Unless something has changed recently, they only expelled two of the three. They kept the one that was white.

Anyway, the Republican Party is going to destroy itself or America. I'm more confident that it will be the former than I was four years ago, but it's not a done deal by any means.

Yes, just the black ones. The message could hardly be clearer.

Well, it's confounded with gender.

Someone provided the context that in 1965-69 the GA legislature refused to seat a duly elected black rep three times (nominally for opposing the Vietnam war), until SCOTUS finally made them. But it took 5 years and come on SCOTUS would side with the Republicans now.
Some of the speeches from the white Republicans are insane, basically "you done been bad, boy." I think TN has a rule that if they're re-elected they can't be expelled for the same offense but it's not like they needed a real offense to expel them here, they'd just make up another.

Both may also soon return to the House. Under the Tennessee Constitution, vacancies in the state legislature can be filled by the legislative body in the home county of the lawmaker who needs to be replaced, and there's no prohibition on picking a member who was just expelled. And because these two seats have become vacant more than a year from the next general election, special elections must be held as well--and once again, there's nothing stopping an expelled former legislator from running.

Immediately after Jones' ejection, Nashville's Democratic-leaning Metropolitan Council (which includes surrounding Davidson County) called a special meeting for Monday, at which, says the Nashville Banner's Steve Cavendish, Jones is likely to be reappointed to his former job representing the 52nd District. Democrats also control the county commission in Shelby County, which includes Pearson's hometown of Memphis. The commission's chair said Thursday evening that he will seek to fill the now-vacant 86th District "as soon as possible."

Pearson said he hopes to get restored to his seat and added that he intends to run in the ensuing special election. (Pearson in fact originally joined the legislature via a special just last month.) Both he and Jones would be locks to win again given the heavy Democratic lean of both of their districts. And if they do make it back to the legislature, there's nothing Republicans can do to punish them further since the state constitution also bars expulsion "a second time for the same offense."

I really don't like this trend (see 5.last) of people making up fake racists quotes that they're pretending are said by Republicans. It feels like a weird fantasy. What good does it do? It's a shitty thing to say even if you're inventing a fake person to put it in their mouth.

Ok, watch the real quotes, they're pretty condescending without actually using the word "boy".
" the state constitution also bars expulsion "a second time for the same offense.""
Ok but a new one can be any offense the supermajority votes to uphold, right? I won't say they'd expel him for looking at a white women in a certain way because that would be imputing fantasy behavior to a caricature that doesn't really exist, but I'm sure they'd find something.

Yes, Tennessee Republicans are racist, I agree! But I don't think that's an excuse to start throwing slurs around.

7 that's not what sp was doing there. It was an obvious paraphrase.

I kind of get Unfoggetarian's reaction. It's not exactly that what SP said was misleading, it was patently an exaggerated paraphrase. But I do find that kind of thing maddening if it's not accompanied by a link to the source, because I don't have any easy way of knowing how exaggerated it was, so it doesn't tell me anything past "Republicans are racist" which is true but I knew already.

I associate this with Twitter (which I'm kind of glad is dying because it was terrible when it was healthy). I have spent so much time reading out of context tweets from people I agree with in general, gotten curious enough to dig through to find out the underlying facts of the thing they're referring to but didn't link to, and ending up thinking that the person I generally agree with was badly misrepresenting the specific situation.

Every instance I've seen of someone making a comment like SP's on a social or news site has linked to video of the Tennessee legislature, except in this thread.

Have I watched the video myself? No.

Source tweet.
Rep Andrew Farmer (white rep sponsoring expulsion) to Rep Justin Pearson, who had to stand in the well being addressed during the expulsion debate.
Rep Farmer: "That's why you're standing there. Cause of that temper tantrum that day. For that yearning to have attention. That's what you wanted. Well you're getting it now. So I'd just advise you, if you want to conduct business in this House, file a bill. Be recognized. Stand there and present it, and pass it. All you gotta do is pass a bill." (Condescending (IMO) shrug)
Rep Pearson: "Now, you all heard that. (Minor chuckling from someone in crowd.). How many of you would want to be spoken to in that way? How many of you would want to be spoken to that way? We're not talking about politics, we're not talking about even gun violence. How many of you would want to be spoken to that way? The reason that I believe the sponsor of this legislation, this resolution, spoke that way is because he's comfortable doing it. Because there's a decorum that allows it. Because there's a decorum that allows you to belittle people. We didn't belittle nobody."
To me, one adult, much less one elected official, telling another he threw a temper tantrum to get attention and he needs to be punished for it is pretty infantilizing and is a pretty good example of racist attitudes towards black men that are captured by the historical practice of calling them "boy," even if the white man is smart enough to not actually do that in modern times.

