What can Democrats do about Clarence Thomas?

What can Democrats do about Clarence Thomas?

Paul Waldman — Read time: 4 minutes

The controversy over Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, Clarence Thomas and the Jan. 6 insurrection is demonstrating one profound difference between Democrats and Republicans: how they view the value of making a stink.

People in Washington have long known that Ginni Thomas is unique among spouses of Supreme Court justices: She’s a professional conservative activist who is influential in Republican administrations and works directly on issues before the court. With the release of her text messages with Mark Meadows leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, her far-right extremism has become impossible to ignore: along with urging Trump’s chief of staff to help overturn the election, she trafficked in QAnon-type conspiracy theories.

Given his wife’s role in encouraging the effort to overturn the election that culminated in the awful events of that day, Clarence Thomas should obviously recuse himself from any case having to do with Jan. 6. But what can Democrats do about him?

The way Democrats are answering that question tells us a lot about their party.

This Friday, 17 progressive organizations are releasing a letter calling on Democrats to launch a congressional investigation of Justice Thomas’s "misconduct in his handling of cases regarding the January 6 insurrection, the 2020 presidential election, and other cases involving his wife’s political activities.”

As the groups note in their letter, which is spearheaded by Take Back the Court, Supreme Court justices are bound by a federal statute that says they, like other judges, should recuse themselves from any case in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Thomas has already violated this law, the letter argues, by ruling on multiple cases involving both the 2020 election and the insurrection.

What might a congressional investigation accomplish? The letter argues that it might determine “whether Justice Thomas’ conduct was consistent with basic principles of judicial ethics, whether he violated federal law and his oath to 'impartially discharge and perform his judicial duties, and what actions must be taken in response.”

But so far, Democrats have largely been restrained in response to the Ginni Thomas revelations. While a few more liberal lawmakers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have said Clarence Thomas should resign or be impeached, Democratic leaders have not.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and others have called only for Thomas to recuse himself in future cases involving Jan. 6. Asked whether Thomas should be impeached, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “I don’t think he should ever have been appointed,” which is essentially a dodge.

This is not how you create a scandal, if that’s what you wanted to do.

Perhaps liberal activists, progressive members of Congress and the Democratic base can create enough pressure that the Democratic leaders will feel compelled to start an investigation. But there’s immediate resistance to that idea.

Why? In part this resistance is grounded in a recognition of a cold reality: Thomas will probably stay on the court until the day he dies (or at least thereabouts), doing pretty much as he likes, and there isn’t much Democrats can do about it.

Remember the idea that justices are bound by the law demanding their recusal in cases in which their impartiality could be questioned? That’s not exactly true, because there’s no body or agency with authority over the Supreme Court to force compliance with the rules. Justices decide for themselves whether they should recuse in any given case. Clarence Thomas just won’t, because he almost never recuses himself, and the very fact that Democrats are demanding it makes it less likely that he will.

Which Democrats know. They also know it’s unlikely that an investigation would result in an impeachment, let alone a conviction. Many Democrats probably think that, ethically speaking, Thomas isn’t quite guilty of a felony, and so impeachment might not be warranted; you’d need Republicans to convict him, which would absolutely never happen.

Those practical considerations will stay most Democrats’ hands. But when Republicans are in this kind of position, they don’t care whether the practical goals of such an effort will come to pass. For them, raising a stink is an end in itself.

Republicans raise stinks as part of a never-ending effort to create controversy, chaos and scandal around Democrats. Should we mount the fifth, sixth, seventh congressional investigation of Benghazi? Of course! Let’s just keep yelling!

It’s not that Democrats never gin up a manufactured controversy about Republican misdeeds. But they’re just not as eager to do it as Republicans are. Democrats are usually on the lookout for reasons not to, especially when they’re in power and want to spend time on governing priorities.

Indeed, in something of an ironic twist, Republicans’ own contempt for norms, ethics, rules, and the very processes of our system has a kind of demoralizing effect on Democrats, making them less likely to go after figures such as Thomas. He doesn’t care about his ethical obligations and won’t recuse himself no matter how loudly we demand it, some Democrats will say, so what’s the point?

That’s not a question Republicans would ask if they were in the same situation. But Democrats do ask it of themselves. Which sends a message to Republicans that the rules don’t really apply to them, and they can act with impunity. Clarence Thomas has surely taken note.

Trump’s lies are failing ​in Georgia. That’s good news for all of us.

Trump’s lies are failing ​in Georgia. That’s good news for all of us.

Greg Sargent — Read time: 3 minutes

We’re at a hinge point in our politics: In the coming weeks, we will get a clearer sense of the influence that Donald Trump wields over GOP primaries. Nowhere is this more pressing than in Georgia, where Trump has staked a great deal on his endorsements of a slate of Trumpist candidates who are challenging establishment Republican incumbents.

Trump’s candidates may be in trouble, and some observers are interpreting as a sign of his weakening hold on the GOP. But something else is on the ballot, too: Whether running on a vow to subvert future election losses by any means necessary will be a political winner for Republicans going forward.

In a new report on the Georgia primaries, NPR finds that Republicans in the state have little confidence that Trump’s candidate for governor will prevail. Trump has endorsed former senator David Perdue, who is running a primary challenge to sitting Gov. Brian Kemp.

Trump endorsed Perdue for the express reason that Kemp refused to help Trump steal the 2020 election. But Perdue “lags behind Kemp in fundraising and polling,” reports NPR, and Georgia Republicans say Kemp appears likely to hang on.

That’s because Kemp is still seen as conservative, due to things like his opposition to covid-19 mandates and his support for Georgia’s voter suppression law. Republican voters appear to think Kemp delivered for them, despite refusing to irredeemably corrupt himself on Trump’s behalf. Indeed, as Josh Kraushaar reports, Perdue is trailing Kemp even though most GOP voters do know Trump endorsed him, a clear sign his 2020 lies may be falling flat.

If Perdue loses, it will be a comeuppance for one of the sleaziest political hustlers we’ve seen in some time. Perdue’s argument basically amounts to pitching himself as more willing than Kemp to debase himself and corrupt our democracy for the Trumpist cause.

At first, Perdue kept this subtle, if that’s the word for it. He ran an ad featuring Trump, who intoned that Kemp had “let us down.” That implicitly criticized Kemp’s refusal to steal the election for Trump, but without saying so directly.

But now Perdue is all in, declaring outright this week that the 2020 election was indeed stolen. It was actually ratified by numerous audits and recounts, but as Steve Benen notes, this was plainly necessary to keep Trump happy with Perdue’s candidacy.

For good measure, at a rally this week Perdue visibly encouraged the crowd when it chanted “lock him up” about Kemp:

On top of all this, Perdue has openly declared that he would not have certified Trump’s 2020 loss, as Kemp did. It’s reasonable to read this as an implicit vow not to certify a future loss on the basis of made-up voter fraud claims. It’s also fair to ask whether as governor Perdue would certify a fake slate of electors for Trump or an imitator in 2024, in defiance of the state’s popular vote, which could be counted by a GOP House.

