Gratitude? Smatitude. We Demand Capitulation.
And thanking the Constitution for the 3rd Branch of Government - the Courts. March 3, 2025, 2025
Editor’s Note: Read elsewhere: When considering the silent K, in the English language, I would like to give some examples; There is one silent K in the phrase kneading bread. There are two silent Ks in the phrase kneading knotted bread. There are three silent Ks in the phrase American Christian Nationalist.
And this is where we are, on cold Sunday in March, after collecting hundreds of signatures in support of Ukraine to send to the Ukrainian Consulate in San Francisco. We found our country had become littered with silent Ks and crooked crosses. And we, the people, are here with brooms.
Indivisible Shows Up
By Sabra Briere
…we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.
Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, one of the authors of Project 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583
250 years ago, our cultural ancestors were trying to make sense of growing political tension. Some hunkered down, hoping the tensions would die. Some families spit, choosing opposing sides. Some wanted a king. Some wanted a democracy — even as they were trying to define what that meant.
It seems some people are always wanting a SECOND American Revolution, one that’s darker, less liberal, less idealistic, more twisted in favor of only rich white men. And it takes the rest of us a while to catch up to this realization.
Sadly, there are those in power who want capitulation or a fight. There is no compromise offered. No negotiation possible. We saw that on Friday, with the way Ukraine’s President Zelinskyy was treated in the White House. Because he wasn’t begging, because he wasn’t fawning in praise of Trump 2.0, he was attacked. All because he wouldn’t agree that Ukraine was the aggressor toward Russia.
Sonoma, Sebastopol, Petaluma and Santa Rosa turned out on Sunday to say NO. This is not how the country we love treats its allies. This will not be a silent coup. Because WE WILL NOT BE SILENT.
There will be more.
It’s a growing movement. And the Left (which is truly in the center) will not be silent.
Tuesday, March 4, Trump 2.0 gives the State of the Union. We don’t have to watch. But today you can call our Senators and Representatives to encourage them to display their disgust. There will be protests in Sacramento and SF, and likely other places nearby.
Saturday, March 8, protests increase. At 8:30 am, you can show up across the street from Coddingtown to protest Whole Foods. At 11 am, go to the Tesla dealership on Airway, or downtown Santa Rosa / Courthouse Square to the Women’s March. At noon, the Women’s March is in Sebastopol.
You can get the details for these and other events and actions at our calendar and our weekly Actions newsletter.
NOTE: Today we are joined by a new columnist, Stephen Rohde, who will focus on the threats posed by Donald Trump to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and rule of law. Before moving to Sebastopol three years ago, Steve practiced civil rights and civil liberties law for almost 50 years, first in New York and then in Los Angeles. He is a past President of the ACLU of Southern California, past Chair of Death Penalty Focus and Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, and currently serves as chair of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace. He is the author of American Words of Freedom and Freedom of Assembly, and is a contributor to the Los Angeles Review of Books, TruthDig, LA Progressive, Los Angeles Lawyer magazine, and other publications. He is a co-host of Law & Disorder Radio and Podcast, heard on 150 radio stations and streaming online.
Can the Constitution and the Courts Restrain Donald Trump?
by Stephen Rohde
It is impossible to measure how cruel, heartless, tyrannical, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, chaotic, conflicting, and insane are the 40 or so Executive Orders Donald Trump has issued as part of his Shock and Awe strategy. But we can judge how illegal and unconstitutional they are, and that will be the goal of this column.
Driven by a fringe notion known as the "Unitary Executive Theory," which has been peddled by the Federalist Society and a few arch-conservatives on the Supreme Court (and which I'll explore in a future column), Trump is trying to take over the federal government in defiance of the US Constitution, Congress, and maybe even the Supreme Court.
To date over 75 lawsuits have been filed challenging what Trump and his henchmen, led by Elon Musk, have done. More lawsuits are expected as Trump and his loyal cabinet officials attempt to implement his authoritarian agenda. So far federal courts have issued 29 restraining orders temporarily halting the havoc. Last Tuesday, within a period of 90 minutes, three different federal judges in Washington, DC and Washington state issued preliminary injunctions restraining various aspects of Trump’s agenda.
These lawsuits are vitally necessary but are not sufficient if we are to successfully prevent Trump from destroying our democracy. Lawsuits must be pursued in tandem with the Resistance we are mobilizing here at Indivisible Sonoma County and in the myriad of protests and actions being taken across the country. Still, it is unquestionable that brilliant lawyers and courageous judges are serving as the First Responders in the fight against Trump. It is important that we understand the key legal arguments being made and the extent to which the courts are already upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
One of the most important court victories so far came in a case filed by the American Association of University Professors, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, and other groups challenging Trump's dangerous efforts to dismantle well-established programs and policies that encourage Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility, and Belonging throughout American society. (I refuse to do Trump's bidding by concealing the importance of these initiatives behind the three letters "DEI," so I'll use "Diversity" to represent them all). Trump intends to ban the teaching of comprehensive American history, including The 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory, and either totally eliminate the Department of Education or at a minimum strip it of its key functions and funding.