Anyway, it's encouraging in a way that many racists still feel the need to present themselves in public using language that isn't full of obvious slurs or outright statements that racism is good and more people should share their prejudices. If you watch footage from the 50s and 60s, lots of people opposing the civil rights movement were quite open about their being racist.

13.last: That is dead on. The way the Tennessee Republicans behaved is grotesquely racist.

Yes, Tennessee Republicans are racist, I agree! But I don't think that's an excuse to start throwing slurs around.

10 is correct, but I also want to take this opportunity to come out against fastidious decorum by liberals in the current political context.

A norm favoring rhetorical fairness is all well and good in a democracy, but not in the United States.

And especially not in Wisconsin. Check out Dan Kelly's concession speech, in which he roasts Protasiewicz for her explicit discussions of how she plans to rule on certain issues.

I'm not a big fan of judicial elections, and certainly would like to keep the rule of law separate from the will of the majority, but if we ever lived in a country where that works, we don't any more. I'm long past caring what anyone might say about any Tennessee Republican.

And if they want to charge Trump with felony jaywalking, that's okay with me, too.*

*Disclaimer: I recognize that I am advocating something distinctly different from the positions of SP and Alvin Bragg.

a new literal level of fascist government

This, however, is beyond the pale. How can you call these salt-of-the-earth Republicans "fascist"? Discerning students of politics and history know that it's not real fascism unless it comes from the Fascia district in Italy.

I'm in favor of fastidious accuracy about the behavior and words we're aggrieved by. Which can be accompanied by any level you like of invective -- there's hardly anything I wouldn't think was appropriate these days. But I really don't like vagueness or exaggeration about what's actually happening -- the unvarnished truth is horrifying, and blurring it risks diminishing the impact of what's happening.

It's also not so much about fastidiousness as that throwing around slurs is gross. You might have to do it sometimes to quote people accurately, but it's a shitty thing to do if you don't need to.

Like the use/mention distinction only goes so far when the "person" you're quoting is your own imagination...

I have no objection to describing people as racist or fascist, I'm objecting to the specific Twitter thing where people say "x might as well have said y" where y is something deeply offensive that x never said.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because I'm not seeing any slurs. And I don't know how anyone can hear what that legislator said and not come to the same conclusion as sp above.

"Boy" is a slur!

I think 13.last was pretty clear

13.last is also a clear an obvious violation of the analogy ban.

Anyway I have no objection to describing it as racist and infantalizing.

It is? What's the analogy?

That what the person actually said is analogous to calling someone "boy."

Anyway, I'm mostly just annoyed that this rhetorical move is just so common, I don't mean to pick a fight with SP specifically here.

I thought the analogy ban was to bar the inference that because two systems are similar in one way they must also be similar in a different way, not to prohibit non-literal statements.

I thought Justin Pearson was really impressive when speaking to the press after his expulsion. (I started this comment wanting to say something hopeful about young people like him and the future of this country but I can't think of anything. I'm not actually hopeful at all.)

30. I thought that an inference from analogy was neither here nor there, but that the arguments about whether or not it extended to some petty aspect of the similarity was a type of discussion both tedious and deadening, like the energy vampire in What we do in the Shadows.

The level of disrespect in "temper tantrum" is really high. What's the worst that was said by a peer to MTG or Boebert for yelling during the SoTU? In any case, actually being expelled is worse than any word choice, so is gerrymandering away power and denying people the ability to vote. Really hoping that between shit like this and post-Dobbs realities, the current Rs have demonstrably overplayed their hands nationally.

This sort of behavior has become bog standard among Republicans generally, not just southerners and not just officeholders.

The tactic of putting outrageous words in your political opponents' mouths should stay in places where it belongs, such as "60 Minutes" interviews.