But it gets even worse. Trump has endorsed Rep. Jody Hice’s (R-Ga.) primary challenge to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. One of Raffensperger’s chief transgressions? He rebuffed Trump’s pressure to literally manufacture votes out of thin air to reverse the outcome.

Hice, then, is not just a loyal devotee of Trump’s lies about 2020. He’s really running on an implicit willingness to do what Raffensperger would not, i.e., use his official powers to overturn a future loss. Indeed, this is partly why Trump endorsed him! Hice may still win, but this is proving much closer than observers expected. Trump’s lies are not proving as potent here, either.

Why? Apparently because he’s facing primary challengers who full-throatedly embrace that lie, and he needed to keep pace.

A great deal is at stake in seeing candidates like these lose wherever possible. True, liberals might argue that Kemp winning in Georgia — where the primary winner will face voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams in the general election — might be terrible for democracy in other ways. And yes, Kemp did sign one of the worst voter suppression bills in the country.

But if it turns out there’s little political payoff for campaigning on an open vow to treat future election results as illegitimate and nonbinding — well, that would certainly bode better for democracy’s future than the alternative.

How long will the West stay aligned against Putin?

How long will the West stay aligned against Putin?

Michael Gerson — Read time: 4 minutes

Some commentators on the Ukraine war — generally in the class of foreign policy realists — are ready for the denouement before the full story is played out.

In the beginning was a failure of deterrence. After years of passive Western reaction to his adventurism — in Georgia, Crimea, Syria and elsewhere — Vladimir Putin thought he could pursue a relatively costless invasion of Ukraine. It was a miscalculation, but not an irrational one. A swift and steely reaction by President Biden was probably not the outcome Putin’s intelligence services ranked as most likely. After having championed the abandonment of both Syria (as vice president) and Afghanistan (as president) to terrible fates, Biden’s fortitude would not have been assumed.

As the conflict began, foreign policy realists across the ideological spectrum thought (like many others) that the war would be a rout in Russia’s favor. This outcome would have had the virtue of strategic simplicity. The red line against Russian aggression could have been drawn at the inviolable borders of NATO countries. The invocation of Article 5 — the mutual-defense portion of the North Atlantic Treaty — would have obviated the need for difficult strategic choices. While few — apart from America’s extreme right — were rooting for it, Ukraine’s swift defeat would have limited the bloodshed and resulted in a comfortable clarity of costs and risks.

Among an increasingly vocal group of policy realists, this shockingly positive outcome overall remains a long-term defeat for U.S. interests. The argument goes like this: A bloody stalemate in Ukraine — featuring crimes such as the leveling of Mariupol and Kharkiv — is not only a humanitarian nightmare. Continuing this unwinnable war would cause radiating destabilization.

How long will Europe stay united against Putin when countries face energy shortages, lost jobs and the reality of accommodating millions more refugees beyond the 4 million estimated to have already fled? How will Britons react when they experience, say, a 50 percent or more increase in energy costs? Won’t the German advocates of appeasing Putin — who are only temporarily quieted — eventually remake their argument in an atmosphere of acute economic suffering?

The U.S. economy is not as dependent as Europe’s on its economic relationship with Russia. But won’t the disruption of global energy markets — resulting in higher prices at the gasoline pump — place tremendous political pressure on Biden? Might this economic dislocation help return one of Putin’s few remaining allies — Donald Trump — to power?

Some foreign policy experts also warn that crippling Russia might turn it into a terrorist state, like North Korea, while it is pushed ever closer to China for support.

“The main challenge today,” Samuel Charap of the Rand Corp. argued recently in Foreign Affairs, “is that Ukraine’s brave resistance — even combined with ever-greater Western pressure on Moscow — is highly unlikely to overcome Russia’s military advantages, let alone topple Putin. Without some kind of deal with the Kremlin, the best outcome is probably a long, arduous war that Russia is likely to win anyway.” Such a protracted conflict, he warned, would “cement the current extreme level of hostility between Russia and the West,” which would undermine U.S. interests in regional and global stability over the long term.

“However distasteful it may be to reach a compromise with Putin after the carnage he has unleashed,” continued Charap, “the United States should work to secure a negotiated settlement to the conflict sooner rather than later.”

There are at least three problems with this approach:

First, any likely, hurried peace that is forced on Ukrainians would almost certainly involve territorial concessions to Russia. This would constitute another massive failure of deterrence, essentially inviting Putin to threaten and intimidate non-NATO countries.

Second, while the gung-ho provision of weapons to the Ukrainian army could eventually raise some risk of direct NATO conflict with Russia, we don’t appear close to that point yet. Biden has been correct to avoid a no-fly zone, but he is not yet close to exhausting the number and sophistication of missiles that could be responsibly sent. Missiles to take out more planes, more ships, more tanks. NATO needs to test the further limits of possible victory against Russia in Ukraine. It hasn’t yet.

Third, this might be our generation’s best, and perhaps only, chance to enforce true limits on the greatest threat to European and world peace. Under Putin, Russia is already a rogue terrorist state, closely aligned with China. How will the effective accommodation of Russia’s barbaric aggression make global stability more likely?

Rallying their peoples to accept the temporary economic burdens required to confront Putin is now the main challenge for European leaders and the U.S. president. It will not be easy, but it will certainly be easier than following the Zelensky example.

In a previous thread I outlined three scenarios for the Russian future by Kamil Galeev

Thread by @kamilkazani on Thread Reader App

Read time: 21 minutes

Kamil Galeev Profile picture

Imperial Reboot

In a previous thread I outlined three scenarios for the Russian future:

1. North Korea

2. Imperial Reboot

3. National Divorce

Last time I discussed North Korea (Putin stays in power). Now I'll reiterate its main points and then outline the Imperial Reboot🧵 Image

When I said that should Putin stay in power, Russia becomes North Korea I referred to its foreign policy. It'd be highly militarised, aggressive and isolationist nation that will have no other major partners but China. It will be obsessed with revenge against Ukraine and the West Image

However, domestic policy-wise it would be more accurate to say that Russia will turn into a huge Donbass. Donbass is a part of Ukraine that was misfortunate enough to fall under the Russian rule and became a laboratory for a Kremlin's gargantuan experiment in social engineering Image

In Donbass Kremlin's agents rule freely without any procedural constraints, including even the Russian law. And what society did they build there? Well, a hypermilitarised kleptocracy. Donbass experiment worked out so well that now it's likely to be scaled up in entire Russia Image

Donbass is now a fully militarised statist society. There's almost no private sector. Locals must either work for government enterprises (for food) or serve in Donbass army (for better wage). You have no choice but to toil for pro-Russian warlords or to shed your blood for them Image

There's no law in Donbass, people have no protection against the arbitrary rule of pro-Russian warlords. There's obviously no place for dissidence, those who object will just disappear. People are purposefully kept in poverty so they can be better used as workers or cannon fodder Image

Russian sources paint grim picture of the WWI-style war in East Ukraine. Z-forces do frontline attacks on fortified Ukrainian positions again and again. They suffer huge losses with almost no progress but commanders keep sending them in frontline assaults. As Strelkov points out: Image

