homesweethomeMrL

joined 2 years ago
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 20 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

But few know what happened next: One couple whom Davis discriminated against sued her for violating their civil rights, and a jury ordered her to pay $360,000 in damages for attorneys’ fees. She and her lawyers at the fringe-right law firm Liberty Counsel have spent years fighting that award. And that is what Davis v. Ermold is really about.

. . . After losing several rounds of litigation over the First Amendment issue, Davis’ lawyers decided to tack on a bigger request: Suddenly, they did not merely ask for exemptions from Obergefell; they wanted the Supreme Court to overturn it altogether. They raised this claim so late in the game that the appeals court ruled that it had been forfeited. But that did not stop them from including the frontal attack on Obergefell in their appeal to SCOTUS. The request to overturn marriage equality was tacked on to the petition like an afterthought, following the main arguments about religious freedom.

If Liberty Counsel’s primary goal was to draw attention—and, by extension, fundraising dollars—by taking on marriage equality itself, it worked: Media coverage of this case was wildly disproportionate to its (near-zero) chances of success.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

No it's sort of - a Red Pride. Wait no that's not right. Blue pride? Well, whatever, they sure have a lot of it.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

"I prefer veterans that don't need healthcare, okay?"

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

How about all thos patriots who benefitted from the PATRIOT Act?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 54 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't have to send troops to arrest citizens either; just wanted to.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

I'll take some of that action. This is easy cult money.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

It says it's news . . .

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Yeah well I disagree, but the alternative is to have less seats. Which we have now.

Is now good? If so, carry on.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Well if we’re talkin linux the sky’s the limit.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

That’s a shame.

 

“I hope college football doesn’t change, because the power of the kickoff is, we’re so beautiful, and now it, you know, I don’t want to say what it reminds me of, because I’ll get myself into big trouble,” Trump said. “It is not football, and I have no idea what you guys – you guys may disagree with me. I don’t think it’s going to help.”

 
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52630446

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/38456065

Anne Hutchinson Trial (1637)

Sat Nov 07, 1637

Image


On this day in 1637, religious reformer Anne Hutchinson was brought to trial in the Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony, where she was called a heretic and an instrument of the devil. She was later exiled from the community for her beliefs.

Anne Hutchinson (1591 - 1643) was a Puritan spiritual advisor, religious reformer, and an important participant in the Antinomian Controversy, which shook the nascent Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1636 to 1638.

Hutchinson was known for being a powerful speaker, and insisted on the ability of women to read the bible for themselves, among other "unauthorized" interpretations of the gospel.

On November 7th, 1637, Hutchinson was brought to trial, where she was called a heretic and an instrument of the devil, and was exiled from the Puritan community for her beliefs. Thirty-five families, supporters of Hutchinson, followed her to settle in modern-day Rhode Island.


 

Mouse-over:

Tap for spoilerif you're an unlucky astronomer i feel bad for you son, i got 99 pictures but significant atmospheric distortion affects only one

 

One social media user wrote that the hedge fund executive Bill Ackman "went from acting like Mamdani was going to import ISIS to extending a friendly handshake… in like six hours."

. . . Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman poured over $1.75 million into the mayor's race with a laser focus on stopping Mamdani, whom he often ambushed with several-thousand-word screeds on his X account, which boasts nearly 2 million followers. He accused Mamdani—a staunch critic of Israel—of "amplifying hate" against Jewish New Yorkers, while suggesting that his followers (which happened to include many Jewish New Yorkers) were "terror supporters."

Meanwhile, the billionaire suggested that the democratic socialist Mamdani's "affordability" centered agenda, which includes increasing taxes on corporations and the city's wealthiest residents to fund universal childcare, free buses, and a rent freeze for stabilized units, would make the city "much more dangerous and economically unviable," in part by causing an exodus of billionaires like himself.

In turn, Mamdani often invoked Ackman's name on the campaign trail, using him as the poster boy for the cossetted New York elite that was almost uniformly arrayed against his candidacy. In one exchange, Mamdani joked that Ackman was "spending more money against me than I would even tax him."

After Mamdani's convincing victory Tuesday night, fueled in large part by his dominant performance among the city's working-class voters, Ackman surprisingly did not respond with "the longest tweet in the history of tweets" to lament the result as some predicted. Instead, he came to the mayor-elect hat in hand.

