"I mean, I could be the stupid person and say 'no, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane'..."

 

CNN abruptly interrupted their broadcast for some shocking news regarding American President Donald Trump's latest escapade, but anchor Erin Burnett was quick to condemn his actions, bluntly stating: "It's wrong".

Burnett delved into details about Trump’s journey to Saudi Arabia for an international visit, during which he is scheduled to rendezvous with officials who apparently bestowed upon him a whopping $400 million aircraft, charmingly christened “The Palace in the Sky”.

It comes just days after a CNN commentator tore into Trump over another "crazy, dangerous" suggestion. Embracing this lavish gift, Trump remarked that it was a "great gesture from Qatar" expressing his deep gratitude. He justified accepting this opulent present by saying: "I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer." Trump added: "I mean, I could be the stupid person and say 'no, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane'. But I thought it was a great gesture."

Nonetheless, Burnett on CNN assailed the act as blatantly inappropriate, likening it to the "modern definition of a Trojan horse." Erin underscored the fact that the Qataris had previously awarded the same model of aircraft in 2018 to the President of Turkey.

Lambasting Trump's choice to take the plane, the news anchor declared: "Let's be honest here, the President of the United States has no business accepting a plane for anything and from anyone. It is not political."

She went on to argue that this situation was evidently black-and-white, concluding boldly: "Because this is something that is actually an easy call. It's wrong. But Trump's team will circle the wagons, it seems, on pretty much anything."

The broadcast then shifted to the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, who was questioned about whether Qatar would "want something in return" for the jet. Her response was: "Absolutely not, because they know President Trump and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind."

Returning to the CNN studio, Erin launched another critique, sarcastically stating: "Well, that defense is not flying, even with some of Trump's staunch supporters." She posed the question: "So who is going to look into this? Who is going to tell Trump in his inner circle that this is wrong and stand up on this one?"

As for President Trump's visit itself, he pledged to lift all sanctions against Syria, saying it was now time for the country to move forward with "a chance at greatness"…

 -The Mirror

Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson among players reinstated by MLB

 

In a historic, sweeping decision, baseball commissioner Rob Manfred on Tuesday removed Pete Rose, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and other deceased players from Major League Baseball's permanently ineligible list.

The all-time hit king and Jackson -- both longtime baseball pariahs stained by gambling, seen by MLB as the game's mortal sin -- are now presumably eligible for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York.

Manfred ruled that MLB's punishment of banned individuals ends upon their deaths.

"Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game," Manfred wrote in a letter to attorney Jeffrey M. Lenkov, who petitioned for Rose's removal from the list Jan. 8. "Moreover, it is hard to conceive of a penalty that has more deterrent effect than one that lasts a lifetime with no reprieve.

"Therefore, I have concluded that permanent ineligibility ends upon the passing of the disciplined individual, and Mr. Rose will be removed from the permanently ineligible list."

Manfred's decision ends the ban that Rose accepted from then-Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti in August 1989, following an MLB investigation that determined the 17-time All-Star had bet on games while managing the Cincinnati Reds.

Jackson and seven other Chicago White Sox were banned from playing professional baseball in 1921 by MLB's first commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, for fixing the 1919 World Series.

Based on current rules for players who last played more than 15 years ago, it appears the earliest Rose and Jackson could be enshrined is summer 2028 if they are elected.

Manfred's ruling removes a total of 16 deceased players and one deceased owner from MLB's banned list, a group that includes Jackson's teammates, ace pitcher Eddie Cicotte and third baseman George "Buck" Weaver. The so-called "Black Sox Scandal" is one of the darkest chapters in baseball history, the subject of books and the 1988 film, "Eight Men Out."

In 1991, shortly before Rose's first year of Hall of Fame eligibility, the Hall's board decided any player on MLB's permanently ineligible list would also be ineligible for election. It became known as "the Pete Rose rule."

Rose believed his banishment would be lifted after a year or two, but it became a lifetime sentence. For "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, who died in 1951, the ban became an eternal sentence, until Tuesday.

Jackson was considered for decades by voters, but Pete Rose's name has never appeared on a Hall of Fame ballot. He died in September at age 83.

Nearly a decade ago, Lenkov began a campaign to get Rose reinstated. On Dec. 17, Pete Rose's eldest daughter, Fawn, and Lenkov appealed to Manfred and MLB chief communications officer Pat Courtney during an hourlong meeting at MLB's midtown Manhattan headquarters.

"This has been a long journey," Lenkov said. "On behalf of the family, they are very proud and pleased and know that their father would have been overjoyed at this decision today."

Jane Forbes Clark, chairman of the board of the Hall of Fame, said Manfred's decision will allow Rose, Jackson and others to be considered by the Historical Overview Committee, which will "develop the ballot of eight names for the Classic Baseball Era Committee ... to vote on when it meets next in December 2027."

Lenkov said he and Rose's family intend to petition the Hall of Fame for induction as soon as possible.

"My next step is to respectfully confer with the Hall and discuss ... Pete's induction into the Hall of Fame," Lenkov said. The attorney said he and Rose's family will attend Pete Rose Night on Wednesday at Cincinnati's Great American Ball Park.

"Reds Nation will not only be able to celebrate Pete's legacy, but now optimistically be able to look forward to the possibility that Pete will join other baseball immortals," Lenkov said. "Pete Rose would have for sure been overjoyed at the outpouring of support from all."

Rose and Jackson's candidacies presumably will be decided by the Hall's 16-member Classic Baseball Era Committee, which considers players whose careers ended more than 15 years ago. The committee isn't scheduled to meet again until December 2027. Rose and Jackson would need 12 of 16 votes to win induction.

