliberalization of higher education has sowed fertile ground for its takeover by authoritarians

Stephen Miller said last year this was the plan. They said it out loud. Some of us highlighted his remarks at the time and warned how dangerous they were. Most of the media missed them and/or moved on from them. It’s happening:

And if we zoom out a bit, we can see that depending on how SCOTUS rules, the case could effectively grant candidates greater power in our political system at the expense of voters—you know, the people those candidates are *supposed* to be working for.

Mail-in voting leads to higher voter turnout, greater voter confidence, and more informed voting, as people have more time to deliberate when casting ballots from home. And as @brennancenter.org shows ⤵️ the US has robust systems to ensure mail voting is secure.

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

If SCOTUS rules for the petitioners, millions of Americans who rely on mail-in voting could face new barriers to their right to vote, and election officials would face additional strain, as certification would need to happen earlier—despite clear evidence that vote-by-mail strengthens democracy.

Their argument is that this practice unconstitutionally dilutes votes and imposes “campaign burdens.” And while the case turns on a procedural question—whether federal candidates have standing to challenge Illinois' process for counting ballots—its potential implications are very much substantive.

3) Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. This case could undermine mail-in voting—and possibly other state election rules—across the US.

Federal candidates are challenging an Illinois law that says mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day can be counted if received up to 14 days after.

Depending on how the Court rules in this case, the decision could have massive consequences not just for the Voting Rights Act, but civil rights law more broadly—a longtime project of reactionaries on the Court ⤵️

ballsandstrikes.org/legal-cultur...

Now, this term, the Court will decide whether Louisiana's creation of that second district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

The question is whether the act of remediating a racist measure is actually *itself* a racist measure.

Finding for the Black voters, a federal court ordered Louisiana to redrew its map to include a second majority-Black district, which it did.

But then, a group of "non-Black voters" sued, claiming that the new map unconstitutionally used race as the sole determining factor in drawing the new map.

2) Louisiana v. Callais. This case may gut what's left of the Voting Rights Act. After the 2020 census found that 1/3 of Louisiana's population is Black, the state redrew its districting maps. But it was drawn with only *one* majority Black district.

The math failing to math, Black voters sued.

The decision to hear this case comes 15 years after the Citizens United v. FEC ruling.

As @rfunkfordham.bsky.social shows ⤵️ Citizens United's impact on our democracy has been disastrous. Now, with NRSC v. FEC, SCOTUS may well build on this shameful legacy.

rooseveltinstitute.org/publications...

But it also places caps on these expenditures, which are being challenged in this case as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

If the Court strikes these limits down, big money will come to play an even larger role in our political system, while party control becomes even more consolidated.

1) NRSC v. FEC. This case has the potential to further shift power away from American voters and into the hands of donors.

Federal law currently allows political parties to make certain expenditures—known as "coordinated party expenditures"—to support federal candidates' general election campaigns.

At the outset, it's worth noting that we likely don't yet know of some of the most consequential cases the Court will take up this term, due in part to the justices' increasing reliance on the deeply antidemocratic shadow docket.

That said, here are a few cases I've got my eye on:

A new SCOTUS term begins today. What fresh hell awaits our flailing democracy this time around?🧵

BREAKING: It’s official. David Ellison announces that Bari Weiss, founder of pro-Israel outlet “The Free Press,” is now Editor in Chief of CBS News, per internal memo shared with me:

Good stuff

Breaking news: ICE stops family at gunpoint—smash car window on top of newborn baby.

"I was screaming that there was a baby. But they didn’t care," cried mother.

“I covered my baby with my body—I was so scared he was going to be hurt because glass was landing on him."

fuck gavin newsome but making states choose between local vs federal backing is a really effective way to combat the Trump Shit and more people should do it.

A new @rooseveltinstitute.org report by @rfunkfordham.bsky.social empirically assesses the antidemocratic effects of Citizens United 15 years after it was decided.

The findings speak for themselves: there is no place for big money in our political system.

rooseveltinstitute.org/publications...

We remember the revolutionary Assata Shakur, who passed away last week in Havana, Cuba at the age of 78.