Christopher Rufo, a Trump ally and Senior Fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, writing in its publication, City Journal, calls the Department of Education “a hotbed of left-wing ideologies” and accuses it of engaging in “ideological production, which includes an array of programs, grants and civil rights initiatives, and third-party NGO’s that create left-wing content to push on local schools.”
Trump is not the first racist politician to attack the Department of Education. Ronald Reagan campaigned on abolishing the DOE. A predecessor of the department was created by President Andrew Johnson in 1867, shortly after the Civil War. But the former Confederate states opposed the schooling of Black children, so Congress capitulated by stripping it of most of its authority. President Jimmy Carter revived it 109 years later.
On February 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson in Maryland issued a 63-page decision granting a nationwide preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from implementing key components of his two Executive Orders (EOs) regarding Diversity. The preliminary injunction prohibits the entire executive branch from pausing, freezing, impeding, blocking, canceling, or terminating any awards, contracts or obligations involving “equity-related” grants and contracts or that promote “DEI.”
Judge Abelson held that the challenged provisions were unconstitutionally vague, represented improper "prior restraints" on speech, and violated the First Amendment. He expressed serious concerns about “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement over billions of dollars in government funding” that could result in irreparable harm. “The possibilities are almost endless, and many are pernicious,” Abelson wrote, providing some examples:
If an elementary school receives Department of Education funding for technology access, and a teacher uses a computer to teach the history of Jim Crow laws, does that risk the grant being deemed 'equity-related' and the school being stripped of funding? If a road construction grant is used to fill potholes in a low-income neighborhood instead of a wealthy neighborhood, does that render it 'equity-related'? If a university grant helps fund the salary of a staff person who then helps teach college students about sexual harassment and the language of consent, would the funding for that person’s salary be stripped as 'equity-related'? If a business with a grant from the Small Business Administration conducts a recruiting session at a historically Black college or university, could the business be stripped of the grant on that basis?
He stressed that it is "wholly unclear how strong or how tenuous a grant or contract must 'relate’ to the topic of 'equity' to be subject to termination." He questioned whether the mere appearance of the terms “diversity,” “equity,” “equity action plan,” or "DEI" in a grant would run afoul of the EOs. As the Supreme Court held in a 1972 decision, "Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. . . We insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.”
Because even the government does not know what constitutes DEI-related speech that violates federal anti-discrimination laws, Abelson found that plaintiffs “have easily shown a likelihood that they will prevail” in proving that the challenged provisions operate “as a content based prior restraint on their speech,” and are “facially viewpoint-discriminatory.” Plaintiffs, their members, and other federal contractors and grantees "have shown they are unable to know which of their DEI programs (if any) violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and are highly likely to chill their own speech—to self-censor, and reasonably so—because of the Certification Provision." Abelson went so far as to find that one particular provision "was likely designed to induce, and certainly has been shown to have the effect of inducing, federal contractors and grantees to apply an overinclusive definition of illegal DEI to avoid risking liability." It is impermissible for the government to leverage its funding “to restrict federal contractors and grantees from otherwise exercising their First Amendment rights.”
In 2015 the Supreme Court held that the government cannot censor messages, ideas, or subject matter simply because it disagrees with them. Abelson found that key portions of the EO’s were “blatant” and “egregious” content discrimination, which clearly violates the First Amendment.
Abelson pointed to the language in a White House’s fact sheet regarding the EOs to illustrate his point. It claims, for example, that “radical DEI has dangerously tainted many of our critical businesses and influential institutions;" that “many corporations use DEI . . . ignoring the fact that DEI’s foundational rhetoric and ideas foster intergroup hostility and authoritarianism;” and that “DEI creates and then amplifies prejudicial hostility and exacerbates interpersonal conflict.” Similarly, on February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi issued a directive that the DOJ should pay particular attention to eliminating references to "unconscious bias," "cultural sensitivity," and ‘inclusive leadership."
Thus, according to Abelson, the White House and Attorney General have made clear that “viewpoints and speech considered to be in favor of or supportive of DEI or DEIA are viewpoints the government wishes to punish and, apparently, attempt to extinguish." However, "as the Supreme Court has made clear time and time again, the government cannot rely on the 'threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion' to suppress disfavored speech," citing a unanimous Supreme Court decision issued just last year. Abelson ruled that although the government may “cho[ose] to fund one activity to the exclusion of another” and may “define the limits of the government spending program,” it may not punish government contractors or grantees “because of their speech on matters of public concern.”
The Trump administration will surely appeal Abelson's decision, along with other adverse rulings, all the way to the Supreme Court.For now, the rule of law has held fast.We need to see this victory as a sign that law, justice, and history are on our side. That should give us hope and put wind in our sails as we continue to protest and resist Trump's unprecedented assault on our democracy.