Jackson had a career batting average of .356, the fourth highest in MLB history. After his death, Jackson's fans, including state legislators in South Carolina, launched numerous public and petition-writing campaigns arguing that Jackson deserved a plaque in the Hall of Fame. Despite accepting $5,000 in gamblers' cash to throw the 1919 World Series, Jackson batted .375, didn't make an error and hit the series' only home run.

Across the decades and among millions of baseball fans, especially in Cincinnati where Rose was born and played most of his career, the clamor over the pugnacious, stubborn legend's banishment from baseball and the Hall became louder, angrier and increasingly impatient.

Few players in baseball history had more remarkable careers than Pete Rose. He was an exuberant competitor who played the game with sharp-elbowed abandon and relentless hustle. Rose, whose lifetime batting average was .303, is Major League Baseball's career leader in hits (4,256), games played (3,562), at-bats (14,053), singles (3,215) and outs (10,328). He won the World Series three times -- twice with the Reds and once with the Philadelphia Phillies.

Rose often said -- and stat experts agree -- that he won more regular-season games (1,972) than any major league baseball player or professional athlete in history. He also won three batting titles, two Gold Glove Awards, the Most Valuable Player Award and the Rookie of the Year Award.

In 2015, shortly after Manfred succeeded Bud Selig as commissioner, Rose applied for reinstatement with MLB. Manfred met with Rose, who first told the commissioner he had stopped gambling but then admitted he still wagered legally on sports, including baseball, in his adopted hometown of Las Vegas.

Manfred rejected Rose's bid for reinstatement after concluding he had failed to "reconfigure his life," a requirement for reinstatement set by Giamatti. Allowing Rose back into baseball was an "unacceptable risk of a future violation ... and thus to the integrity of our sport," Manfred declared on Dec. 14, 2015.

Rose often complained that the ban prevented him from working with young hitters in minor league ballparks. On Feb. 5, 2020, Rose's representatives filed another reinstatement petition, arguing that the commissioner's decision to level no punishment against the World Series champion Houston Astros players for electronic sign stealing was unfair to Rose. "There cannot be one set of rules for Mr. Rose," the 20-page petition argued, "and another for everyone else."

But Manfred, who did not meet again with Rose, chose not to rule on that second appeal prior to Rose's death on Sept. 30, 2024.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump announced he planned to posthumously pardon Rose. "Over the next few weeks I will be signing a complete PARDON of Pete Rose, who shouldn't have been gambling on baseball, but only bet on HIS TEAM WINNING," Trump wrote on social media Feb. 28.

Off MLB's Banned List

• Joe Jackson (1919 Black Sox scandal)

• Buck Weaver (Black Sox)

• Eddie Cicotte (Black Sox)

• Lefty Williams (Black Sox)

• Happy Felsch (Black Sox)

• Fred McMullin (Black Sox)

• Swede Risberg (Black Sox)

• Chick Gandil (Black Sox)

• Joe Gedeon (Had "guilty knowledge" of gambling activity in 1919)

• Gene Paulette (Banned in 1920 for associating with gamblers in 1919)

• Benny Kauff (Banned in 1921 despite his acquittal on auto theft charge. Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis deemed him "no longer a fit companion for other ballplayers."

• Lee Magee (Banned in 1921 over his disputed back salary elicited evidence of his gambling involvement)

• Shufflin' Phil Douglas (New York Giants player banned after threatening his manager)

• Jimmy O'Connell, Giants player banned in 1924 after offering a bribe to another player)

• Cozy Dolan (Giants coach involved in the O'Connell incident)

• William Cox (Phillies' owner, banned and forced to sell the team in 1943 for betting on baseball)

• Pete Rose (Bet on baseball)

Source: MLB

John Dowd, the former Justice Department attorney who conducted MLB's Rose investigation, told ESPN in 2020 he believes Jackson belongs in the Hall, but recently said he disagrees with Manfred's decision on Rose. "There's no difference with him being dead -- it's about behavior, conduct and reputation," Dowd said.

Dowd's inquiry found Rose had wagered on 52 Reds games and hundreds of other baseball games in 1987 while serving as Cincinnati's manager. Giamatti then banned Rose from baseball permanently on Aug. 23, 1989.

When asked at a press conference whether Rose's punishment should keep him out of the Hall of Fame, Giamatti said that he'd leave that decision to the baseball writers who vote every year on players eligible for induction.

"This episode has been about, in many ways ... taking responsibility and taking responsibility for one's acts," said Giamatti, a Renaissance scholar and former Yale president. "I know I need not point out to the baseball writers of America that it is their responsibility to decide who goes into the Hall of Fame. It is not mine."

In his letter Tuesday, Manfred referred to the Giamatti quote and said he agrees "it is not part of my authority or responsibility to express any view concerning Mr. Rose's ... possible election to the Hall of Fame. I agree with Commissioner Giamatti that responsibility for that decision lies with the Hall of Fame."

Giamatti had said Rose's only path back into the game was to "reconfigure his life," a not-so-subtle hint that if Rose continued to bet on baseball, he had no shot to return to the game.

Only eight days after announcing the ban, Giamatti died of a heart attack at 51. His deputy and successor, Fay Vincent, adamantly opposed Rose's reinstatement -- both during his tenure as commissioner (until 1992) and until his death three months ago at age 86.

Rose was his own worst enemy. For nearly 15 years, he denied having placed a single bet on baseball. In the early 2000s, then-commissioner Bud Selig offered Rose a chance -- but with conditions, including admitting that he gambled on baseball, making no casino appearances and stopping all gambling.

Rose declined.

