As a new reader of The Status Kuo, I continue to marvel at the clarity, the concision, and the scope of each post. Previously I read -- skimmed -- CNN, the Guardian, the BBC (before its new design turned it into BBC Lite) and WaPo, when I could wade through the advice columns and recipes. No more! For the first time in years, I'm reading NEWS.
The supreme court’s taking up of Fischer v United States regarding the use of the obstruction charge under section 1512 of title 18 of the US criminal code against the January 6th insurrectionists and tRump barely got any coverage more than two sentences in length in the U.S. press. I had to go to The Guardian, BBC and CBC to find it in detail. This is getting to be more and more the case these days.
The whole Mifepristone case gives me brain damage. What’s to say that any medication becomes managed by the courts? Why not go after NSAIDS, acetaminophen, blood pressure pills, and, of course “the pill”? Come to think of it, maybe I shouldn’t be able to buy a car. They cause 40,000 automobile deaths each year. The absurdity is in plain sight. Ugh.
The true danger of the case is that any activist extremist judge could undo any federal agency act by second guessing its expertise. This is part of a larger attempt by the far-right to undermine the regulatory state.
Let me point out that Mifepristone has other medical uses besides abortions. All these treatments will be in danger if that medication is pulled. But who cares it is only women who will suffer.
As a certified nurse-midwife, I prescribe oral contraceptives on a regular basis. A certain number of prescriptions I write (I’d estimate it to be as high as 5-10% but do not have an exact number) are written for a person needing menstrual cycle control or some other reason, having nothing to do with prevention of pregnancy. Also, readily accessible and affordable contraception decreases the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. I’m pro-choice, mind you. I want people to be able to have control of their fertility AND avoid unnecessary medical procedures whenever possible!
You’d think the anti-choice advocates would be thrilled that, after passage of the Affordable Care Act, with contraception covered and young women staying on their parents insurance longer, there was a decrease in the number of abortions performed in the US. They aren’t, because this isn’t about that. In reality, they just want women to “submit” (as in Ephesians 5:22-33, “wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord”) rather than be equal to men in this world. Don’t even get me started on the evils of organized religion!
The idea that they are trying to protect doctors from hypothetical trauma sure is cute. When have they protected doctors from trauma before?
I’m not saying that being a doctor is bad, but I am saying that the government does little to protect us. Doctors face exorbitantly expensive educational costs, grueling training programs that result in higher rates of mental health struggles, frequently frivolous lawsuits mixed in with the legitimate lawsuits, chronic medication shortages that make it harder to provide appropriate patient care, a bloated and unchecked private insurance system that completely runs the show and enriches large corporate admins at the expense of safe and appropriate staffing levels, and then you’ve got science denying politicians turn their constituents against death preventing measures such as routine immunization and mask-wearing. Add in these reproductive healthcare restrictions applied by courts made up of NON-DOCTORS, and it equates to one big problem: you are going to run out of people who want to practice medicine.
We already have a shortage of doctors willing to practise in the rural areas of our state (which is mostly rural anyway) and nursing and auxiliary staff shortages that potentially endangers decent care for our elderly/assisted-care patients in nursing homes and assisted-care living facilities.
Good going, GOP...gotta love how you "help" the citizens of this country--both the consumers and the practioners of healthcare.
Dr. Danielle, you make excellent points! I worked with the HC industry for more than 35 years in strategic comms. Medicine is under serious attack from all sides, especially the government and payors/PBM's. Your strong voice is needed. There was a crucial story on NPR today about the disastrous scrip war between "scrubs" (aka medical professionals) and "suits" (aka PBM's) over meds changes by PBM's w/o doctors' input. I'd love to hear your take, if you could listen to it?
Well, I went on the Detroit NPR station, WDET 101.9 FM https://wdet.org, to try to find the segment. Alas, I cannot locate it ;-( It aired around 12:20 PM on 12-14-23. Arrgghhhh!
They don’t have to make any sense because their constituents will still vote for them. MAGA republicans love ignorant people; the more misinformed and confused, the better.
