In his dissent from denial of cert. in DeGraffenreid, Thomas J. asserts that a state court established in 1722 can't interpret a state constitutional provision adopted in 1776, because the US Constitution allows only the state legislature to do that./1 Remember, his judicial method is supposedly to follow the "original understanding" of the Constitution. Did the people of Pennsylvania "understand" that they were voiding their constitution and ousting their Supreme Court when they ratified the Constitution in 1787?

For people who wonder why there's so much right-wing energy around "vote fraud," (a virtually nonexistent phenomenon) should glean a lesson from Southern history. During the rise of Jim Crow, it was necessary to disfranchise Black voters in the South./1 In order to do this, they came up with the argument that Black voters were poor and ignorant and were either bribed or duped to vote as a bloc against their "true friends."/2

The essence of the Portland situation is this: Citizens are free to assemble peaceably and to protest. Those are not grudging tolerances of the all powerful leader, they are civic duties of a free people./1 It is certainly foreseeable that such assemblies can lead to violence or lawbreaking. But that comes in two kinds. 1. Small pockets at the edge of a peaceful rally. 2. Tumultuous disorder that leads to widespread violence and destruction./2