In January 2004, he admitted in his book, "My Prison Without Bars," that he had gambled on baseball as the Reds manager. But he insisted he only bet on his team to win. In 2015, ESPN reported that a notebook seized from a Rose associate showed Rose had also wagered on baseball while still a player, something he would not acknowledge.

Rose's illegal gambling and prison time aren't the only stains on a legacy that might be weighed by Hall of Fame voters, a group instructed to consider integrity, sportsmanship and character.

In 2017, a woman's sworn statement accused Rose of statutory rape; she said they began having sex when she was 14 or 15 and Rose was in his 30s. Rose said he thought she was 16 -- the age of consent in Ohio at the time. Two days later, the Philadelphia Phillies announced the cancellation of Rose's Wall of Fame induction.

In January 2020, ESPN reported that for all practical purposes, Manfred viewed baseball's banned list as punishing players during their lifetime but ending upon their death. However, Hall of Fame representatives have said that a player who dies while still on the banned list remains ineligible for consideration. With his 2020 reinstatement application sitting on Manfred's desk, Rose was granted permission by MLB to be honored at a celebration of the 1980 Philadelphia Phillies World Series championship on Aug. 7, 2022.

In the dugout before fans gave Rose a lengthy standing ovation, a newspaper reporter asked him about the 2017 allegation and whether his involvement in that day's celebration sent a negative message to women.

"No, I'm not here to talk about that," Rose replied to her. "Sorry about that. It was 55 years ago, babe."

The public backlash to Rose's remarks was swift and severe. MLB sources said his comments derailed his campaign to get off the ineligible list.

In the past several years, some fans have become more insistent that Rose should be forgiven by MLB and inducted into the Hall of Fame. One reason is America's love affair with sports betting. As MLB has embraced legalized gambling through sponsorships and partnerships -- like all U.S. professional sports -- some fans and commentators complained that Rose deserves a second chance, echoing an argument Rose often made.

"I thought we lived in a country where you're given a second chance, but not as far as gambling's concerned," Rose said in a 2020 interview with ESPN. He estimated the ban cost him at least $80 million in earnings as an MLB manager.

Rose, who signed baseballs and jerseys for years in memorabilia stores inside Las Vegas casinos and in Cooperstown on Hall of Fame induction weekends, gambled legally on sports nearly every day for the rest of his life.

Asked how much money his gambling had cost him, Rose said he didn't know, though he acknowledged he lost far more than he won. "No one wins at gambling," said Rose.

"I'm the one that's lost 30 years," he told ESPN in the 2020 documentary "Backstory: Banned for Life*." "Just to take baseball out of my heart penalized me more than you could imagine. You understand what I'm saying? ... I don't think there's ever been a player, I could be wrong, I don't think there's ever been a player that loved the game like I did. You could tell I loved the game, the way I played the game.

"So then you take that away from somebody. I'm able to hide it on the outside, but it's ate me up inside, for all those years. Hell, you'd think I was Al Capone. I'm Pete Rose -- played more games than anybody, batted more than anybody ... OK? Got more hits than anybody. I am the biggest winner in the history of sports."

Last September, in his last interview 10 days before his death, Rose told sportscaster John Condit: "I've come to the conclusion -- I hope I'm wrong -- that I'll make the Hall of Fame after I die. Which I totally disagree with, because the Hall of Fame is for two reasons: your fans and your family. ... And it's for your family if you're here. It's for your fans if you're here. Not if you're 10 feet under. You understand what I'm saying?"

"What good is it going to do me or my fans if they put me in the Hall of Fame a couple years after I pass away?" Rose told Condit. "What's the point? What's the point? Because they'll make money over it?"

ESPN's William Weinbaum and John Mastroberardino contributed to this report.

 

"Trump said he does not know if he has to uphold the Constitution, nor did he know if noncitizens have due process rights"

 