Hoping WH reps start calling the bogus impeachment inquiry "Election Interference" and pump the DOW RECORD HIGH yesterday because those are the facts. 💙 Also hoping the election certification process which required representatives to travel and perform duties, that no constituent could do in their stead, is upheld as a Congressional proceeding because it is and it was interrupted on J6 '21 intentionally to cause a delay, as evidenced by multiple phone calls from the people who would benefit from delay to get Gohmert v Pence to Alito...which did land on his desk J6... but was deemed "moot" J7 because Nancy Pelosi insisted they stay to finalize the certification proceeding for Biden. Thank you Nancy Pelosi. 💙
Yes, that is the crux of the matter - the insurrectionists purpose was, literally, to obstruct the election certification process. How can certification by the Houses of Congress not be a Congressional proceeding?
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
It seems to me both of these covers trumps criminal conspiracy, while only one covers the Jan 6 defendant who filed the appeal.
It all depends on how expansive or narrow a look SCOTUS takes. If the conservative extremists begin from the premise that the law was not designed to apply to political corruption but rather to financial white crimes, then the answer would be that you can’t pull the blanket over to cover this type of crime.
Wait, wait... Does the law say it should be applied *only* to write collar crimes? (No? But IANAL) Then why would justices be permitted to take that presumption as an axiom to support their reasoning toward the desired conclusion? Are lower courts obligated to follow a SCOTUS ruling that is based on an egregious logical flaw?
I saw an article about food prices, which verified what I and my family have been seeing in Pennsylvania: "A recently released report by Consumer Affairs found grocery prices nationwide were 5.3 percent higher in November than a year ago. While a dramatic improvement from 2022 — over two years, prices have spiked 25.5 percent — where you live plays a big role in how much shoppers will spend.
In Pennsylvania, grocery costs spiked 8.2 percent in the last 12 months, the report stated. That's faster than any other state in the nation. Meanwhile, in Colorado, prices were up just 2.9 percent."
I wonder how many other "battleground" states also have soaring food prices and what effect, if any, that will have on President Biden's chances.
I keep foot-stomping this, too. The Biden Administration needs to try to figure this out, because the "good economic news" is not trickling down to the average voter. Relying on economic reports as a measure of the health of our nation is not wise, given that most people don't see these "improvements", and there are SO MANY OTHER PROBLEMS going on. It's truly no wonder that voters are pessimistic. I'm a die-hard liberal, and I am super pessimistic, and I can see why this would drive many fence-sitters to not vote at all, which would be catastrophic.
Often it takes time for people to get used to things like permanently higher food and service prices. These aren’t likely to come down, so wages are simply going to have to catch up.
That's difficult for those of us on fixed incomes. When my groceries have gone up 8.2% but Social Security is only going up 3.2% , that leaves me with a deficit. I guess I just have to wait for the stock market to catch up. I love Biden and think he has done an incredible job for our nation. I wonder how many others my age feel the same.
I would say that many of us on Social Security have been through much worse in the past, particularly in the 80s. In 1980 inflation was 14.5 percent. Our mortgage rate in 1984 was close to that.
When I was a teen, gas was $0.29 per gallon. When I was first married, hamburger was .29 a pound and round steak was 3 pounds for a dollar. And of course, a GOOD salary was $10K/year.
From that long term view, it is ridiculous to think that prices will somehow go DOWN. That's called deflation, and it isn't actually a very good thing for an economy. I'm facing the same rise in prices without a comparable rise in Social Security. I hate to think of the seniors of 1980. So I simply don't worry a whole lot; if the economy overall stays strong, things will work out. Just think, our grandkids will be complaining that gas is $20 a gallon and hearken back to the good old days of 2023
I agree with you. My husband's wages have not kept up with inflation and financially, we are not better off than last year. And that's what people in the trenches see. We are as blue as blue can be and yes, we understand the national view on this but in this red area, people are still measuring by the cost of things (and the skewed Faux view......huge sigh). We live in an area where $13 - $15 an hour is pretty standard along with 2-4% annual raises. It will never catch up that way.
This is why I think the whole "rent decrease" needs to be treated as "a hopeful trend" rather than "economic good news." So many people aren't part of that "trend" at the moment, and being told it is good news is just going to reinforce the idea that "economic good news" is not relevant to them.