Now whom are Russians sending to these frontline attacks? Well, the Donbass people. They do "total mobilisation" in Donetsk and Luhansk and send these guys to frontline attacks. That's very smart. They're not Russian soldiers, so you can keep official casualty numbers low

Why would Russia itself turn into a Donbass? First, Russia has been lowkey drifting to the Donbass state for years. It's an oil exporter that is running out of cheap oil and wants to stay highly militarised. Thus it must reduce life standards and personal freedoms Image

Second, main arguments against sanctions are both true or false depending on whether we view them in a short term or in a long term. Yes, they may lead to Putin increasing his power in Russia. And they will lead to Russian rapprochment with China. But only if Putin stays in power Image

Anecdotally in 1999 a general close to then Prime Minister Putin approached a Moscow businessman. He asked him for investment: give us N dollars and join the club. We need cash right now. And when we take power "nobody in the country will have money but us". You can be one of us Image

This businessman didn't invest. He didn't have enough available cash. Neither did he really believe that yet another Yeltsin's PM would be able to consolidate power. And yet, Putin did consolidate it and soon nobody in Russia had (big) money except for his team. General was right Image

Independent money is always a threat to established order. Financial resources can and will be used for renegotiating the power balance. That's why independent fortunes shouldn't exist. Ideally people should have no sources of cash except for the government wage. As in Donbass Image

Paradoxically, destruction of Russian private sector as a result of sanctions can lead to Putin increasing his power within Russia (provided that he stays in power). If Russia can export resources, the government will have cash but normal people won't. That's very advantageous Image

Furthermore, integration with China is possible. It just takes time. You cant reorient Russian technological import and resource exports from the West to China overnight, it gonna take years. Should Putin stay in power, Russia will have time to steadily progress in this direction Image

It'd be wrong to describe current Russian-Chinese relations as an alliance. Some Chinese intellectuals rather view Russia as an icebreaker that would clear a route for the Pax Sinica. This article may be representative of the mainstream Chinese discourse readingthechinadream.com/zheng-yongnian…

Putin's invasion of Ukraine could distract the US for 15-20 years. America being preoccupied with Russia, China will have time time to grow stronger to "play a more important role in the construction of the new world order". Russia isn't a Chinese ally. It's a Chinese icebreaker Image

See the original publication here. This argument makes total sense and Putin will indeed serve as an icebreaker for the Pax Sinica, provided that Putin's regime survives Z-war and exists for yet another decade or two

mp.weixin.qq.com/s/FyC1hfGRP3GO…

Now the third reason for Russian turning into Donbass is that should Putin keep power, Russia will be obsessed by revenge and revanche. Russian public opinion absolutely will view peace with Ukraine as huge Putin's defeat. It already does Image

There will be lots of revanchist pressure. Consider this interview with a mother of a National Guardsman KIA. She admits she didn't think much about Ukraine before and operation went wrongly. But:

"If so many boys died, we can't stop now. We should continue, till the victory" Image

She won't accept her son died in vain. Well technically he didn't. A grieving mother gets 7 441 000 rubles + monthly allowance. But she also needs clear consciousness (and social recognition). Will she ever admit her son died on a criminal war? You'll never manage to convince her Image

Russia suffered massive losses in Ukraine and will suffer more as the fighting keeps going. People will lose their relatives, friends neighbours. Their logic will work like this:

Our boys died -> They died for a good purpose -> We should regroup and complete what they started Image

Mass consciousness will choose a path of minimal suffering as it always does. And minimal suffering is secured through the glorification of vice. So Z-war will be glorious, Z-soldiers will be heroes and Russia will feel obliged to take revenge so that their death won't be in vain Image

There's no return to the status quo now. If Putin stays in power, he *must* regroup and attack again. Otherwise he gonna lose face and authority. In this revanche he will be supported by the majority of Russian society which shares the common imperial mythos and its values Image

If you think I'm exaggerating consider the Chechen Wars. In the First Chechen War Russia lost and signed a Khasavyurt Peace. Which was widely viewed as the national shame. So in a few years Russians regrouped and attacked again to restore their imperial honour and pride Image

Prime Minister Putin's invasion was widely supported by the political establishment. Chubays fully endorsed the war:

"I truly think that today in Chechnya we are solving not the Chechen question but an incomparably more important one: Russian army is being revived in Chechnya" Image

A revanchist war is a return to normal. It is a way to solve domestic problems and restore our mythos. We can't just accept we've been defeated by a former colony: we must return and finish what we've started. Russian mythos doesn't allow to accept defeats and demands a revanche Image

Putin could consolidate his power because he went with the flow. He acted in accordance with the Russian imperial mythos. That allowed him to quickly consolidate his power. A noname became a national leader in just 5 months because he took revenge for a Russian defeat Image

Like Chechnya, Ukraine is a former Russian colony which complicates everything. It Russia accepts a defeat, it will shatter Putin's mythos and undermine Russian imperial mythos as a whole. While victory is all redeeming, a defeat will have the opposite effect. That's unacceptable Image

Consider comments when Russia "decreased military activities on Kyiv and Chernihiv directions"

- That's ununderstandable

- Haha, they ran out of money for war. They'll retreat by May 9 to organise the Victory Parade

- America won. Putin's approval rate dropped

- No step back ImageImage

- No step back! What are you doing?!!! We pushed the Nazis a bit and thats it? In three years we'll need to fight again? Putin, blink if they have captured you!

- What for did we lose so many boys?

- So many broken lives. So many kids, women, elderly died. And it was all in vain? Image

- That's it, Putin's power is over. That's a treason of our boys

- Shame. Everyone will reject you, negotiators...

- "Ukraine confirmed it's aspiration for neutral non-nuclear status". But it had same status before! What a crap! And now they have "aspiration"! Now that's a shame! Image

That's how Putin's core supporters feel. They don't view results as a victory. They percieve it as a shame. Putin rose stakes too high and his demands for neutral non-nuclear status are viewed as a domestic policy tool. He needs to present a victory, but nobody believes he's won 

Apart from people lamenting current results as a shame and a defeat and calls for continuing the war, we see here a very smart and realistic comment. One commenter mentioned that Putin will retreat by May 9. Why May 9? Because it's a Victory Parade commemorating the WWII Image

That doesn't mean that Putin *will* retreat by May 9. It means May 9 commemorating the end of the War with Germany is a benchmark. It's a deadline that exists in Putin's head and the heads of other Russians. Some sort of resolution must be achieved by that date Image

That makes total sense. Russian military operations have been often motivated by the need to meet symbolic deadlines. For example Russians suffered enormous casualties during the Siege of Plevna in 1877 because commanders wanted to take the fortress by the Alexander II's nameday Image

"There's a huge kurgan near Plevna

Corpses haven't decomposed there yet

To cheer the Tsar in his nameday

They killed many thousands of their own.