His adviser Stephen Miller thinks the writ of habeas corpus (the legal writ that ensures law enforcement produce a prisoner and justify their detention before a court) is a “privilege,” which he insinuates the administration might suspend if the courts do not “do the right thing” (i.e. support Trump’s lawlessness). In the words of constitutional scholar and The Contrarian contributor Steve Vladeck, Miller’s reckless comment is “both (1) wrong; and (2) profoundly dangerous.” Vladeck enumerates all the reasons Miller is wrong, concluding: He’s suggesting that the administration would (unlawfully) suspend habeas corpus if (but apparently only if) it disagrees with how courts rule in these cases.  In other words, it’s not the judicial review itself that’s imperiling national security; it’s the possibility that the government might lose. That’s not, and has never been, a viable argument for suspending habeas corpus. Were it otherwise, there’d be no point to having the writ in the first place—let alone to enshrining it in the Constitution. It is yet another measure of how badly and regularly Trump is losing in the courts that his henchmen would make such a threat. On Friday alone, he lost on two key immigration motions (as discussed below). In a separate matter, a federal court judge in California enjoined Trump for two weeks from moving forward on “plans for mass layoffs and program closures, barring two dozen agencies from moving forward with the largest phase of the president’s downsizing efforts, which the judge said was illegal without congressional authorization.” So, it is a good thing then, as Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated last week, that the “Judiciary is a coequal branch of government, separate from the others with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law, and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president.”  It is the courts’ job, Roberts pointed out, to “check the excesses of Congress or the executive.” There are plenty of executive excesses these days. Given Miller’s attempt to intimidate the courts, perhaps Roberts was wise to stress: “Judicial independence is crucial.” As noted, Miller may have been provoked by the two stinging immigration defeats. First, U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions III in Vermont held there was zero basis for locking up and deporting Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Tufts University Ph.D. student. Ozturk had been carted off to Louisiana, where she suffered multiple asthma attacks. Replete evidence showed she was an adored member of the community. She committed no crime. She had written an op-ed. “That literally is the case. There is no evidence here … absent consideration of the op-ed,” Sessions said, in ordering her release. Sessions observed that the government’s actions, if allowed to proceed, would have the effect of chilling speech for millions of people who might “avoid exercising their First Amendment rights for fear of being whisked away to a detention center from their home.” In addition, Chris Geidner (“Law Dork”) reported that Sessions declared, “This is a woman who is just totally committed to her academic career.” Sessions added, “There is absolutely no evidence that she has engaged in violence or advocated violence.” The Second Circuit upheld another similar lower court’s ruling on Friday, affirming that Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi be released from custody. The appellate panel unanimously slapped down the argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to release Mahdawi on bail because immigration courts have jurisdiction over deportation matters.  The deportation issue is still pending. But the Second Circuit chastised the government for “dramatically overstat[ing]” the extent to which immigration courts can displace federal court jurisdiction. The panel summed up: Mahdawi’s unlawful detention claims may be resolved without affecting pending removal proceedings. He asserts that the government arrested him to punish speech with which it disagrees.  But doing so would violate the Constitution—quite separate from the removal procedures followed by the 14 immigration courts. Consequently, even if his claims have a substantive overlap with challenges he may bring in his removal proceedings, his detention claims do not themselves challenge or arise from “removal proceedings”…. You do not need to be a lawyer to see that Trump/Miller’s arguments are not simply losing; they are engendering the disgust of a wide swath of the federal judiciary. The lawyers assigned to advocate these untenable positions are getting laughed out of court. (Recall that three different federal district courts—in Texas, New York, and Colorado—previously blasted the government for invoking the Alien Enemies Act.) When the Trump brain trust loses in such embarrassing fashion, it makes ridiculous threats, as Miller did. Worse, its lackeys start arresting people. On Friday afternoon, the arrestee was Mayor Ras Baraka, who was peacefully protesting with members of Congress outside a Newark detention facility run by a private prison.  The ostensible grounds for handcuffing and arresting him were “trespassing,” but the Department of Homeland Security’s accusation that members of Congress had “stormed the facility” beggars belief. (Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey congresswoman, flatly denied the accusation.) Video evidence shows Baraka on the public side of the fence. In sum, as with the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin, Trump’s go-to tactic increasingly involves dramatic shows of force against elected officials on spurious grounds. In doing so, they show their thuggish contempt for the rule of law, not to mention their frustration over repeated courtroom humiliation. Perhaps Roberts will need to be more specific when admonishing Trump and his thugs. The Contrarian is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, in the court of public opinion and the court of law, kindly consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Two Notable Victories for the Rule of Law

 

…There were two notable victories for the rule of law, where excessive attempts to subvert democracy through the legal system were successfully thwarted.

For the last six months, outside the national corridors of power, one of the most insidious attacks on the heart of our democracy — free and fair elections — has been playing out in North Carolina. In November, the Republican candidate for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost a close race to the incumbent justice Allison Riggs. 

Even after two recounts confirmed Riggs’s 734-vote victory, Griffin would not relent. Instead, he filed hundreds of challenges to get 65,000 legally cast ballots tossed out. Despite Griffin’s protestations, these votes — which included ballots from service members and military families stationed overseas — were cast within the state’s established election rules that were counted for every other statewide race in North Carolina. Griffin wanted the courts to change the goal posts after the fact, so he could be declared the winner.

Finally, after a winding road through state and federal court, a Trump appointed federal district court judge ruled against Griffin’s attempt to discount ballots after they were counted, writing, “You establish the rules before the game. You don’t change them after the game is done.” Griffin subsequently conceded the race, instead of continuing to pursue an appeal, ending this saga.

And then on Thursday, Donald Trump was forced to pull the nomination of Ed Martin to be the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin is a particularly odious and dangerous figure, a man who praises and consorts with avowed Nazis — including someone who literally dressed up as Hitler.

He has also bent over backwards to support convicted January 6th insurrectionists, raising funds for them, then as their defense attorney, and even after taking office as the acting chief federal prosecutor in the nation’s capital. During his short tenure in the office, Martin abused the prosecutorial powers he was temporarily granted, sending threatening letters to Democratic politicians and scientists, among others, and refusing to investigate a credibly accused Republican congressman.

Martin’s nomination proved a bridge too far for Trump’s Republican allies, as conservative voices publicly expressed their opposition to his nomination — most notably and openly Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee. With Martin’s nomination sinking, Trump withdrew his name from the ring.

Given Martin’s actions as acting US attorney in DC, and his extreme public statements of affiliations, he looked poised to use the rule of law to attack his political opponents and protect allies. Indeed, Martin in many respects represents the very weaponization of the DOJ that Trump and his allies falsely and hypocritically decry.

These two victories for the rule of law were sharp failures, and emblematic of a hubristic autocratic overreach that has turned sour for Trump and his allies — a phenomenon that has played out in a variety of areas. While DOGE wreaked havoc upon across services and organizations that millions of people rely on, it abjectly failed at its own self-stated mission. The Washington Post reported that one of DOGE’s inspirations has turned against it, comparing it to an “orchestra of chimpanzees.”

None of that lessens the significant harms the clumsy would-be autocrats continue to dish out. Even with the defeat of Ed Martin, Trump’s replacement is no Robert Jackson. The new interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, and therefore one of the most powerful attorneys in the country, is Fox News host Jeanine Pirro.