Just curious - is there a clear reason that prices are up in your area? I’m just curious if this is related to a temporary or fixable issue (e.g., transportation infrastructure issues or something like that) or is it all due to opportunistic corporate price gouging?
Jay, thank you for your analysis of SCOTUS matters related to theJan. 6 matter. Very needed. I was thinking that only two of the Trump charges might be ruled against by the Court and not the other two. And that since a ruling on the case in question won’t be made until after Trump’s D.C. case is held, it can go forward subject to possible reversal of two of its charges upon later appeal. IOW, the trial need not be delayed while awaiting a SCOTUS ruling on the two charges. You answered my questions, questions I haven’t seen addressed by the press up to now. So long as Trump is tried and held accountable for his criminal actions after the 2020 election and prior to the 2024 election, justice will be served and the public put on proper notice of his crimes, be they all four or only two. That is the crucial need.
“but they have to do it anyway because, well, Trump wants it.”
But that’s not true. They don’t HAVE to do it.
Having absolutely no morals and the driving force of their little minds being “cause chaos, just because” they’re eager to do it. But we should not lend any credence to the idea they have no choice.
On the economy, heard a guy at the dollar store yesterday tell the checker that he had just spent $95 at the grocery store, indicating that prices were out of control. The clerk asked what he had bought, and he said, "Oh, just a few things: milk, bread, cheese." I don't think they sell that kind of cheese in our area.
Anyway, don't count on Faux Snooze viewers to recognize the good economy staring them in the face.
Setting the plethora of tRump and other pending legal issues aside, your summary of objectively improving economic and financial factors on the macro and individual level are bang-on, as Jay Powell and co. are about to take a victory lap for a remarkably "soft" landing trifecta - lowering inflation and maintaining low unemployment AND a robust economy. THAT'S what will capture voters' interests in 2024, not, regrettably, tRump's dictatorial ambitions should he somehow inexplicably be elected.
Well, if more Katie Cox tragedies play out in 2024, which they more certainly will, absolutely will reproductive rights and interference thereof by religious extremists and far-right legislators and judges be a major factor, but so-called pocketbook issues have a more immediate effect on voter sentiment, IMHO.
Today’s Hartmann Report also has an excellent history on the Comstock Act and previous amendments to it and a few prior related court cases. This whole thing could take a very dark turn. Alito, Amy three names, and Thomas are likely opinions to go full out in that direction. The three other republican judges are anyone’s guess.
Jay, a small, albeit samantical, point, no one will be voting on super Tuesday. They will be nominating someone to be their candidate come Nov. If T is convicted by Nov they'll have to justify voting to elect a felon POTUS. Not that that will stop them but should make some interesting conversations at family gatherings.
As a new reader of The Status Kuo, I continue to marvel at the clarity, the concision, and the scope of each post. Previously I read -- skimmed -- CNN, the Guardian, the BBC (before its new design turned it into BBC Lite) and WaPo, when I could wade through the advice columns and recipes. No more! For the first time in years, I'm reading NEWS.
Thank you for this kind note!
The supreme court’s taking up of Fischer v United States regarding the use of the obstruction charge under section 1512 of title 18 of the US criminal code against the January 6th insurrectionists and tRump barely got any coverage more than two sentences in length in the U.S. press. I had to go to The Guardian, BBC and CBC to find it in detail. This is getting to be more and more the case these days.
The whole Mifepristone case gives me brain damage. What’s to say that any medication becomes managed by the courts? Why not go after NSAIDS, acetaminophen, blood pressure pills, and, of course “the pill”? Come to think of it, maybe I shouldn’t be able to buy a car. They cause 40,000 automobile deaths each year. The absurdity is in plain sight. Ugh.
The true danger of the case is that any activist extremist judge could undo any federal agency act by second guessing its expertise. This is part of a larger attempt by the far-right to undermine the regulatory state.
The far right wants NO rules; then they won't be held accountable for their crimes.
Let me point out that Mifepristone has other medical uses besides abortions. All these treatments will be in danger if that medication is pulled. But who cares it is only women who will suffer.