A nameday pie with the human meat

Is a gift to the emperor"

(Olhin's poem on the Siege of Plevna) Image

Back then Russian state cult was largely centered around the Emperor and his family. So military operations were planned in a way to achieve strategic success by some family holiday that was a symbolic deadline. That was suboptimal military-wise but very efficient state cult-wise Image

Now what constitutes Russian state cult now? I believe this Russian nationalist account summarizes it pretty well. It is the cult of WWII, which is called победобесие - "being possessed by the victory" in Russian. That's indeed a form of ancestral cult, cult of the dead Image

That's once used to be predominantly Christian. But then it was violently secularised by the Communists. So what do we have after this Bolshevik de-Abrahamization? Paradoxically, getting rid of Abrahamic values, Russia didn't move forward. It has fallen millennia back Image

Being violently de-Christianized Russia didn't enter the era of progress and reason. Instead it fall back to the Neolith. Russian cult of WWII is a form of a neolithic ancestral cult. It is thoroughly cleansed from any Abrahamic values and centered around the worship of the dead Image

WWII cult became Russian state religion for two reasons. First, people didn't believe in the bright future anymore. When Soviets were sincerely building Communism, WWII wasn't worshipped. But by the times of Brezhnev nobody believed we are building Communism or any future at all Image

Russian society is indeed highly tolerant to war casualties in Z-context. That's not wrong. But who exactly is tolerant to casualties? The elderly. Fascist warmongering dead worshipping babushkas and dedushkas are more than willing to sacrifice their youngsters for the Victory 

Polls support this view. What data we have on political preferences in Russian society? Analysts often refer to the Levada as the only independent sociological organisation in Russia. But "the only independent" sounds too much as a controlled opposition. Let's use something else

It's a small poll, 1000 Moscow respondents but its results are interesting. Question "Do you support Special Operation in Ukraine?" reveals age asymmetry. Elderly mostly stand for Z while youngsters 18-29 are divided. There are less youngsters who support Z than those who don't Image

"Should we continue the Special Operation in Ukraine (red) or start the peace talk (blue)?". Again, majority of youngsters stand for the peace negotiations while the elderly largely support continuing the war till the victory Image

"Would you participate in a demonstration *against* the Special Operation if it was allowed?" Blue - yes, red - no. Only a small majority would actually protest against the war. Whereas there is significant anti-Z minority, especially amongst youngsters, it is very passive Image

"Would you participate in a demonstration *in support* of the Special Operation if it was allowed?" Blue - yes, red - no. Incredible, but pro-Putin's majority is also quite passive. That's amazing, because demonstrations in support of Z entail no risk at all to their participants Image

Z-opposers are reluctant to protest because of strong incentives against. They're afraid they can lose their jobs, can be beaten or potentially jailed. But those in favor of Z have nothing to fear. Considering this they're surprisingly passive, especially the pro-Z youngsters Image

"Will Special Operation increase probability of political upheavals in Russia: coup, revolution, etc?" Blue - yes, red - no. Youngsters believe that Z-war makes regime's fall more likely. Even young Z-supporters think regime is now more fragile. The elderly believe it's robust Image

Btw: a point most agreed with across all age groups is that Kremlin will manage to neutralize the economic damage inflicted by sanctions (blue). Therefore, if Kremlin fails to do so, it will further delegitimize the regime. People gonna be disapponted if their life quality drops Image

As we see from this small yet revealing poll, it is the elderly who most unquestioningly trust Putin and support his Z-war. Youngsters are much less enthusiastic. Which creates a major problem, because it is the less enthusiastic youngsters who have to risk their lives in Ukraine Image

Strelkov talks about professional soldiers контрактники refusing to leave to Ukraine en masse. When ordered to war, they simply quit their job. And nobody can do anything, because there is no war declared. They just lose their benefits. On the bright side, they keep their legs 

The elderly support rushing Z and sacrificing the youngsters for the sake of the ancestral cult. But youngsters would rather keep their legs. I like this video where Deputy Minister of Defense awards a soldier who just lost his leg and whishes him to "get on his feet again" 

This unwillingness of Russian youngsters to fight explains the ethnic asymmetry in Russian army. Russian government not only sends minorities and pressganged Donbass people to frontline assaults on Mariupol. It even tries to mobilize population of its Caucasian satellite states Image

Watch this video. Ministry of defense of Abkhazia declares it gonna send military aid to Russian forces in Ukraine. Don't you find it weird? Because it absolutely is 

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are two tiny unrecognised Russian satellite states in Caucasus. In 2008 Russia wage a war against Georgia on behalf of these separatist republics and then recognised them as sovereign states. Their population is tiny: 245 and 53 thousand respectively Image

Nevertheless, Russia mobilizes forces of these microscopic supposedly sovereign states for the war in Ukraine. They are less than enthusiastic though. Ex-President of South Ossetia just mentioned that many South Ossetian troops in Ukraine deserted and made it back home Image

Why Russia needs to use Abkhazians and South Ossetians in Z-war? Because it has too few youth. Russia grew old, it's pensionary country. The elderly are eager to fight, because they won't have to shed their lives. But the youngsters are much more reserved Image

All of these factors mean that Russia can't win Z-war with conventional means. It simply can't achive a result that will be perceived as a victory by Putin's subjects via a conventional war. And Putin needs a victory by May 9 or he'll lose his face Image

Which makes me fear that before May 9 Russia may suddenly escalate. Many Westerners fear a nuclear with Russia. I find it nearly impossible. Putin is not that crazy. There are of course a lot of mad chickenhawks - this MP Delyagin suggested nuking Azerbaijan oil industry 

Delyagin was immediately rebutted by Putin's press secretary Peskov and made to apologise. This tough guy just called for nuclear strikes but started humiliating himself and crawling on his knees straight after being rebuked by the higher ups. Very typical 

It shows that contrary to the somewhat popular beliefs Russian leadership is not aiming to raise the stakes indefinitely. They still want a positive outcome for themselves. But if they don't win by late April, they may escalate - to get some victory by a symbolic deadline Image

Russia won't dare to nuke NATO even if NATO attacks Russians in Ukraine. Putin wants to live. But I don't exclude possibility that Russia may use tactical nuclear or other MDW in Ukraine unless NATO makes clear it will retaliate on Russia itself

(or hunts down everyone involved) Image

I've just discussed the North Korea/Donbass scenario when Putin stays in power and the symbolic benchmark of May 9 that will probably play a huge role in Russian military planning. It is the deadline by which an impressive victory must be achieved to save Putin's face and power. Image

Alternative scenario would be some liberal oppositionary taking the place of Putin. Such an oppositionary will be widely considered as a saviour or a redemptive figure. Some would consider this change of a Bad Tsar for a Good Tsar to be a sign of Russia's fundamental reform Image

I disagree. This wouldn't mean any profound transformation of the imperial order. To the contrary, it would be an Imperial Reboot. Empire would be able to start anew with its reputation cleansed and its structure fundamentally unchanged. Same order, just new assabiyah at power Image

One issue with Navalny is his nationalist background. His chief of stuff @leonidvolkov accused me of publishing fake screenshots. I am absolutely ready to accept my responsibility and debunk my lies if they are really fake. But before that I'd ask Volkov to clarify his position Image

I published three screenshots ascribed to Navalny:

1. On Georgians and "rodents"

2. On Jews and "faggots"

3. On Belarussian language and "khachi"

@leonidvolkov Could you please give your version, which of these three supposedly Navalny's quotes are authentic and which are fake? ImageImageImage