The relief felt by many of us at this development is a true measure of just how bad this administration is, and the expectations we have for it. And Trump has announced Martin will work in the Justice Department, but in a position that doesn’t require Senate confirmation. It’s a mixed bag.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

And as one attack on the vote rightfully fails in one state, a different dangerous attack ramps up in another. The Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Thursday the arrest of six individuals — including five public officials, one of whom is a judge — for a supposed “vote harvesting” scheme.

Paxton brought these charges under Texas’s S.B. 1 law, parts of which have already been ruled unconstitutional by a GW Bush-appointed federal judge. The 5th Circuit stayed that ruling, which allowed Paxton to continue his criminal investigation. The merits of the case will be played out in court, but Paxton’s mimicry of the Trump DOJ’s arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin, gives rise to concerns that a dangerous pattern could be developing, one of criminalizing and arresting officers of the court in order to intimidate them into submission.

We also see an effort to force submission within the federal government itself. Two staffing decisions – one firing and one hiring — tell the dangerous story of the devaluation of expertise and competence in this administration. There is a concerted effort to stamp out any bit of dissent and to reward obsequious loyalty to Trump. 

One day after the FEMA director, Cameron Hamilton, told Congress—unsurprisingly given the role it plays in emergencies—that it would be a mistake to eliminate the agency, the White House fired him. 

Meanwhile, the newly appointed Surgeon General appears to be shockingly unqualified: her license to practice medicine in Oregon lapsed in 2019 yet she freely offers eccentric, unsupported, RFK-aligned advice, while claiming that she left her medical training “to focus on how to keep people out of the operating room.”

Members from both sides of the aisle were vexed by the decision to appoint a non-practicing doctor as Surgeon General. To make matters worse, when the president was confronted with these facts by the press, he sloughed off any responsibility for the choice, betraying no knowledge about her specifically and claiming he picked her because “Bobby” (RFK) thought she was fantastic.

That rhetorical gambit by Trump – disclaiming any responsibility by claiming ignorance – has become alarmingly frequent. When asked whether, as president, he needed to “uphold the Constitution,” he replied: “I don’t know” — a concerning answer given that is the core of the oath he took when sworn in as President.

He has also appeared to be unaware of his own government’s actions events, most recently saying he didn’t know whether his Administration was sending migrants to Libya. All of this suggests an out-of-touch president, content with the trappings of power, but unable or unwilling to administer it or take responsibility for his actions.

Until then,

The Contrarian, the Democracy Index team:

This week we saw the consequences of autocratic overreach. Although there are still heartbreaking tragedies and dangers inflicted every day, it’s important to step back and see where democracy has been resilient.

That is what we do in this week’s edition of the Democracy Index, as we also unveil our brand-new Visual Index. We’ve broken it down into six key pillars: rule of law, free elections, national security, corruption, civil rights/public safety, and free press/disinformation.

Every week, we take the temperature of these metrics in an attempt to gauge the overall health of our democracy. You can explore the full, interactive graphic — and our analysis of the week’s developments follow below.

 

Pope Leo XIV

 

When 69-year-old Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost appeared on the main balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica for the first time as Pope Leo XIV on May 8, 2025, he was cheered loudly by the huge crowd of pilgrims, tourists, local Catholics and other onlookers who had waited hours for the first sign of white smoke and the official announcement.

As a specialist in Catholic history and ritual, I know how important this moment was for Catholics and others all over the world. A new pope brings with him a sense of excitement often mixed with uncertainty.

But the choice of the College of Cardinals came as a surprise to some. Prevost is the first pope from the United States, and, traditionally, the European-dominated College of Cardinals has had reservations about choosing a cardinal from the U.S. for fear of too much American influence in the church.

So, who is Prevost, and what might have influenced the cardinals’ vote?

Early experiences

Born in Chicago, Illinois, Prevost joined a Catholic religious order at the age of 20: the Order of St. Augustine, called Augustinians, founded in the 13th century. Instead of withdrawing from the world in isolated monasteries, members of this order travel as mendicants to aid the poor as well as serve as missionaries and teachers.

Prevost studied theology in the U.S. and Rome, and as a newly ordained priest he spent a year in Peru. After a short return to the U.S. as an official of the Augustinian order in Illinois, he returned to Peru as a seminary professor to teach canon law, the legal structure of the Catholic Church. He would stay in Peru for the next 10 years.

In 1999, he became the prior – that is, the head – of the local Augustinian province in Chicago and was later elected prior of the worldwide Augustinian order. This gave him a truly global experience, since the Augustinians had some 50 communities spread across every continent.

In 2015, Pope Francis appointed him bishop for the Diocese of Chiclayo in Peru. In 2019, Francis appointed him a member of several important Vatican dicasteries, or departments, where he became very familiar with the central church administration. Most importantly, he served as prefect, or chairman, on the Dicastery for Bishops.

In fact, because of his lengthy pastoral experience in Peru and service at the Vatican, some commentators had noted before Prevost was chosen that if the cardinals were to elect an American pope, it would be him. His service on the Dicastery for Bishops was considered especially important, since members play a key role in selecting new bishops.

Global church

During the 20th century, especially after the Second Vatican Council – a series of meetings of the world’s bishops to modernize the church, ending in 1965 – the popes began to name cardinals from other parts of the world that were previously considered to be on the periphery of the Catholic Church.

And this led to popes being chosen from outside of Italy for the first time in centuries. Pope St. John Paul II was Polish and the first non-Italian pope since the 16th century. Pope Benedict XVI was another non-Italian, born in Germany, who had served as a Vatican official. Pope Francis was born in South America to parents who were Italian-born immigrants to Argentina.