Exactly as is the case with "birth control pills", prescribed for medical reasons other than actual birth control.
As a certified nurse-midwife, I prescribe oral contraceptives on a regular basis. A certain number of prescriptions I write (I’d estimate it to be as high as 5-10% but do not have an exact number) are written for a person needing menstrual cycle control or some other reason, having nothing to do with prevention of pregnancy. Also, readily accessible and affordable contraception decreases the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. I’m pro-choice, mind you. I want people to be able to have control of their fertility AND avoid unnecessary medical procedures whenever possible!
You’d think the anti-choice advocates would be thrilled that, after passage of the Affordable Care Act, with contraception covered and young women staying on their parents insurance longer, there was a decrease in the number of abortions performed in the US. They aren’t, because this isn’t about that. In reality, they just want women to “submit” (as in Ephesians 5:22-33, “wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord”) rather than be equal to men in this world. Don’t even get me started on the evils of organized religion!
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-abortion-rates-20170117-story.html
Exactly. Weak sauce. Way weak.
The idea that they are trying to protect doctors from hypothetical trauma sure is cute. When have they protected doctors from trauma before?
I’m not saying that being a doctor is bad, but I am saying that the government does little to protect us. Doctors face exorbitantly expensive educational costs, grueling training programs that result in higher rates of mental health struggles, frequently frivolous lawsuits mixed in with the legitimate lawsuits, chronic medication shortages that make it harder to provide appropriate patient care, a bloated and unchecked private insurance system that completely runs the show and enriches large corporate admins at the expense of safe and appropriate staffing levels, and then you’ve got science denying politicians turn their constituents against death preventing measures such as routine immunization and mask-wearing. Add in these reproductive healthcare restrictions applied by courts made up of NON-DOCTORS, and it equates to one big problem: you are going to run out of people who want to practice medicine.
We already have a shortage of doctors willing to practise in the rural areas of our state (which is mostly rural anyway) and nursing and auxiliary staff shortages that potentially endangers decent care for our elderly/assisted-care patients in nursing homes and assisted-care living facilities.
Good going, GOP...gotta love how you "help" the citizens of this country--both the consumers and the practioners of healthcare.
Dr. Danielle, you make excellent points! I worked with the HC industry for more than 35 years in strategic comms. Medicine is under serious attack from all sides, especially the government and payors/PBM's. Your strong voice is needed. There was a crucial story on NPR today about the disastrous scrip war between "scrubs" (aka medical professionals) and "suits" (aka PBM's) over meds changes by PBM's w/o doctors' input. I'd love to hear your take, if you could listen to it?
Sheila, I’m having trouble finding the NPR segment. If you run across it, throw me a link!
Hi, Danielle,
Well, I went on the Detroit NPR station, WDET 101.9 FM https://wdet.org, to try to find the segment. Alas, I cannot locate it ;-( It aired around 12:20 PM on 12-14-23. Arrgghhhh!
I’ll have to listen to it and get back to you! I ❤️ NPR!
The trauma of treating kids shot at school doesn’t seem to concern them, right?
Nailed it.
TRUMP: I'm Innocent due to Presidential Immunity.
Also Trump: we MUST go after the Biden Crime Family.
The hypocrisy is the point it seems.
They don’t have to make any sense because their constituents will still vote for them. MAGA republicans love ignorant people; the more misinformed and confused, the better.
Hoping WH reps start calling the bogus impeachment inquiry "Election Interference" and pump the DOW RECORD HIGH yesterday because those are the facts. 💙 Also hoping the election certification process which required representatives to travel and perform duties, that no constituent could do in their stead, is upheld as a Congressional proceeding because it is and it was interrupted on J6 '21 intentionally to cause a delay, as evidenced by multiple phone calls from the people who would benefit from delay to get Gohmert v Pence to Alito...which did land on his desk J6... but was deemed "moot" J7 because Nancy Pelosi insisted they stay to finalize the certification proceeding for Biden. Thank you Nancy Pelosi. 💙
Yes, that is the crux of the matter - the insurrectionists purpose was, literally, to obstruct the election certification process. How can certification by the Houses of Congress not be a Congressional proceeding?