Let me clarify my stance. The nationalist background of Navalny is not a problem. The problem is that he's striving for the supreme power in a country which has absolutely no checks on a supreme power. He might have totally changed. But that doesn't mean he should become a Tsar Image

But if Navalny is not good enough to become a Tsar, then who is? And the answer is - nobody. It's not the personality of a ruler that is a problem. It is the enormous concentration of power in Kremlin and "Kremlin" here stands for the Russian imperial egregore Image

Many think that problem is in the personality of Putin. Some even berate Yeltsin for choosing the "wrong" successor. That's stupid. All three last PMs of Yeltsin: Primakov, Stepashin and Putin were state security officers. Yeltsin knew exactly what he was doing Image

The problem lies in Russian nstitutions and in Russian culture. Let me show you an old interview with Putin's old boss Sobchak then St Petersburg mayor. Sobchak was a well known liberal politician, founder of the Movement for Democratic Reforms Image

That's liberal politician Sobchak discussing the Ukrainian problem in 1991. This interview shows a deep-rooted imperialist mindset under a liberal disguise. The metropoly will weaponize *any* ideology to assert its dominance over the colonies. Any rhetorics will serve the empire 

According to Sobchak Ukraine is governed by the alliance of "extreme nationalists" and "conservative Communist nomenklatura". Any minorities the refuse to abandon their identity are extreme nationalists. And they're closely connected to the Communists of course Image

Ukrainian leadership is annoying Sobchak by constantly talking of independence instead of the "human rights". That shows that every and any ideology (or rather phraseology) will be weaponized by the imperialists to justify their rule and deny agency to their colonies Image

Metropoly always portrays a colony as flawed and in need of intervention by the metropoly. Specific ideology doesn't matter, only the asymmetry of power does. If we believe in Communism, Ukraine isn't Communist, but if we believe in democracy, it suddenly becomes too Communist Image

"Tatarstan is a place where there emerged a real Sultanate, Khanate, Tsardom"

Notice their vocab. First they say "Sultanate" and "Khanate" and then use politically correct "Tsardom". The problem with Tatarstan is that it is an oasis on non-Russian statehood within Russia Image

Commenters see Navalny's messageL

"Tatarstan is Asiatic republic. They're ok with Khan swimming in gold, if the rest of the people get something (and they get). Republic is one few donor regions in Russia"

That's a great slip of the tongue. These Asiatics pay the Russian bills Image

It reflects the true structure of Russia. Asiatics are financial donors and pay the bills of the empire. They're however deeply flawed and need the constant supervision by the said empire. You feed Moscow and in return enjoy its wise guidance. See the map of donor regions, 2020 Image

Navalny portrays a colony as much more flawed than the metropoly:

"...Putin allows Tatars elites to steal more than the most impudent United Russia members in Moscow could ever dream of"

That's a bold claim. @fbkinfo @navalny the burden of proof is on you as you made this claim Image

"[Tatarstan] ruling clan became the richest people of the country and may be even the world [sic!]"

That's a perfect smear. @navalny @fbkinfo make an obviously false claim [they may be the richest people of the world] but use "may be" to avoid responsibility. I'm quite impressed Image

It's a great smear tactics. You make a claim that you know to be false - that a ruling clan in a Russian region "may" belong to the richest people of the world. But since you don't *technically* assert that, you bear no burden of proof @navalny @fbkinfo Image

Navalny @navalny @fbkinf claims that Tatarstan president Shaimiev "stood at the origin of the United Russia party". That's a lie which sheds Navalny's strategy to blame minorities for Putinism. Which sheds a light on what he's gonna do once he gets absolute power Image

Shaimiev was indeed one of key figures of a certain political party. But it wasn't the United Russia. It was a party "Fatherland: All of Russia" which united most of regional elites. It was a party led by ex Prime Minister Primakov and 84/89 Russian governors supported it Image

In late 1990s three prime ministers founded their own parties *after* being appointed as a Prime Minister (well, technically Primakov did it after having been fired). Primakov created "Fatherland: All of Russia", Chernomyrdin - "Our Home Russia" and Putin founded "Unity" Image

Putin's "Unity" didn't support of regionaд elites. It was led by little known Putin's pal Gryzlov and еру popular minister Shoygu became its "face". It's Shoygu who borrowed much of his popularity and authority to Putin when the latter desperately needed it. He's a great courtier Image

Key role in boosting Putin's "Unity" out of nothing was played by Yeltsin's official Surkov. He would personally meet with governors and "persuade" them to leave Primakov and join Putin. Dossiers on the entire ruling class which Putin collected as the FSB Chief might be a factor Image

One by one governors joined Putin. But Tatarstan wasn't one of the first, it was one of the last. See parliamentary elections 1999: Dark blue - Putin's "Unity", Red - Communists, Light blue - Primakov's "Fatherland". Tatarstan and Bashkortostan stood against Putin till very late Image

Only in December 2001 long after Putin's victory, Putin's "Unity", Primakov's "Fatherland" and Chernomyrdin's "Home" merged into the United Russia. Thus remainders of regional elites were incorporated into the Putin's regime. Tatarstan wasn't the first, it was one of the last Image

Why do @navalny @fbkinfo so blatantly misrepresent the history of United Russia? Why do the portray staunch supporters of a party that opposed Putin and was absorbed by Putin's Unity so late, as founders of the United Russia? Because they preventively accuse colonies of Putinism Image

The dominance of metropoly over the colonies is secured not only by military, legal or economic instruments, but also via ideology. Colony is always flawed in comparison with the metropoly and is in dire need of leadership/being disciplined by the latter Image

Consider Sobchak's interview. We in Russia stand for the current thing (Democracy). They in Ukraine stand for the former thing (Communism). Pseudoliberal language disguises imperial ambitions of the metropoly Image

They're playing the same trick now. Tatarstan didn't originally support Putin, its leaders supported another party till the very end. And yet now @navalny @fbkinfo misrepresent this story. They aim to destroy the rival non-Russian statehood by weaponizing anti Putinist rhetorics Image

I'll clarify: the problem is not in Putin. Neither it is in Navalny. The problem is in imperial structure of Russia and in its imperialist mindset. Any ideology be it Orthodoxy, Communism, Liberalism will be weaponised by the metropoly to dominate and discipline its colonies Image

We don't need a Good Tsar who'll replace a Bad Tsar. Good Tsar can become a Bad Tsar overnight. He can give whatever guarantees now, but nothing will stop him from breaking them later. Even if he doesn't break them, his successor will. There will be no checks on his power anyway Image

Omnis determinatio est negatio. Whatever determined by a statute, can and will be abolished by a statute. Whatever Moscow gave it can take back later. Whatever it created, it can later destroy. Thus freedom can't be given by Moscow. Even the best Tsar ever can't grant you freedom Image

Russia doesn't need an Imperial Reboot. It needs a National Divorce. Moscow has absolute right on self determination, but I don't see why colonies should bound to its will, fund its imperial ambitions and shed their blood for the Russian World as they're doing it now Image

While discussing the prospect of National Divorce, analysts overconcentrate on ethnic tensions. And yet, tensions go far beyond the ethnic dimension. The problem of Locals vs Varyangs which is parallel to Creoles vs Peninsulares problem in Spanish America is at least as important Image

National Divorce in Russia will largely follow the same patterns as the one in Latin America. The weakest link in Russian imperial structure is neither Tatarstan, Yakutia, nor Chechnya. It's the Far East. End of🧵 Image

• • •

Is Clarence Thomas Really Untouchable?