The College of Cardinals, which had few representatives from other continents until recently, is now much more international. Some 80% of the cardinal electors were named by Francis, many from countries that had never before had a cardinal.

In reviewing his record, the cardinal electors might have taken a number of factors into account. Prevost would be an effective administrator as head of the church and was an expert in church canon law. He had decades of experience doing pastoral work in South America, as well as in North America. And as prior general of the entire Augustinian order, he would likely have traveled widely to visit many of the communities he supervised.

Papacy under Leo

The new pope appeared on the Vatican balcony wearing the traditional papal garments: white cassock, short red cape, decorated red and gold stole, and golden cross hanging around his neck. Francis, on the other hand, had appeared dressed in the plain white cassock of a pope.

Certainly, he had not chosen the simplicity of Francis. Was this a sign that he would be more of a traditionalist?

His choice of a papal name, I believe, could indicate a different point of view. Pope Leo XIII wrote a groundbreaking encyclical in 1891, “Rerum Novarum,” subtitled “On Dignity and Labor.” In this he stressed the rights of workers to unionize and criticized the conditions in which they worked and lived. He also championed other rights the ordinary worker deserved from their bosses and from their government.

In his first remarks from the balcony, offering a glimpse into the direction of his papacy, Leo XIV stressed the role of Catholics and the church as peacemakers and bridge-builders, in dialogue with other religious traditions and cultures. His first words were “Peace be with you all,” describing this peace as “a disarmed peace, a disarming peace.” He further urged Catholics to act together “without fear … united with one another … to build bridges” through dialogue and outreach – to bring peace to the world. He may not follow exactly in Francis’ footsteps, but he will likely continue walking in the same direction.

-The Conversation

-Joanne M. Pierce. Professor Emerita of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross

P.S.

However, there is this: “after years of sympathetic and inclusive comments from Pope Francis, LGBTQ+ Catholics expressed concern on Thursday about hostile remarks Pope Leo XIV made more than a decade ago in which he condemned 'the homosexual lifestyle' and 'redefinition of marriage' as 'at odds with the gospel.'”  -The Guardian 

Have You Ever Tried to Cancel a Renewal Subscription with Malwarebytes?

 

Welcome to Malwarebytes Live Chat support. My name is Jonathan [AI?]. How may I assist you today?

Me: I want to cancel my renewal subscription. Navigating the directions are not user friendly!  [I tried to call the (800-799-9570) Help number and, of course, there was no answer. The online instructions I received were ridiculous. They tell you to go to "Sign into Account," then in the "Left Sidebar" (There is no Left Sidebar!) click "Manage Subscription," click the "Billing and Payment Information Tab," then click "Edit Auto-Renewal.  A Pop-Up will appear." (There is no Pop-Up!) "Turn Auto-Renewal Off"; then "Select Reason for Canceling" and click "Send. Once you're done turning off auto-renewal, you'll receive a confirmation email"].

Malwarebytes: I am sorry to hear that. I'd be happy to assist you with it. Before we proceed, is there something our techs or I could do? In case you want to keep your subscription but are experiencing technical issues.

Me: Malwarebytes makes it so difficult to cancel a subscription online.

Malwarebytes: Apologies for the inconvenience.

Me: I do not want or use Malwarebytes anymore.

Malwarebytes: Just to confirm, are you looking to receive a refund for a recent renewal?

Me: Yes! Malwarebytes automatically renewed my subscription. It was charged to my Discover Card.

Malwarebytes: I see. You might have left your auto-renewal active. If you want to proceed with the refund, kindly provide the ref# of the renewal, please.

Me: 25330….

Malwarebytes: Thanks! One moment, please.

Malwarebytes: Upon checking, a chargeback has already been filed regarding this order.

Me: When will a refund be posted on my Discover account?

Malwarebytes: And we are unable to process a refund while the chargeback is ongoing.

Me: Explain

Malwarebytes: You can contact your bank directly for further information. A chargeback may take up to 3 months.

Me: “Chargeback is ongoing?”: What does that mean?

Malwarebytes: We are unable to process a refund for the subscription because a dispute for this transaction was opened with your bank/payment service provider. Once a transaction is disputed, your bank/payment service provider opens an investigation into your claim. The transaction amount is deducted from Malwarebytes and will be processed as a refund, if the dispute is closed in your favor. During this period, if we processed a refund, the order would be refunded twice: once by Malwarebytes, and once by your bank/payment service provider, for the dispute. The following options are available:

• Allow your bank/payment service provider to finish the investigation Note: this might take up to 3 months.

• Close the dispute with your bank/payment service provider. Once the dispute is closed, we are able to issue a refund. If you choose to close the dispute, please send the closure confirmation to our billing partner 2Checkout (Verifone) at chargeback@2checkout.com. For any questions concerning the dispute process, email 2Checkout at same e-mail address.

Me: What does a "bank" have to do with this? It's on a Discover Card!

Malwarebytes: In that case, that is your payment service provider.

Still, the transaction was disputed, which is the reason why we couldn't process a refund. If we processed a refund, the order would be refunded twice: once by Malwarebytes, and once by your bank/payment service provider, for the dispute.

Me: This is absurd!

Malwarebytes: The following options are available:

• Allow your bank/payment service provider to finish the investigation Note: this might take up to 3 months.

• Close the dispute with your bank/payment service provider. Once the dispute is closed, we are able to issue a refund. If you choose to close the dispute, please send the closure confirmation to our billing partner 2Checkout (Verifone) at chargeback@2checkout.com. For any questions concerning the dispute process, email 2Checkout at same e-mail address.