"Congrats on the win," he told Mamdani on X. "Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do."

4
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world to c/usa@midwest.social
 

None of this, however, was inevitable. The result of these elections was not merely a “thermostatic” backlash to the president. First, because the swings were larger than on average (16 points in VA since 2021, e.g.; 9 versus 2024). And second, because of the changing issue landscape powering Democrats’ victory. Voters said they punished Republicans for Trump’s policies on the economy, health care, and immigration. More said they were voting against him than voting for either party’s nominees for governor, according to the exits.

Instead, the best explanation for 2025 is that voters didn’t know what they were getting with Trump 2.0 last November, but now they do — and they don’t like it. 

The following analysis of results and the exit polls explores seven stories hiding in the Democrats’ rosy performance. Charts of results show the scale of the Democratic victories. The exits show that voters prioritized affordability and the economy, and acted on their near-historic disapproval of the president. That combination powered wins across key geographies and demographic groups, blunting GOP efforts to fight on immigration, transgender kids, and crime. In Virginia and New Jersey, “economy‑first” voters sided with the Democratic gubernatorial candidates by a 65-35 margin — a sharp reversal from 2024, when economy‑focused voters broke roughly 80–20 for Trump. 

Oh, and I’ll take a deeper look at the polls, which erred by about the same amount this year as they did in 2024, but in the opposite direction.

 

Voters up and down the East Coast delivered Democrats a sweep on Tuesday, electing candidates across the party’s ideological spectrum in a vivid show of discontent with President Donald Trump nearly a year into his second term.

In Virginia, moderate former Rep. Abigail Spanberger turned in the strongest Democratic performance in the state’s recent history as she coasted to victory. And in New Jersey, another moderate, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, busted apart the coalition Trump and her Republican rival, former state lawmaker Jack Ciattarelli, had put together to close the Garden State’s gap in recent elections.

In New York City, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani’s win marked the second time this year he’d defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo — first in the Democratic primary, and then in the general election, with Cuomo running as an independent backed by Trump.

The Democratic wins by candidates with sharp ideological differences will do little to settle the party’s long-raging internal debate about its way forward, with a host of competitive midterm primaries just months away and the 2028 presidential primary already looming.

But their campaigns had some things in common. Though their solutions were different, the candidates focused on the issue of affordability. And they were all fiercely critical of Trump’s performance.

“It’s not just a message about Democrats; it’s a message about our entire country. I think Americans are appalled by what they are seeing coming out of this administration,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on CNN from Mamdani’s victory party.

In California, voters approved by a wide margin a redistricting ballot measure intended to boost Democrats’ chances in next year’s battle for control of the House. And in Pennsylvania, Democratic state Supreme Court justices won their retention votes, allowing Democrats to keep their majority on the high court in a perennial battleground state where legal challenges over voting rules are all but certain.

Here are six initial takeaways from Tuesday’s elections:

Mamdani defeats Cuomo — again

Mamdani drew immense national attention over his progressive ideology and his courtship of voters who were eager for a fresh face. But in New York City, his relentless focus on driving down costs might have proven more persuasive — and voters were on course to give his forthcoming efforts a boost by also approving a series of ballot measures intended to reduce red tape on building affordable housing.

If he delivers on his promises, it would turn New York City into a blueprint for cities across the country where the cost of living has soared. If Mamdani fails, he could be used as a warning against progressives more broadly as the 2028 presidential primary approaches.

For Cuomo, who was attempting a political comeback after resigning from the governor’s office in 2021, the outcome was an embarrassment. It was also a failure for Trump, who late in the race supported Cuomo rather than Republican Curtis Sliwa, saying Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes” that “if it’s going to be between a bad Democrat and a communist, I’m going to pick the bad Democrat all the time.”

A big suburban swing

The first big win for Democrats on Tuesday came in Virginia, where Spanberger, a former CIA officer who had won a competitive congressional district in 2018 and held it until retiring this year to focus on the governor’s race, pulled away from Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears.

One window into her dominance came in Loudoun County — a closely-watched mix of suburbs and exurbs in Northern Virginia.

With most of the expected vote counted there at 9 p.m. Eastern time Tuesday, Spanberger had more than 64% of the vote there. That was 8 percentage points better than former Vice President Kamala Harris did in the 2024 presidential election, and 9 points better than the party’s losing 2021 gubernatorial nominee, Terry McAuliffe. Spanberger was nearly 5 points ahead of former Gov. Ralph Northam’s performance in Loudoun County in 2017 — a big Democratic win in Trump’s first term that presaged the party’s strong 2018 midterm performance.