Is Clarence Thomas Really Untouchable?

Mary Harris — Read time: 11 minutes

Ginni Thomas is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—but far more than that, she’s a D.C. power broker. She runs a consulting firm that boasts it can “open any door in Washington.” She’s launched the careers of right-wing media stars like Dan Bongino and has a knack for building up ideological networks. In the years since her husband was confirmed to SCOTUS, Ginni Thomas has made herself a key part of the conservative infrastructure in D.C. For example: A few years ago she started the Impact Awards, an annual luncheon celebrating conservative icons as well as the movement’s more obscure foot soldiers. In 2019, the luncheon was held at the Trump International Hotel; toward the end of the ceremony, she gave an award to Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman but, within a few months, would become the chief of staff for Donald Trump. Last week, the Select Committee investigating Jan. 6 got ahold of some of Ginni Thomas’s text messages, sent directly to Meadows in the wake of the 2020 election. In these texts, Thomas urges Trump and his supporters to keep Joe Biden out of office and encourages them to “stop the steal” with the fervor of a zealot. Mark Joseph Stern, who covers courts and the law for Slate, has followed Ginni Thomas for a while—and he thinks these texts may be just the beginning. On Wednesday’s episode of What Next, I spoke with Stern about what role Ginni Thomas plays in Washington, and what it means for the Supreme Court. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Mark Joseph Stern: She has the ear of some of the most powerful people on the American right. Folks toward the top of the House Republican caucus recognize that they need to make friends with Ginni Thomas in order to continue their rise.

Mary Harris: Ginni Thomas has been problematic for a while, but I’m wondering if you think these texts change something.

For a long time, there has been this concern that there’s overlap between Ginni Thomas’ and Clarence Thomas’ work. We know, for instance, that Ginni Thomas is involved with various organizations that filed briefs before the Supreme Court. But until now, there hasn’t really been a kind of smoking gun where Clarence Thomas has cast a vote that directly protects or favors Ginni. Now we have evidence that he voted in at least one case in a way that would have shielded Ginni Thomas from legal scrutiny: He voted to block the Jan. 6 subcommittee from obtaining a bunch of Trump documents about the capitol insurrection, documents in which Ginni Thomas may well appear. That’s the first time ever, as far as I’m aware, that you can draw a direct line between Clarence Thomas and his legal work and Ginni Thomas and her political work. That, I think, is a really big deal.

You cover the Supreme Court. Is it normal behavior for a Supreme Court spouse to be giving out awards to Washington insiders, like with Mark Meadows?

Of course it isn’t. The Supreme Court is actually required by federal law to retain this appearance of impartiality, and there is a federal statute that requires justices to recuse when their impartiality could be reasonably questioned. But there’s no one to enforce that rule, so the justices can just ignore it. It is highly unusual, really unprecedented to have the spouse of a justice be this engaged in political activism. I mean, just to give you an example, John Roberts’ wife was long involved in anti-abortion activism. When Roberts joined the Supreme Court, she stopped because she understood that that is like the ground rule for being the spouse of a justice. Ginni Thomas and Clarence Thomas totally reject that idea and refuse to directly address the accusations of partiality and conflicts of interest and unethical conduct.

In Ginni Thomas’ texts, at certain points she is offering up conspiracy theories as fact to the White House. I’m wondering if you can translate those for me and tell me exactly what she’s referring to and why it’s so notable.

The easiest one to translate is Ginni Thomas texting Mark Meadows, “Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down,” which directly takes from Sidney Powell. So even after Trump disavows Powell, Thomas is still defending her. She also sends Mark Meadows this article and quotes a passage from it: “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”

She said that as fact. What is this about?

As NBC’s Ben Collins, who’s kind of an expert on QAnon, has reported, this has been a long-standing fantasy among QAnon true believers: that there are going to be these barges that collect the enemies of Trump and his administration and bring them down to Guantanamo Bay and try them for treason or sedition or whatever. And that that’s going to be the grand climax of this long-boiling battle between good and evil, and good will finally prevail when these people are locked up in Guantanamo. That is what Ginni Thomas apparently believed on Nov. 5, 2020.

On Jan. 6 itself, Ginni Thomas was cheering on people who were at the Ellipse and eventually the Capitol, right?

She herself was at the Ellipse, we now know. So yes, she was very enmeshed in this movement and not just close with Mark Meadows, but close with the organizers of the event. Allegedly, according to Jane Mayer, she served as a kind of peacemaker and brought together different factions organizing this event. She was so respected in these various pockets of the right that she was able to bring together different leaders and say: This is what you need to do. You all need to get along. This is our goal.

How many cases involving the 2020 election or Donald Trump or Jan. 6 have come before the Supreme Court?

Already at least half a dozen, and my count may be incomplete. What’s really notable is that Clarence Thomas has been on the pro-Trump side of most, if not all, of those cases. For instance, he was pushing really hard to take up this big case about whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court lawfully extended the receipt deadline for mail ballots. In his dissent, he promoted some of these conspiracy theories about ballot fraud that we now know Ginni Thomas was texting to Mark Meadows and probably others. He wrote in an opinion, Mail balloting is just inherently susceptible to fraud. It relies exclusively on a system of trust. It’s an honor system. When courts expand mail balloting, they’re just expanding opportunities for fraud. That is just the slightly nicer way of saying what Ginni was saying about the Biden crime family engaging in mass ballot fraud. Even before Clarence Thomas’ notorious vote trying to block the Jan. 6 committee from getting these documents about Trump, it was very clear that there was overlap between Ginni’s political activism after the 2020 election and Clarence Thomas’ own votes trying to help Trump during the 2020 election.

If you ask Clarence and Ginni Thomas, they’ll say: We keep things separated. We don’t discuss work.

Yes, that’s what they say.

"It was very clear that there was overlap between Ginni’s political activism after the 2020 election and Clarence Thomas’ own votes trying to help Trump during the 2020 election." — Mark Joseph Stern

Is there any chance in your mind that Clarence Thomas will recuse himself from more related cases?

I don’t think so, frankly. He is not going to start doing now what he obviously should have started doing years ago. I could even imagine a case where Ginni Thomas has been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 subcommittee and fights that subpoena to the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas not only votes on the case but sides with her.

Experts are saying the other justices on the court are probably really embarrassed by this. Why can’t they just go to Thomas and say, “We’re going to need you to recuse here”?

Because there is nothing they can actually do to make him recuse. And I think they are genuinely afraid of poisoning their relationship with him by pressing this issue too hard or too far. Think about it from the perspective of someone like Elena Kagan: She has nabbed Thomas’ vote in some pretty important cases. So I think if you’re Kagan, you’re going to say to yourself: Going to him and asking him to recuse will accomplish nothing because I have no influence over this. This is all building on decades of unethical conduct and I’m coming in rather late, and all I’m going to do is further alienate him and make it even more difficult to get that fifth vote on a 6–3 conservative court. So why risk it?