 

Trump the Conquerer

Donald Trump would not rule out using military force to gain control of Greenland, the world’s largest island and an autonomous territory within Denmark, a fellow Nato member with the US.

Since taking office, the US president has repeatedly expressed the idea of US expansion into Greenland, triggering widespread condemnation and unease both on the island itself and in the global diplomatic community. Greenland is seen as strategically important both for defense and as a future source of mineral wealth.

In an interview on NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday, Trump was asked whether he would rule out using force against the territory. “I don’t rule it out. I don’t say I’m going to do it, but I don’t rule out anything. No, not there. We need Greenland very badly. Greenland is a very small amount of people, which we’ll take care of, and we’ll cherish them, and all of that. But we need that for international security,” Trump said.

The exchange came as part of wide-ranging interview following Trump’s first 100-days in office last week and he was also asked about the idea of using military force against Canada – an idea once unthinkable but now a subject of speculation amid Trump’s repeated assertion he would like to make Canada the US’s 51st state.

“It’s highly unlikely. I don’t see it with Canada. I just don’t see it, I have to be honest with you,” Trump said.

Trump said he had spoke with Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney, and confirmed that the pair had not spoken about making his country part of the US. But he said they could discuss the topic when Carney visits Washington DC “this week or next week”. Carney, along with around 90% of Canadians, oppose the idea of folding Canada into the US. But Trump said he was open to a discussion.

“I’ll always talk about that. You know why? We subsidize Canada to the tune of $200bn a year,” Trump said. “We don’t need their cars. In fact, we don’t want their cars. We don’t need their energy. We don’t even want their energy. We have more than they do. We don’t want their lumber. We have great lumber. All I have to do is free it up from the environmental lunatics.”

Trump said that if “Canada was part of the US it wouldn’t cost us. It would be great … it would be a cherished state. And, if you look at our map, if you look at the geography – I’m a real estate guy at heart. When I look down at that without that artificial line that was drawn with a ruler many years ago – was just an artificial line, goes straight across. You don’t even realize.”

“What a beautiful country it would be,” he added.

A poll published last month found that 68% of Americans believe Trump is serious about the US trying to take over Greenland, and 53% think Trump is serious when he talks about the US trying to take control of Canada.

But the survey, commissioned by ABC News found that respondents didn’t think either annexation would be a good idea. About 86% said they opposed the US trying to take control of Canada, and 76% opposed trying to take control of Greenland.

-The Guardian

Danish PM tells US ‘you cannot annex another country’ on visit to Greenland

Read more

The Supreme Court Is About to Let Religion Ruin Public Education

 

In modern America, religious education is offered in private schools or in a homeschooling setting. Public education, by contrast, is secular, because the government is not in the business of sponsoring religious indoctrination. 

But in two cases the Supreme Court heard over roughly the last week, the justices appear ready to throw out public education as we know it and usher in a new era where tax dollars flow to religious schools and religion can dictate what is taught in public classrooms. When the decisions come down, public education may change forever.

“This is taxpayer-funded, state-sponsored religious indoctrination. You’ve just got to call it what it is.”

On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a case over whether Oklahoma must fund a religious charter school that carries out religious instruction and hosts religious activities, including mass. Rather than consider this an affront to the separation of church and state, four Republican-appointed justices appeared outraged at the idea that a state would fund a charter school focused on language immersion or the arts but not one focused on religious instruction.

Without ever acknowledging that the First Amendment’s establishment clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) prohibits government-sponsored religion, several expressed palpable anger that allowing only secular charter schools was a form of anti-religious discrimination.

“All the religious school is saying is ‘Don’t exclude us on account of our religion,’” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. “If you go and apply to be a charter school and you’re an environmental studies school, or you’re a science-based school, or you’re a Chinese immersion school, or you’re an English grammar-focused school, you can get in. And then you come in and you say, ‘Oh, we’re a religious school.’ It’s like, ‘Oh, no, can’t do that, that’s too much.’ That’s scary.” He continued: “You can’t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second-class in the United States… And when you have a program that’s open to all comers except religion… that seems like rank discrimination against religion.”

The case comes out of Oklahoma, where state law mandates public charter schools be secular. Nevertheless, the Catholic archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the diocese of Tulsa sought to create the country’s first religious charter school. Called St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, it would be an online school that would infuse Catholic teaching in its curriculum and require students to attend religious programming.

The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual School Board granted the charter, but Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to order the board to reverse course. “This is not [about] free exercise of religion,” Drummond has said. “This is taxpayer-funded, state-sponsored religious indoctrination. That’s what this is. You’ve just got to call it what it is.”

The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed that the charter was illegal because Oklahoma law requires public charter schools be secular. So, the board and St. Isidore appealed to the US Supreme Court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself because she is friends with a law professor who advised the school. 

The result at Wednesday’s oral argument was four GOP-appointees who appeared ready to usher in a new era of religious public schools, and three Democratic-appointees who opposed such a move. Chief Justice John Roberts was the only Republican appointee who did not tip his hand, though his questions showed he was skeptical of the argument against religious charter schools.

The arguments technically centered on whether public charter schools are indeed public schools or private entities. If they are public, as Oklahoma law defines them, then the guarantee against the establishment of religion is a stronger argument. But if the schools are actually private, as St. Isidore’s insists—along with the charter board and the Trump administration—then it is harder to argue that private religious entities should not be entitled to the same charter contracts as any other organization.

Whether they are public or private, however, the bottom line is that charter schools are taxpayer funded, which means the argument is more broadly over public funding of religious education and whether to integrate religious instruction into state education offerings. “Once you… approve one religion, not another religion, or this religion, there’s going to be strife.”