I borrowed this from Joyce Vance's letter this morning ( https://open.substack.com/pub/joycevance/p/wednesday-round-up?r=5c99w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email ) about the SCOTUS taking up the Jan 6 defendants appeal. It the text of the law covering obstructing an official proceeding.
The section makes it a crime if one corruptly:
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
It seems to me both of these covers trumps criminal conspiracy, while only one covers the Jan 6 defendant who filed the appeal.
Your thoughts Jay?
It all depends on how expansive or narrow a look SCOTUS takes. If the conservative extremists begin from the premise that the law was not designed to apply to political corruption but rather to financial white crimes, then the answer would be that you can’t pull the blanket over to cover this type of crime.
We also have a SCOTUS wife,
Gini Thomas, in the J6 mess
with her texts and phone calls. That's a pot still on the
simmer.
Wait, wait... Does the law say it should be applied *only* to write collar crimes? (No? But IANAL) Then why would justices be permitted to take that presumption as an axiom to support their reasoning toward the desired conclusion? Are lower courts obligated to follow a SCOTUS ruling that is based on an egregious logical flaw?
I guess six of them have their own financial well-being to think about in terms of political corruption. Sigh
Once again I appreciate the clarity you offer swirling minds. Thank you.
I saw an article about food prices, which verified what I and my family have been seeing in Pennsylvania: "A recently released report by Consumer Affairs found grocery prices nationwide were 5.3 percent higher in November than a year ago. While a dramatic improvement from 2022 — over two years, prices have spiked 25.5 percent — where you live plays a big role in how much shoppers will spend.
In Pennsylvania, grocery costs spiked 8.2 percent in the last 12 months, the report stated. That's faster than any other state in the nation. Meanwhile, in Colorado, prices were up just 2.9 percent."
I wonder how many other "battleground" states also have soaring food prices and what effect, if any, that will have on President Biden's chances.
I keep foot-stomping this, too. The Biden Administration needs to try to figure this out, because the "good economic news" is not trickling down to the average voter. Relying on economic reports as a measure of the health of our nation is not wise, given that most people don't see these "improvements", and there are SO MANY OTHER PROBLEMS going on. It's truly no wonder that voters are pessimistic. I'm a die-hard liberal, and I am super pessimistic, and I can see why this would drive many fence-sitters to not vote at all, which would be catastrophic.
Often it takes time for people to get used to things like permanently higher food and service prices. These aren’t likely to come down, so wages are simply going to have to catch up.
That's difficult for those of us on fixed incomes. When my groceries have gone up 8.2% but Social Security is only going up 3.2% , that leaves me with a deficit. I guess I just have to wait for the stock market to catch up. I love Biden and think he has done an incredible job for our nation. I wonder how many others my age feel the same.
I would say that many of us on Social Security have been through much worse in the past, particularly in the 80s. In 1980 inflation was 14.5 percent. Our mortgage rate in 1984 was close to that.
When I was a teen, gas was $0.29 per gallon. When I was first married, hamburger was .29 a pound and round steak was 3 pounds for a dollar. And of course, a GOOD salary was $10K/year.
From that long term view, it is ridiculous to think that prices will somehow go DOWN. That's called deflation, and it isn't actually a very good thing for an economy. I'm facing the same rise in prices without a comparable rise in Social Security. I hate to think of the seniors of 1980. So I simply don't worry a whole lot; if the economy overall stays strong, things will work out. Just think, our grandkids will be complaining that gas is $20 a gallon and hearken back to the good old days of 2023
Serious question:
Why do you think we should get used to permanently higher food prices?
Price gouging?
War in Ukraine?
Climate change?
Something else?
That... won't be great news for Biden's reelection campaign.
I agree with you. My husband's wages have not kept up with inflation and financially, we are not better off than last year. And that's what people in the trenches see. We are as blue as blue can be and yes, we understand the national view on this but in this red area, people are still measuring by the cost of things (and the skewed Faux view......huge sigh). We live in an area where $13 - $15 an hour is pretty standard along with 2-4% annual raises. It will never catch up that way.