What about impeaching Clarence Thomas? Is there a case for that here?

Absolutely. But moderates do not want to burn up their political capital and their time impeaching a justice. All of these Democrats know that even if they get the impeachment through the House, the Senate is not going to remove him. Republicans will never vote to remove Clarence Thomas.

There are reports that the congressional subcommittee is planning to ask Ginni Thomas to testify about her involvement in the events of Jan. 6. How do you expect that to play out, since a lot of White House insiders have straight-up refused to testify?

This is a theory on my part—I don’t have reporting to back it up—but I think it seems pretty clear that Democratic members of the Jan. 6 subcommittee leaked these texts to put pressure on Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to call Ginni to testify. If you read the New York Times report specifically about Liz Cheney’s extreme hesitance to even look into Ginni Thomas, if you look between the lines, it seems pretty clear that Democrats want to call her and Republicans don’t. This committee has been so unified for so long, with bringing the two Republicans on board, so why risk creating a huge rift between the two sides? Yet, now that the texts are out, it’s got to be really hard for the Republicans not to call her to testify, right? Because she is there on Jan. 6 texting the chief of staff, the guy who is one of the main targets of this committee, and actively engaging in these conspiracy theories and urging along this attempted coup. So if Ginni gets subpoenaed, if she gets called to testify, I strongly doubt she will agree to it. I think she will fight it knowing she has at least one vote on her side on the Supreme Court. But I’m not sure the committee will get that far because they are so eager, or even desperate, to prevent any rift between Cheney/Kinzinger and the Dems.

So you’re thinking they won’t call her to testify?

Correct.

Well, that doesn’t achieve very much.

Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme Court for 30 years. He has had four clerks every year, and many of those clerks are now power brokers in D.C.—superpowerful, wealthy, well-connected people deeply entrenched in politics and conservative activism. One of the problems with giving justices life tenure is that they are able to build up this network of protectors who can spring into action if their justice is facing any kind of problem—including an investigation—and try to shield him or his spouse from accountability. That appears to be exactly what we’re seeing right now. There is no system in place to push back against that.

Subscribe to What Next on Apple Podcasts

Get more news from Mary Harris every weekday.

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

More information

Manage Consent Preferences

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Targeting Cookies

These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Functional Cookies

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.

Google & IAB TCF 2 Purposes of Processing

Google & IAB TCF 2 Purposes of Processing

Allowing third-party ad tracking and third-party ad serving through Google and other vendors to occur.Please see more information on Google Ads here.

Performance Cookies

notification icon

Subscribe to our notifications for the latest news and updates. You can disable anytime.

Trump Judge Who Defended Same-Sex Marriage Ban Will Review Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Law

Trump Judge Who Defended Same-Sex Marriage Ban Will Review Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Law

Mark Joseph Stern — Read time: 7 minutes.

On Thursday, a group of plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit against Florida’s “don’t say gay” measure, or H.B. 1557, which Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law three days ago. The lawsuit—which was brought by a group of students, parents, and teachers, along with Equality Florida—argues that the gag order violates free speech, due process, and equal protection. H.B. 1557, the suit declares, “would deny to an entire generation that LGBTQ people exist and have equal dignity. This effort to control young minds through state censorship—and to demean LGBTQ lives by denying their reality—is a grave abuse of power.”

It’s a strong argument, put forth by some of the nation’s top civil rights lawyers. But the lawsuit almost immediately hit a snag: It has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor, a Donald Trump appointee who is perhaps best known for defending Florida’s defunct ban on same-sex marriage. This assignment illustrates how Trump and Republicans stacked the deck against LGBTQ equality for decades to come by flooding the courts with reactionaries in just four years.

Subscribe to the Slatest Newsletter

A daily email update of the stories you need to read right now.

The bigotry that drove H.B. 1557 to passage should be clear to anyone who simply reads the text of the bill. By its plain terms, the measure strictly limits “instruction” on “sexual orientation or gender identity” in every grade. This ban is absolute in grades K–3; in grades 4–12, all such “instruction” must be “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate”—terms that are not defined. The law allows parents to sue school districts for alleged violations, subjecting purported offenders to long, intrusive investigations. When parents win, they collect both monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. (If schools win, they collect nothing.) The obvious purpose of the bill is to chill a maximum amount of speech by frightening teachers out of discussing LGBTQ families, rights, or history in the classroom. One additional nasty effect is that it will prevent LGBTQ teachers and students from discussing the mere existence of their own families without fear of a lawsuit.

Thursday’s lawsuit, led by noted civil rights attorneys including Roberta Kaplan and Joshua Matz, identifies several flagrant constitutional flaws in this scheme. It abridges students’ right to receive information and express ideas at school, both of which are protected by the First Amendment. By doling out severe punishments on the basis of vague prohibitions, it “invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” running afoul of due process. The measure is “motivated by animus against LGBTQ students, families, and teachers of Florida,” which the Supreme Court has deemed an infringement upon equal protection. And it “humiliates” the children of same-sex couples by erasing their families from the classroom and subjecting them to “discrimination and disadvantage in Florida’s public schools.” This, too, is an equal protection violation.

It appears indisputably clear that, as the suit states, H.B. 1557’s overarching goal is “to target,” “demean,” and “belittle” LGBTQ families. But this challenge to the law has landed in the courtroom of a judge who himself has attempted to target, demean, and belittle LGBTQ families. As solicitor general of Florida from 2013 to 2016, Winsor fought to preserve the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. In the process, he persistently belittled same-sex couples and their children as less deserving of rights than heterosexual families.

Winsor’s 2014 briefs argued that outlawing same-sex marriage would promote “responsible procreation and childrearing” because “heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring.” Allowing same-sex couples to marry, he asserted, would disrupt “family continuity and stability” by diminishing “the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them in stable and enduring family units.” Excluding same-sex couples from marriage would preserve the primacy of “biological offspring” over adopted children—which was, allegedly, an important state interest.

As solicitor general, Windsor also credited the theory that allowing same-sex couples to wed would somehow spur opposite-sex couples to “produce children by accident” rather than intentionally, within wedlock. Withholding marriage from same-sex couples, he concluded, was necessary to “address unique challenges posed by the unique procreative potential between men and women.” Moreover, withholding the countless benefits associated with marriage—including survivor benefits and health insurance—was “rationally related” to achieving this goal. (How, exactly, does refusing to recognize a gay person’s spouse on their death certificate encourage opposite-sex couples to have children within wedlock? Winsor did not say.) Indeed, the justifications behind Florida’s ban were so compelling, he claimed, that invalidating the law would “impose significant public harm.”

Solicitors general may not agree with every position they take in litigation. But Winsor’s record reflects a profound hostility to equality, democracy, reproductive rights, and pretty much every other progressive ideal. A member of the Federalist Society since 2005, he defended multiple racial gerrymanders and voter suppression laws during his time in private practice. One such law delayed or denied voter registration to more than 76,000 Floridians, a disproportionate number of whom were Black. Another forced voter registration groups to shut down operations. Later, as solicitor general, Winsor defended a barbaric execution protocol, a capital sentencing scheme that violated the right to trial by jury, a drug testing requirement for families on welfare, and a gag law that barred doctors from discussing gun safety with parents.