Really hoping that between shit like this and post-Dobbs realities, the current Rs have demonstrably overplayed their hands nationally.

I think there is actually some reason to hope that this is true. There are going to be places where it is not -- or not yet -- but the midterms and now that Wisconsin SC race are decent signs that in the swingier places we can move in the right direction. And that's what it takes, over a sustained period, to rebuild the sort of federal judiciary that would reverse the kind of expulsions Tennessee has just done.

The DC Circuit today reversed a Trump appointees' dismissal of certain charges against some J6 defendants. It was a split decision, but maybe the Supreme Court lets it stand, because the conservatives are divided between law-and-order types and insurrectionists.

Ok, gonna need some legal analysis here. Judge in TX as predicted decides to play FDA and overrules the approval of mifepristone and also says mailing it is a federal crime. Stayed 7 days but the fifth circuit isn't going to overrule it. Judge in WA then issues injunction that FDA may not alter the status quo of mifepristone. Which judge does the Biden admin listen to until the respective circuits and purses unable SCOTUS weigh in?

This is one of those non-deterministic questions. Also why there's a problem with nationwide injunctions against the government.

Just thinking aloud, what if nationwide injunctions could only be granted in the federal courts of the District of Columbia?

They have to exist. It's crazy that an illegal practice gets to continue somewhere until courts in what, 94 judicial districts, weigh in

Per this piece from a former Nashville statehouse correspondent, multiple credible accusations of sexual assault against members of the high school girls' basketball team you coached aren't enough to get booted as chair of the House education committee.

(Speaking of which, I'm starting to see people get a little more specific about why Texan crazy-ass far-right legislator Bryan Slaton apparently closed his office and didn't show up for the budget vote, including this tweet from a fellow hard-right legislator who apparently detests him personally. Gonna be interesting to see if this is another instance of every accusation being a confession from a groomer-screamer.)

7 is super weird. I mean, I very much share LB's frustration with people quoting things out of context and/or making up quotes, but that is SO OBVIOUSLY not what sp did in 5. Roll tape:

I don't know of a clearer way, shy of outright saying, "The quote that follows is fictionalized and hyperbolic for effect," than prepending "basically" before a quote. In fact, "basically" is a shorter version of "The quote that follows is fictionalized and hyperbolic for effect."

I object to "the quote that follows is fictionalized and hyperbolic for effect" as a mode of argument, especially when the fictionalized quote contains slurs! It's not that I misunderstood the mode of argument that was being used. Don't say "x said basically [quote including slurs]" if x said something that doesn't involve slurs.

I don't want to tell you not to object to things that you object to, so let's agree to disagree!

I object.

Not to anything in particular, though.

38: isn't this why fed leg e.g. caa, cwa, etc (i'm most familiar with envt'l leg) often/typically provide for jurisdiction in the dc circuit to challenge final agency actions? go straight to a three judge panel with statutorily granted jurisdiction over agency actions specifically including those with nationwide scope. *not* a bog standard art 3 court in some random fed district. consistent with art 3 courts having limited jurisdiction, sep of powers, etc.

I have spent so much time reading out of context tweets from people I agree with in general, gotten curious enough to dig through to find out the underlying facts of the thing they're referring to but didn't link to, and ending up thinking that the person I generally agree with was badly misrepresenting the specific situation.

Same. What baffles me is how many people don't seem to have an issue with the bad behavior. Clout-chasers are, more or less definitionally, replacement-level posters: their views are the same as yours and everybody else's that you like/follow, and if they truly added value, they wouldn't need to chase clout. But I see all sorts of people who do, in fact, provide value quote and retweet clout-chasing accounts.

I totally get following people who reinforce your own feelings and views--that's what social media bubbles are for--I just don't get being undiscriminating about it.

Nashville council votes 36-0 to send Justin Jones back to the Tenn. State Assembly.

Which, given that this was a foregone conclusion and everyone in the state legislature knew that, suggests even more strongly that they were BASICALLY telling Jones and Pearson to know their place.

