Michael Podhorzer SCOTUS thread

 This is one of the most outstanding commentaries on this year's presidential election.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the presidential immunity decision. If you’re wondering whether the MAGA majority on the Court will let Trump off the hook, they already have.
By doing so, they have already interfered in the 2024 elections.

They’ve forced a historic crisis—an irreconcilable showdown between the normal operation of the criminal justice system (which should find Trump in pretrial and trial proceedings for his January 6th crimes over the next five months) and the normal functioning of presidential elections (which should find him campaigning full-time during those months).

It didn’t have to be this way; it’s a crisis entirely of their own manufacturing.

Imagine you were told that in another country, a president who had been defeated in a free and fair election attempted a coup, for which he was indicted—but four years later, the very judges he had appointed have helped protect him from standing trial so he could return to office.

Whether it’s in Orban’s Hungary, Erdogan’s Turkey, Putin’s Russia, or now the United States, authoritarian movements consistently attempt to amass and consolidate power by hijacking courts to provide them with post-hoc impunity.

In the US’s case, the hijacking we now confront by the MAGA judges is the result of decades of hollowing out judicial independence by the Federalist Society and its revanchist backers.
Since Bush v. Gore, the GOP-appointed justices have consistently acted to benefit Republicans electorally.

Here are some of the biggest acts of election interference we’ve seen from MAGA/FedSoc judges:

1. SCOTUS shielding Trump from pre-election accountability for January 6th and the criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election. If the MAGA justices really thought this case was worth hearing, they would have said so when Jack Smith first asked them about it in December.

Now the MAGA majority has created an impossible bind: Proceeding with Trump’s trial in a timely fashion would supercharge his lies that the election wasn’t/won’t be free and fair. Yet NOT holding the trial before the election would surrender the imperative for voters to know the full extent of Trump’s legal accountability for the insurrection.

2. Judge Aileen Cannon shielding Trump from pre-election accountability in the classified documents case, with delays, delays, and more delays.

3. SCOTUS handing MAGA the House in 2022. Democrats would have held their House majority, or Republicans would have won by at most one seat (218 to 217), if the midterm elections had been conducted using the 2020 maps or the maps federal courts ordered states to use before the Federalist Society justices overturned them.

4. SCOTUS hearing the Fischer case, which could upend J6 charges against Trump, due to paper-thin concerns about suppressing legitimate protest (a concern they did not show in a recent case involving Black Lives Matter).

5. Now let’s start going back in time a decade or so. Thanks to SCOTUS gerrymandering decisions, Democrats won 21 seats fewer than their proportion of the vote in 2012—depriving Democrats of a trifecta in 2013 and 2014 during Obama’s second term.

6. In a series of cases beginning with Shelby County, the Court’s right-wing majority all but repealed the Voting Rights Act. The reasoning was embarrassingly bad, and the results have been catastrophic, including but not limited to opening the door to modern-day poll taxes and suppression of Black voters.

7. Citizens United brought a sea change in how our elections are run and who can influence them. Spending on congressional/presidential campaigns was barely more in 2008 than 2000, but 2020 spending skyrocketed.

8. Bush v. Gore: The original sin, which set the template for the strictly partisan electoral decisions to come. SCOTUS stopped valid ballots from being counted in Florida. But a comprehensive review found that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 60 to 171 votes.

Whenever SCOTUS has made elections MORE democratic it was by large majorities, and almost exclusively by the Warren Court. However, SCOTUS has made our elections LESS democratic—on a straight partisan basis—repeatedly over the last 24 years.
The dark red bars in the image above represent election-related rulings that were conservative, AND were decided exclusively by GOP nominees.

Let's be clear: All six GOP-appointed SCOTUS justices, and Judge Aileen Cannon, have current or former associations with the Federalist Society. None of them can be impartial about cases involving Trump, because his defeat will also mean the defeat of their hard-fought ideological legacy.

Michael Avram Podhorzer is an American political strategist. He was the political director of the AFL–CIO, before becoming a senior adviser to its President Richard Trumka. Podhorzer is also the chairman of the board for the Analyst Institute and Catalist. He serves on the boards of America Votes, Committee on States, and Progressive Majority. Podhorzer was described as "the architect" of a "shadow campaign that saved the 2020 Election" by TIME.

IVF in Israel

 This interesting link appeared in my X account a few hours ago.

https://x.com/umyaznemo/status/1801157989144854895?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2BMqH7nD6Hdmlym8CSPj7KjE1i7mKMllVC7wgqPRpsGS9u7695aGdtvg8_aem_AZGvbPW68hx7RybmhXUvU_k5lstRCAeVr_cTRe9pPA_DeWJUNWqakgVV3S5WlYhZnY9aDBi-AOAARpJJq13S1sAL

I never heard of anything like this so I had to make a search. What I discovered was somewhat surprising.  For starters, this 2014 Ha'aretz series speaks of IVF in Israel. The article is quite long and includes a 13-minute audio version, but this clip told me what I was looking for.

