What I'm reading in the aftermath
For almost two years now, I’ve been planning and failing to get back into some sort of personal writing practice. On Thursday—two days after Americans decided to reelect Donald Trump—I decided that the best thing I could do for myself was start that writing practice by putting down my thoughts on the election. And I did that, and what came out was trite, depressing, and unmoored. I have no thesis on the election and, at least at this point, nothing interesting to say about it.
So, instead of torturing the internet with that post, I decided to collect the good media that I’ve been reading/watching in the aftermath. Some of it is election-related, some of it is comfort. I hope it helps you.
Election-related
Ken White, And Yet It Moves, Popehat Report, Nov. 6, 2024: This was the first thing I read after the election, and it was a salve. I love Ken White (despite his conservative tendencies) for his humor and sober realism about the law, and for his ability to avoid apocalyptic thinking in the style of the resistance libs. So I was surprised by his clear-eyed, emphatic writing on the dangers posed by Trump II. On Wednesday, when I needed it, this column was able to lift me out of the fuck—it is energizing and at the same time comforting.
Casey Newton, What tech wants from Trump, Platformer, Nov. 7, 2024: Casey Newton has been my go-to on social media, content moderation, and how those issues intersect with politics and culture since he launched Platformer. His November 7 column is characteristically succinct and clear-eyed about what’s coming in tech in the second Trump administration. And, in an aside, it points to what I think will be one of the most interesting aspects of Trump II: the contradictory aims among the tech oligarchs who helped bring Trump to power that will inevitably come to the fore.
Mike Masnick, We Need To Fight For Free Speech More Than Ever, Techdirt, Nov. 7, 2024: This short post by Mike Masnick at Techdirt makes two points that I fear will get lost in the post-election punditry: (1) the first Trump administration was a disaster for free speech, and (2) the second Trump administration will only be worse. With a trifecta in the political branches, a judiciary unmoored from anything resembling neutral application of legal principles, and, soon, an obedient civil service, I have no doubt that Trump II will lead an assault on free speech that this country has not seen since the fall out after 9/11.
Not (directly) election Related
Martha (Netflix 2024): Like every other zillennial, I was only vaguely aware of Martha Stewart before her 2015 appearance at the Comedy Central roast of Justin Bieber launched her back into the mainstream. Martha is an uncompromising documentary by R.J. Cutler about Stewart in the first period of her fame. Starting from her childhood in New Jersey, and running through her incarceration in the early 2000s, this documentary paints a picture of a cold bitch, driven primarily by her need for selfish kind of freedom and independence—who still comes off surprisingly likable. There’s maybe no better icon for era of girlboss, cunt (positive) feminism than the Martha Stewart portrayed in this documentary.
Oral Argument, Washington v. Pelligirini, No. 23-1566 (Oct. 30, 2024): This case has everything: allegations of police misconduct, weird state post-conviction review procedures, debates over the application of Maryland-law collateral estoppel in § 1983 litigation, Judge Quattlebaum’s charming North Carolina accent. Worth a listen if you share my peculiar obsessions with federal civil procedure and post-conviction review.
Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 6:24-cv-00306 (E.D. Tx. Nov. 7, 2024): This is an opinion from Trump-appointed District Judge Campbell Barker (who was, until 2015, an IP lawyer) holding that President Biden’s Keeping Families Together program (which allowed undocumented spouses of lawful permanent residents to be paroled in the United States) is unlawful. I highlight it because it exemplifies two tendencies of Trumpist judges that I think will become much more pronounced as Trump completes his takeover of the federal judiciary. First: Texas always has standing. Despite having almost no colorable claim of any injury caused by granting parole to immigrants who were already here, Judge Campbell concludes that Texas has the kind of particularized injury necessary to allow it challenge what amounts to a modest regulatory change. Second: everything a Democrat does is barred by statutory text. In this, the word “into” apparently bars parole for immigrants who are illegally present in the United States, despite that the statute allows parole “into” the United States for immigrants in deportation proceedings (i.e., ones who were already here). Watch this space.