I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm being naive, but this evisceration of the Kacsmaryk holding (from a former Scalia clerk who just last week was chastising people for saying that Kacsmaryk was going to bend the law to suit his religious preferences) is jawdropping. "Disconnected from reality" and "gibberish" are some of the nicer things he says. I wish this level of sheer judicial lawlessness was going to have a single consequence. Maybe people will stop inviting Kacsmaryk to all the cool parties on Martha's Vinyard.

That's a very nice evisceration. I hadn't bothered to do it for myself, but it hits the necessary points.

45 Yeah, although is the appeal jurisdiction from those agencies to any circuit, or only the DC Circuit?

A while back, I worked on an appeal from NHTSA rules: we were challenging a rule they adopted, and their failure to adopt a different rule. The DC Cir ruled that we could be in that court for the former but needed to be in the district court for the latter.

49 That's excellent, even if the author seems willfully ignorant (in his prior submissions) and overly naïve, I think, about the Fifth Circuit. I have been saying since that came out that I don't think there are 5 votes for this level of chaos on the SC. This is a great explanation why.

(The decision described in 51 was written by Kav, and also denied standing to a class of petitioners.)

51: its statute & agency action dependent. basically it is unworkable for 94 different fed dist courts to all have the power to issue nationwide injunctions on final agency actions.

In the 90s, I was involved in the effort to eliminate district court jurisdiction over federal procurement bid protests, making the court of federal claims the exclusive court forum for them. The proponents managed to get Congress to go for this. Amending the APA in general would be a much heavier lift -- I'm sure you could find buckets of DC lawyers willing to pitch in, but I'm not sure big business would go for it. Although this Texas ruling has big pharma pretty riled up.

And big pharma needs lots of SAS programming.

Back to Tennessee, since it looks like both men are going to be reinstated, triumphant, with a lot of public support, maybe the lesson that this shit is overreach will get learned a lot faster than it otherwise would have. Tenn Republicans might have been better off just ignoring the anti-gun protests, instead of giving opponents the chance to win something, peripheral though it is. Righteous victories inspire. The Tenn lege is still not going to pass anything about guns -- the right's one true religion -- but I'm sure the architects of the expulsion strategy aren't feeling vindicated.

(As folks know, I've spent a lot of time here arguing against the efficacy of righteous defeat.)

The lesson will not be learned. They'll just keep doubling down looking more freakish all the way.

The reporting here

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1645783549335724033

suggests that the TN Speaker has (1) not paid taxes on the condo in his district for the last two years; (2) does not live in his district, as required by the TN constitution; and (3) has claimed and received reimbursement for travel that he doesn't undertake to and from the condo where he doesn't live and doesn't pay owed taxes on.

Nevertheless, the lesson that Tennessee Republicans will learn is that people who vote for Democrats, especially Black people who vote for Democrats, should not see those votes translate into any form of political power or policy action.

49-50: Kacsmaryk's opinion is useful to the Scalia/Alito/Roberts types because it gives them a chance to say, "See? No bias here! Balls and strikes!" And then they can find a way to outlaw abortion that isn't quite as easy to mock.

I find myself wondering about the author's personal opinion of abortion. I can imagine a Scalia clerk with a reasonable personal view of abortion, but I can't imagine an item like that being written by an anti-abortion Scalia clerk.

I wouldn't count on Alito for that -- he can write an angry screed about abortion -- but I really don't see Roberts or Kav signing on to this.

The most likely scenario is that states like Texas make clear that medication abortion is illegal, and then they prosecute a few women of color who get turned in by exes, sisters-in-law, zealot neighbors.

I don't think he's pro-choice. I just think he cares more about the law (from a conservative perspective) than he does about abortion.

61: I'm thinking Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart in the film Conspiracy (played by Colin Firth) objecting to the new round-up-all-the-Jews Holocaust-prelude policies because he, one of the authors of the Nuremberg laws, is convinced of the need for all anti-Semitic action to be on firm legal footing.

59: State legislators as a class are, in general, The Worst, but Tennessee Republicans seem exceptionally bad.

62: Yeah, and I'd add that Stuckart was oblivious to the fact that he helped create Heydrich -- and he'd do the same thing again. No Scalia clerk is likely to be innocent of Kacsmaryk. The Federalist Society is full of evil pricks like Kacsmaryk -- it's just that most of them have more polish.

That was a great movie.