Doing Fertility Treatments in Israel: Pros and Cons

IVF is cheaper in Israel than in the west, but 'fertility tourists' should prepare for differences in culture. Part 1 of Fertile Ground, a special Haaretz series on IVF in Israel.

There are cheaper options than Israel around the world, notably in eastern Europe and Asia. But among Israel’s advantages are its developed-country status with all the conveniences that entails, its advanced medical facilities, and for Jews at least, the comforting sense of being home with the tribe.

For Israeli couples, Israel provides free IVF for the first two children up to age 45 and at the discretion of the medical team and insurance, which has helped make the country a major world hub for the procedure. 

There is no central source of information for pursuing IVF in Israel. Nor are there official estimates of how many women come to Israel for IVF. Some come in a private capacity and some are Israelis living abroad who are taking advantage of their right to free IVF under Israel’s universal healthcare laws. New immigrants and returning immigrants who have not kept up with health insurance payments must undergo a waiting period of 150 days even if they redeem their health insurance in a lump sum (the mandatory waiting period applies to both IVF and organ donation).

Next, this interesting essay appears in the 2018 spring issue of The Yale Review of International Studies. The article is quite long and had scads of footnotes, but this opening paragraph has the backstory. (Footnotes at the link. My emphasis in italics.)

“Be Fruitful and Multiply”: The Role of Israeli Pronatalist Policy in the Pursuit of Jewish Demographic Dominance in the Holy Land

The 1948 war culminating in Israeli independence and subsequent Jewish immigration law transformed Herzl’s dream of a majority-Jewish state into a reality. In November 1947, 45% of the population living on Jewish land (as defined by the United Nations) was Palestinian; by 1951 this percentage had fallen to 11%[5] due to the emigration of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, obsessed over Jewish demographic superiority in his new nation: he wrote in his autobiography, “For the survival and security of the State of Israel, a higher birthrate and increased immigration are essential”,[6] and he “likened Jewish women with less than four children to draftees who evade military service.”[7] However, because Israel was founded as a dual Jewish and democratic state, Ben-Gurion could not advocate for pro-natal laws that explicitly advantaged Jews over Arab non-Jews. Instead, preferring that such overt natal favoritism remain in the realm of non-profit organizations such as the wealthy and influential Jewish Agency,[8] he set a precedent of crafting legislation that introduced a Jewish population preference indirectly. The 1950 Law of Return, a cornerstone of Israeli legislation, asserted, “Every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel.”[9] The law leniently defined “Jew”: non-Jewish spouses of Jews, their children, and their grandchildren were permitted to immigrate under the law[10] in order to encourage additional immigration of Jewish allies. The right to immigration was not extended to Arabs, and as a result of numerous waves of Jewish aliyot from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, millions of immigrant Jews padded the Jewish demographic advantage in their new state.[11] Importantly, however, Ben-Gurion’s original vision for the Jewish State did not include such extensive non-Ashkenazi immigration; indeed, when the full extent of the Holocaust’s destruction was revealed, Ben-Gurion exclaimed, “The extermination of the European Jewry is a catastrophe for Zionism. There won’t be anyone left to build the country!”[12] The decimation of the European Ashkenazim required full-scale efforts to import Eastern Mizrachim and Charedim—second-choice Jews who often did not conform to European Zionist ideals—to ensure a Jewish “critical mass”[13] in Palestine

This interesting link appears in Reproductive Health Matters, An international journal on sexual and reproductive health and rights. (Volume 16, Issue 31, 2008)
In Vitro Fertilisation Policy in Israel and Women’s Perspectives: The More the Better?
by Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli &Martha Dirnfeld

Abstract

Israel offers nearly full funding for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to any Israeli woman irrespective of her marital status or sexual orientation, until she has two children with her current partner. Consequently, Israeli women are the world’s most intensive consumers of IVF. This 2006 study explored the perceptions of Israeli IVF patients about the treatment and their experiences, probing possible links between state policy and women’s choices and health. Israeli women (n=137), all currently undergoing IVF, were invited to fill out questionnaires. The questionnaires were delivered in five IVF centres by university nursing students or by the clinics’ nurses. Most women were optimistic they would become pregnant, and described the treatment as having modest or no negative effects on their lives. They expressed a sweeping commitment to IVF, which they were willing to repeat “as many times as needed”. At the same time, the majority appeared to have very partial treatment-related knowledge and marginalised side effects, even though they had experienced some themselves. We interpret the observed favourable image of IVF as closely related to the encouragement implied in the extensive state funding of IVF and in the Jewish Israeli tradition of pronatalism, which may account for the virtual absence of critical public debate on the subject.

I have not drilled into these links or studied them closely, but these are just notes being blogged here for future reference. This is a subject that I started thinking about over eight years ago when I got interested in Yemen during the so-called Arab Spring. At the time Yemen was not on most people's radar but I found the place to be an enchanting study in history and cultural complexity. I blogged about it many times but this post eight years ago, The Jews of Yemen, is one of my favorites. 

Go to the link and read what I had discovered  at that time.