This is why I think the whole "rent decrease" needs to be treated as "a hopeful trend" rather than "economic good news." So many people aren't part of that "trend" at the moment, and being told it is good news is just going to reinforce the idea that "economic good news" is not relevant to them.
Just curious - is there a clear reason that prices are up in your area? I’m just curious if this is related to a temporary or fixable issue (e.g., transportation infrastructure issues or something like that) or is it all due to opportunistic corporate price gouging?
I lean to opportunistic corporate price gouging from ruby red companies working their darnedest to reelect the orange evil.
Price gouging needs to be discussed more along with corporate profits.
I have absolutely no idea. I wish I knew. Gas prices are down here.
Jay, thank you for your analysis of SCOTUS matters related to theJan. 6 matter. Very needed. I was thinking that only two of the Trump charges might be ruled against by the Court and not the other two. And that since a ruling on the case in question won’t be made until after Trump’s D.C. case is held, it can go forward subject to possible reversal of two of its charges upon later appeal. IOW, the trial need not be delayed while awaiting a SCOTUS ruling on the two charges. You answered my questions, questions I haven’t seen addressed by the press up to now. So long as Trump is tried and held accountable for his criminal actions after the 2020 election and prior to the 2024 election, justice will be served and the public put on proper notice of his crimes, be they all four or only two. That is the crucial need.
“but they have to do it anyway because, well, Trump wants it.”
But that’s not true. They don’t HAVE to do it.
Having absolutely no morals and the driving force of their little minds being “cause chaos, just because” they’re eager to do it. But we should not lend any credence to the idea they have no choice.
Exactly!!
On the economy, heard a guy at the dollar store yesterday tell the checker that he had just spent $95 at the grocery store, indicating that prices were out of control. The clerk asked what he had bought, and he said, "Oh, just a few things: milk, bread, cheese." I don't think they sell that kind of cheese in our area.
Anyway, don't count on Faux Snooze viewers to recognize the good economy staring them in the face.
For $95, I think that guy left out the major part of his shopping list in his response.
Or he just figured that saying $9.50 would make it sound like whining, so he added a decimal place.
Setting the plethora of tRump and other pending legal issues aside, your summary of objectively improving economic and financial factors on the macro and individual level are bang-on, as Jay Powell and co. are about to take a victory lap for a remarkably "soft" landing trifecta - lowering inflation and maintaining low unemployment AND a robust economy. THAT'S what will capture voters' interests in 2024, not, regrettably, tRump's dictatorial ambitions should he somehow inexplicably be elected.
I hope it is combination of both: a strong economy and a desire to keep authoritarian Christo-fascists from running our country!
Well, if more Katie Cox tragedies play out in 2024, which they more certainly will, absolutely will reproductive rights and interference thereof by religious extremists and far-right legislators and judges be a major factor, but so-called pocketbook issues have a more immediate effect on voter sentiment, IMHO.
Sometimes I get so tired of trying to keep up with how bad it is in the US right now. People like Jay Kuo help to ease the fears with honest answers.
"SCOTUS agreed to hear an appeal of the Mifepristone (medication abortion) case this term."
Here's some history on the modern-day Puritan, Anthony Comstock, whose crusade led to passage of the 19th-century law at the heart of this case.
https://forgottenfiles.substack.com/p/comstock-resurrected-1873
Thanks for this. I am actually writing up a piece on the Comstock Act for the Big Picture, so this is helpful!
You're welcome. Feel free to use. And shout outs always appreciated.
Today’s Hartmann Report also has an excellent history on the Comstock Act and previous amendments to it and a few prior related court cases. This whole thing could take a very dark turn. Alito, Amy three names, and Thomas are likely opinions to go full out in that direction. The three other republican judges are anyone’s guess.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartmann/p/the-toxic-gop-plan-to-ensure-their-cd0?r=1knhs2&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Thanks for some good news, Jay!
Jay, a small, albeit samantical, point, no one will be voting on super Tuesday. They will be nominating someone to be their candidate come Nov. If T is convicted by Nov they'll have to justify voting to elect a felon POTUS. Not that that will stop them but should make some interesting conversations at family gatherings.