Winsor’s résumé, in other words, is largely indistinguishable from literally hundreds of other Trump nominees. More than one-third of Trump’s nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals had a history of opposing LGBTQ equality in court. So did a huge number of his district court nominees. Like Winsor, many of these individuals defended state bans on same-sex couples’ right to marry and have children. Others supported legislation designed to denigrate LGBTQ families while serving in elected office. Their records were filled with appalling rhetoric scorning these families as harmful to children and society. And it wasn’t just marriage: Many Trump judges opposed openly gay military service and LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws. It should go without saying that these same judges evinced egregious hostility to transgender equality as well.

Trump’s strategy was clear: Seed the federal judiciary with homophobic extremists who would roll back constitutional equality for LGBTQ people for the next half-century. The scheme is beginning to pay off. In recent years, 13 states have banned transgender girls from school sports, confident that their discriminatory laws will pass muster in the Trump-stacked judiciary. A handful of states have sought to ban gender-affirming health care for minors, and many more are considering such bills. Republican senators are openly criticizing Obergefell v. Hodges, testing the waters for a potential rollback of marriage equality. If Obergefell had come before the Supreme Court today instead of seven years ago, same-sex marriage would lose 6–3. The only thing potentially keeping the decision alive is likely conservative justices’ fear that overturning such a recent and popular precedent would spark a destructive backlash.

At least eight other states are currently considering laws that would outlaw LGBTQ-related speech from the classroom, including one that would jail teachers who violate it. This effort to erase LGBTQ families by depicting them as sexualized, unnatural, and aberrant has no end in sight. Just a decade ago, they may well have faced defeat in the federal judiciary. But Trump’s 234 judges have changed the game. It is a safe bet they will uphold most if not all of these stigmatizing gag orders. That is, after all, what they were put on the courts to do.

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

More information

Manage Consent Preferences

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Targeting Cookies

These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Functional Cookies

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.

Google & IAB TCF 2 Purposes of Processing

Google & IAB TCF 2 Purposes of Processing

Allowing third-party ad tracking and third-party ad serving through Google and other vendors to occur.Please see more information on Google Ads here.

Performance Cookies

Russian guardsmen case reveals dissent in security force over invasion of Ukraine

Russian guardsmen case reveals dissent in security force over invasion of Ukraine

Read time: 5 minutes

Russian guardsmen case reveals dissent in security force over invasion of Ukraine.

Twelve members of Rosgvardia were sacked for refusing to join the invasion.

March 31, 2022.

After Mikhail Benyash, a Russian lawyer, said he would be defending a group of national guardsmen who refused to join the war in Ukraine, he was inundated with calls from across the country.

“A lot of people don’t want to go and fight,” Benyash said by telephone from the southern city of Krasnodar, adding that about 1,000 people had been in touch with his team, as he pursues the first court case to officially reveal dissent inside the ranks of Russia’s security forces over the invasion.

The 12 national guardsmen who were fired after refusing to go to Ukraine were members of Rosgvardia, a militarised force separate from the army that was established in 2016 to maintain public order and fight crime.

The guardsmen had been deployed before the invasion to occupied Crimea for military exercises, according to Pavel Chikov, head of Agora, the Russian human rights group. The day after the war began on February 24, they received orders to cross into Ukraine but refused, Chikov wrote on his channel in the Telegram messaging app.

The men argued that the order was unlawful: they were not soldiers, but members of a domestic force whose duties did not extend beyond Russia.

“The refusal to carry out the order was explained by its unlawfulness,” Chikov wrote, adding that “their direct duties were limited to the territory of the Russian Federation”.

None were informed they were being sent into the “territory of Ukraine to participate in a special military operation, about the tasks and conditions of this operation and, as a consequence, did not consent to it”, he added.

The case adds to reports of growing dissatisfaction across the Russian forces, with western military officials pointing to low morale and alleged acts of sabotage. Admiral Tony Radakin, the UK’s most senior military officer, this week said there was “disquiet at all levels within Russia’s armed forces” over the conflict.

Rosgvardia is often seen internationally as President Vladimir Putin’s “private army”, but at home its main role is to police protests. The force has been accused of using heavy-handed tactics against opposition activists. Its responsibilities also include tackling organised crime and terrorism.

Yet in the five weeks since the invasion their vehicles and uniforms have been spotted in videos taken in Ukraine. At least one unconfirmed video showed a line of abandoned Rosgvardia vehicles, helmets and riot shields scattered in the snow.

Some western analysts believe the guardsmen were likely sent to Ukraine not to act as frontline troops but to help occupy and put down protests in Ukrainian cities that Russia expected to take within days.

But authorities underestimated the Ukrainian resistance, and many cities remained battlegrounds rather than falling rapidly under Russian control, leaving national guardsmen exposed.

They may also have been deployed amid a push for manpower at the start of the war. Reports appeared in the early days of the conflict alleging some conscripts had been compelled to take on contract jobs so that they could be sent to Ukraine, indicating shortages in available contract troops. Putin acknowledged the issue on March 9, ordering an investigation into reported cases.

Putin on Wednesday gave honorary titles to several Rosgvardia members injured in heavy fighting around Kyiv — an admission that the guardsmen had indeed been caught up in frontline action.

But Benyash said Rosgvardia employees were not trained for full combat operations. “Have [they] been taught to dig trenches? To build defensive structures?” he asked. “In their line of work they handle small guns. Maximum they have automated weapons, but they basically never use them,” he added.

Some guardsmen have been killed. Funerals were held in the Russian town of Vladimir last month for several commanders of the local division of the more military-capable, rapid-response unit known as SOBR, media reports cited regional officials as saying.

Are you personally affected by the War in Ukraine? We want to hear from you

Refugees fleeing Ukraine

Are you from Ukraine? Do you have friends and family in or from Ukraine whose lives have been upended? Or perhaps you’re doing something to help those individuals, such as fundraising or housing people in your own homes. We want to hear from you. Tell us via a short survey.

“The Vladimir SOBR division was founded in 1993 and over the 29 years of its existence, there were no fatalities,” said Ilya Kosygin, an activist speaking from a location outside Russia. “Then on March 18 a funeral was held for almost its entire leadership.” The Financial Times was unable to independently verify this claim.

After Kosygin wrote about the incident on his website he received messages threatening his safety and promising to report him to the security services. The site has since been blocked by Russia’s media and communications watchdog.

The activist said he felt proud after hearing that a group of Rosgvardia troops were fighting a legal battle over the order to go serve in Ukraine. “Maybe my publication played some part,” he said. “Many people read it and maybe some made this brave decision and maybe it saved their lives.”

Ahead of the next session in the case on Friday, the lawyer Benyash said nine of the 12 guardsmen who filed the wrongful dismissal case had withdrawn the claims under huge pressure. There had been threats of criminal cases unless they backed down, he said.

“Some are seeing their relatives turn away from them,” he said.