Justices Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito were the most vociferous defenders of the Catholic charter school, repeatedly suggesting that the only reason one might deny a religious institution tax funding to run a school is anti-religious bigotry. Alito went so far as to suggest that the Oklahoma constitution’s requirement to provide a secular public education was based on anti-Catholic animus. “This whole position that you’re defending seems to be motivated by hostility toward particular religions,” Alito said to Gregory Garre, a former US solicitor general representing Drummond. 

Garre pushed back. “I don’t think that the court could treat any prohibition on funding that’s similar as simply motivated by bigotry,” Garre said. “If you did, then I think, frankly, the establishment clause jurisprudence with respect to public schools would come tumbling down.”

Listening to arguments, it seems possible that’s what Alito and some of his colleagues want. In recent years, the court’s GOP majority has increasingly removed the bricks separating church and state, including in the realm of schools.

While the Constitution’s establishment clause used to protect separation, conservative justices seem to have decided that the free exercise clause mandates the state can do nothing to maintain it—freedom of religion is increasingly the freedom to bring religion into every corner of American life, including public education.

Alito also suggested that Drummond was motivated by bias against non-Christian religions because of comments in which he suggested Oklahomans might approve of Christian charters but not charters by religions that the majority views with suspicion.

Garre defended his client as simply stating the political reality of state-sponsored religious instruction: “Once you open up government programs and bring people in to becoming part of the government, and approve one religion, not another religion, or this religion, there’s going to be strife that comes from that,” he said. “It’s, frankly, one of the reasons why we have a religion clause in the Constitution to begin with.” 

Kavanuagh pounced on Garre’s suggestion that the government picking and choosing which religions got public charter schools could create “strife.” “It seems like strife could also come when people who are religious feel like they’re being excluded because they’re religious,” he told Garre. “I think you’re missing a portion of the country when you say strife would not result from that kind of outcome.”

As Kavanuagh’s comment demonstrated, the Republican-appointed justices seemed to feel that in America today, it is religious people who are the victims of discrimination and whose needs are ignored.

The Democratic appointees approached the case very differently. They seemed to squarely see public charter schools as public schools and that Oklahoma had the right to decide that its public schools should be nonreligious. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson analogized the situation to a local government that solicits contracts to paint landscape murals on public buildings.

If a religious painter proposed a mural full of religious symbols, Jackson queried, would it be a violation of his religious rights for the government to deny him a contract? “Would that person say, ‘You are rejecting me as a painter because of my religion’… when, really, what the state is doing is saying ‘We are offering a particular public benefit and the particular benefit is a nonsectarian mural, a secular mural, and to the extent that you’re not wanting that, we’re rejecting your proposal?’”

The court is poised to deliver a one-two punch that profoundly changes public education.

Justice Elena Kagan stressed that in keeping with their faith, religious charter schools might not just teach religious beliefs as fact but also seek to upend state-mandated curriculums and nondiscrimination requirements. Today, St. Isidore’s might promise to teach the content required by Oklahoma law. But why couldn’t a Hasidic community in New York get the state to pay for a yeshiva that teaches only religious texts in Yiddish, Hebrew, and Aramaic? The attorney for St. Isidore’s couldn’t deny the possibility. 

Kagan later asked Garre to share what he predicts would happen if the Supreme Court found that states must allow religious charter schools—essentially ushering in an era of public religious schools. 

“First, every charter school law and the federal charter school program is unconstitutional, because they all require that charter schools be public schools and that they be nonsectarian. So, we’re dealing with the confusion and uncertainty that’s created by that to begin with.” From there, Garre predicted some states might end charter programs altogether, disrupting education, while others would push forward and accommodate religious charters.

He foresaw fights over whether federal law mandating education for disabled kids would apply to charters deemed to be private. Every aspect of this new education regime would go through the Supreme Court. He predicted litigation over which students can attend, who can teach [“can you have a gay teacher?”], and finally, over the curriculum itself. Questions over what can be taught will be mediated not through the local democratic process but through nine Supreme Court justices. 

This case alone will be a bombshell if the court mandates that states begin funding religious schools through their charter school programs. But this term, the Supreme Court is poised to deliver a one-two punch. Last week, the court heard arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which it considered whether religious parents could opt their kids out of lessons that did not conform with their beliefs.

Again, the GOP-appointed majority appeared ready to side with the plaintiffs and allow religious parents to pull kids from the classroom when material they object to is taught—a policy that threatens to create a backdoor through which religious parents have veto power over elements of the curriculum and classroom discussion. 

In any school that cannot accommodate children leaving the classroom and being provided alternate materials, the religious preferences of a minority seem destined to dictate the curriculum for all. The likely result is the wide elimination of LGBTQ content. Teachers may fear answering a question about a gay politician, for example, or even displaying a picture of their same-sex partner on their desk.

If the justices decide in the next few months to allow religious opt-outs in public schools and the creation of religious charter schools, it’s hard to see how public education will not change profoundly. In many districts, together the decisions would likely mean the only publicly funded school options would be either explicitly religious or circumscribed by the religious preferences of certain parents.

Donald Trump, whose administration has argued for the religious interests in both cases, has ordered the shuttering of the Department of Education and threatened to withhold funding to schools that engage in diversity, equity, and inclusion programming. But the president’s ability to direct public school curriculums is limited, because public education is primarily controlled at the state and local level.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, can dramatically reshape public education, reaching across geographic boundaries to make decisions for individual districts and schools. When it comes to the religious right’s agenda of returning religion to public classrooms, it’s not the administration that is to be feared the most, but the Supreme Court.

-Pema Levy, Mother Jones