The Phantom Public

On June 19^th, House Bill 71 was signed into law in Louisiana by Gov. Jeff Landry. This means that starting next year, all elementary and secondary schools as well as universities receiving state funding will have to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom

Also not surprising is that three organizations announced they will work together on a challenge to the new law in court. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Freedom from the Religion Foundation issued a join statement saying in part:

“We are preparing a lawsuit to challenge H.B. 71. The law violates the separation of church and state and is blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment promises that we all get to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice, without pressure from the government. Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools.

As Steve Benen rightly points out “it is easy to imagine this [challenge] succeeding. After all, Louisiana’s new Ten Commandment’s law is a legal, political and theological mess.” The new law not only runs afoul of the First Amendment but also the Supreme Court precedent established in a ruling in 1980 in Stone v. Graham. In that case, the court found that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, commonly understood to refer to the separation of church and state.

Of course, what makes this all so interesting is that there seem be a number of Supreme Court Justices who care little for precedent and who are shockingly amenable to a theocratic approach to American jurisprudence.

But don’t take my word for it, listen to Louisiana Gov. Landry who said a few days before signing the measure into law, “I can’t wait to be sued.”

Perhaps he can’t wait because no matter what the Court chooses to do, Landry will be a star among the party faithful. Or maybe he can’t wait because like many of us he understands that it is unclear what the Court will choose to do on any given case. Add to that the real danger that a number of the justices might twist themselves into knots to promote a Christian nationalist agenda. We can only imagine how the law might be bent to make that happen – or maybe we can’t.

Nenshi apologizes for mistakes he made as Calgary mayor at Alberta NDP debate (Western Standard)

Some Liberals think Mark Carney could succeed Justin Trudeau. We talked to those who think he’d be a great leader — and others who roll their eyes (Toronto Star)

PC win in Baie Verte-Green Bay shows voters are ‘angry provincially,’ political scientist says (CBC News)

BC NDP maintains double-digit lead ahead of expected campaign; Rustad & Falcon lack appeal, trust on top issues (Angus Reid Institute)

Given Doug Ford’s record on housing, does he really want an early election? (TVO)

On “Fox & Friends Weekend,” Trump was asked about the chant “Lock Her Up” frequently heard during the 2016 campaign with regard to his opponent Hillary Clinton and the issue with her emails. His response was this:

“I didn’t say ‘lock her up,’ but the people said lock her up, lock her up,” Trump said. “Then, we won. And I say — and I said pretty openly, I said, all right, come on, just relax, let’s go, we’ve got to make our country great.”

Washington Post, June 2, 2024

In fact, as the Washington Post notes, there were several instances in which he approved of the sentiment made by others at rally’s and other public events. In one case he said “every time I mention her, everyone screams, ‘Lock her up, lock her up,.” He then said to the crowd, “You know what, I’m starting to agree with you.”

Another time, in a Tweet he wrote: “Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted and should be in jail. Instead she is running for president in what looks like a rigged election.”

Perhaps he actually had his team look for an instance when he actually said those precise words, and found none. But his intentions were clear. As a nowconvicted felon, he is attempting to argue that it’s a bad thing to lock up one’s political opponents and that he would presumably never consider such a thing.

The sad truth is that he lies so often, no one expects him to speak the truth and we all quickly move on. How bizarre.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted shortly after former President Trump’s guilty verdict on all counts was handed down, one in ten Republican registered voters say that they are less likely to vote for him due to the results of the trial.

No surprisingly, a significant group, 35 per cent, said it made them more likely to vote for him, and 56 per cent said it would have no impact on their decision, none of which means very much. What is important is that one in ten registered Republicans are now considering moving away from the former president.

There will be polls to consider the impact of the guilty verdict, but if this become a trend it could be problem for the GOP.