Stephen Rohde recently published this piece in the LA Progressive:
https://www.laprogressive.com/law-and-justice/consiglieres-in-black-robes
Guest Editorials
When they come for the judges
By Joyce Vance
The judiciary is one of the few democratic institutions left that can interfere with the plan to place all the reins of power in the hands of the president. So when Mike Lee calls for judges to be impeached and Elon Musk responds that “it is the only way,” we know where this is headed.
Tuesday night Musk tweeted about impeaching judges at least six times. “The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges. That is what it took to fix El Salvador. Same applies to America,” he wrote at one point.
The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele retweeted Musk, adding, “If you don’t impeach the corrupt judges, you CANNOT fix the country.”
Neutering the judiciary is the tactic of a strongman, and Bukele is not without critics for the tactics he has used in his country, tamping down on civil rights and democracy in the name of law and order. He has offered to take in people the Trump government deports, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, which would violate U.S. law. Not exactly the role model for American justice that Musk seems to think he is. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also praised Bukele after a recent trip, even though he has thrown thousands of people in prison without due process.
What set Musk off? On Monday, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management from sharing sensitive records with DOGE. On Tuesday, another judge gave the government until March 10 to file information about DOGE’s activities at the Treasury Department with the court. But courts have been restricting the Trump administration from continuing its ham-fisted operations until they can be subjected to judicial scrutiny in so many cases these past few weeks that it’s impossible to say precisely what upset Trump’s assistant and his cronies.
The Oval Outrage
MAR 1
I normally strike an optimistic note in these columns—and there was much to applaud this week, including more progress in the battle for US democracy here at home. I’ll get to that.
But I must start with America’s place on the world stage. I don’t know when in my life I have been more enraged about it. There are moments of international betrayal so foul that the stench reeks through the ages. Munich 1938, when the allies threw Czechoslovakia to the dogs—to Hitler—was one.
After Friday, it has company.
I am referring, of course, to the infamous attack on President Zelensky of Ukraine by Donald Trump and JD Vance. I refuse to give them their titles, at least for purposes of this essay, because they no longer deserve them. To treat any foreign leader—any guest—visiting the Oval Office with such contempt, belligerence, and ignorance is utterly unacceptable. But for Trump and Vance to behave that way toward a brave leader of a courageous ally whose country is under unprovoked assault is a national and international disgrace.
It is also profoundly against America’s interests. Vladimir Putin is our adversary and that of our NATO allies. Ukraine is doing our work for us by resisting Russian aggression. Trump and Vance in one fell swoop managed to embolden our adversaries (not just Russia—all of them watched this spectacle with glee) and alienate our staunch European allies. They have stood by us when we needed them, such as in the aftermath of 9/11 or as Transatlantic counterparties in building the greatest economic relationship in the history of the world.
History will remember Friday’s tantrum by mad King Donald and his court jester JD Vance with roughly the same fondness that it regards Caligula. It was mad in both senses of the word: Trump exhibited unhinged rage.
I know well the source of his anger towards Ukraine and Zelensky, at least in part. In 2019-20, I helped lead an impeachment because of Trump pressing Zelensky to attack Trump’s then political opponent, Joe Biden. Trump wanted the Ukrainian president to smear Biden on false charges of corruption relating to his and a family member’s contacts with Ukraine. Zelensky did not bend and, evidently, Trump still has not forgiven him. That is a disgraceful reason for shameful behavior, and the Oval ambush prompted rightful condemnation within the US and globally.
Actions
Check our website for more information and to learn more about Indivisible.
Hey! We get noticed!
I found this new space on Substack, and thought I’d read it. I want to call it out to all of you — because people are watching what we’re doing. They publicized our ‘Sign A Letter to Ukraine’ event to their readers. And they offered us another great source for Resistance Events.
This is a letter I sent to Jennifer Rubin at The Contrarian:
Hi Jennifer,
Like the people in Vermont we have to make sure that we start making their lives miserable. If protests like this took place wherever these fascists went they would have to restrict their lives and their families. Protests at their grocery stores, in parking lots, in front of restaurants, movies, skating rinks, any place where these people usually go. They won't hold town halls, and it show us that this strategy works.
When Judge Mershon's daughter's life was threatened it showed up in the news and then everyone forgot about it. When Judge Chutkin's life was threatened the same, and how many other people with Kash Patel and Musk's enemies list?
It took a young woman, Lucy Welch, to show us how to get to these people who accept and support this administration that we're going to fight them every inch of the way, vote them out, and make sure they know we know that they are a bunch of liars. She is a great role model for young people to follow.
I applaud Bill McKibben for putting up the video of her speaking. If this is what it takes to chase Vance and his family out of Vermont, it just might get through to the rest of them.
Nobodie's life was threatened, it was a peaceful demonstration that was personal and effective.