Spanberger outperformed recent Democratic candidates across the map in Virginia, likely fueled in part by the Trump administration’s gutting of the federal workforce. Thousands of current and former federal workers live throughout the region.

CNN’s exit poll found that Spanberger won 61% of the vote of those who have a federal worker or federal contractor in their household, compared to 52% support from those who do not.

Her margins were large enough to pull Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee for attorney general who was rocked by the disclosure of text messages in which he suggested a former legislative colleague should be shot, across the finish line, even though he lagged Spanberger by about 5 points. Jones defeated Republican incumbent Jason Miyares.

A barrier falls in Virginia

No matter the outcome, Virginia’s election was going to make history: The winner would become the first woman to serve as its governor.

Spanberger noted that history, relaying to supporters that her husband had told their children that their mother would become the governor of Virginia.

“I can guarantee, those words have never been spoken in Virginia before,” she said. “It’s a big deal that the girls and young women I have met along the campaign trail now know with certainty they can achieve anything.”

New Jersey reveals anti-Trump sentiment

In Virginia, candidate quality was a factor in the outcome, as Republicans grumbled for months about their nominee, Earle-Sears.

New Jersey was a different story.

Ciattarelli had a strong statewide performance under his belt after his near-miss in the 2021 governor’s race. He also had his own brand — a “Jersey guy” appeal that he hoped would give him some separation from Trump, despite the president’s endorsement, Ciattarelli’s praise for his performance in office and Democrats’ relentless advertising campaign tying him to Trump in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 800,000.

In many ways, those realities made New Jersey the better barometer of anti-Trump sentiment.

One key question was whether Ciattarelli could replicate Trump’s performance with Latino voters: They swung hard in the GOP’s favor nationally last November, with the president winning 46% support to Harris’ 51% with Latinos, CNN’s exit poll found. On Tuesday in New Jersey, the answer was no: Sherrill won 64% of Latino voters to Ciattarelli’s 32%, per CNN’s exit poll.

She also won 91% of Black voters. And she won independents by a 7-point margin. Moderates backed Sherrill, 58% to 39%.

Ciattarelli won handily among the 34% of voters who said taxes was the most important issue facing New Jersey. But 32% said the economy — which Republicans had hoped would be a strength, since the state is currently controlled by Democrats — was the most important issue, and those voters backed Sherrill, 61% to 37%, according to CNN’s exit poll.

Newsom’s big redistricting moment

California voters gave Democrats’ hopes of winning a House majority in next year’s midterms a massive boost on Tuesday — and gave Gov. Gavin Newsom a signature moment on the national stage, demonstrating to Democratic voters that he can stand up to Trump ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run.

The state’s voters approved a ballot measure that would scrap the current congressional district boundaries drawn by an independent commission in favor of new maps that would hand Democrats five more favorable districts.

The mid-decade redistricting is Newsom’s answer to Texas, which redrew its maps in an effort to hand the GOP five more winnable districts at Trump’s behest as the president searched for ways to retain the GOP’s narrow House majority next year.

Amid a short but pitched advertising battle ahead of the vote, Newsom made himself the face of the redistricting effort. He raised $108 million for the effort, and appeared in advertisements backing it. He pitched it in a series of interviews and podcast appearances.

“With Prop 50, The Election Rigging Response Act, we can stop Trump cold,” Newsom said in one spot, standing in front of an American flag. National audiences may be seeing him a lot more in the years to come.

Down-ballot Democratic wins

In addition to the big-ticket victories in Virginia, New Jersey, New York and California, Democrats won lower-profile contests that could pay dividends in the years to come.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Supreme Court justices retained their seats for new 10-year terms — preserving the party’s court majority in a state where presidential elections can be won and lost, and voting rules are regularly challenged.

Tuesday’s elections also had ramifications for the national redistricting arms race. Democrats are on track to expand their narrow majority in the Virginia House of Delegates, clearing the way for the party to pursue a constitutional amendment that would allow them to draw new congressional maps.

And in Maine, a critical state in next year’s battle for Senate control, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have required voters to present photo identification at the polls and when requesting absentee ballots, among other restrictive measures.

view more: next ›