scipan
scipan's Journalto everyone on DU: may you stay forever young
My favorite version. Unfortunately, just audio.

Eric Topol: *multiple* studies show a relationship between shingles vaccine and reduced dementia
Multiple recent studies, including 3 impressive natural experiments, consistently show a link between Shingles vaccines and reduced dementia. This week a nationwide S Korea study added a reduction of cardiovascular events
My summary Table. More here on dementia
https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-shingles-vaccine-and-reduction
Multiple recent studies, including 3 impressive natural experiments, consistently show a link between Shingles vaccines and reduced dementia. This week a nationwide S Korea study added a reduction of cardiovascular events
— Eric Topol (@erictopol.bsky.social) 2025-05-11T21:27:23.375Z
My summary Table. More here on dementia erictopol.substack.com/p/the-shingl...
Republicans silent as Trump refuses to commit to upholding the Constitution
🇺🇸 Rolling Stone reached out to all 53 GOP senators after the president said he didn't know whether he needs to honor the nation's founding document. None replied.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/republicans-silent-trump-refuses-commit-constitution-1235332711/
ðºð¸ âRolling Stone reached out to all 53 GOP senators after the president said he didn't know whether he needs to honor the nation's founding document. None replied.â
— The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler.bsky.social) 2025-05-11T13:52:41.158Z
www.rollingstone.com/politics/pol...

Steve Vladek re: suspension of habeas corpus
I got this as an email. Steve Vladek IMO always knows what he's talking about. I think this will become important and I want you guys to be well versed in it so you can counter and maybe not freak out.
Suspending Habeas Corpus
In response to adverse rulings in numerous immigration cases, Stephen Miller is raising the specter of suspending habeas. His argument is factually and legally nuts, but it's worth explaining *why.*
Steve Vladeck
May 9
Welcome back to One First, an (increasingly frequent) newsletter that aims to make the U.S. Supreme Court more accessible to all of us. If youre not already a subscriber, I hope youll consider becoming one (and, if you already are, upgrading upgrading to a paid subscription if your circumstances permit):
I was going to wait until Mondays regular issue to note the sad news out of the Supreme Court on Friday (that retired Justice David Souter passed away Thursday at the age of 85). But then Stephen Miller went on television Friday afternoon and made some of the most remarkable (and remarkably scary) comments about federal courts that I think weve ever heard from a senior White House official. Reacting to a series of high-profile losses in immigration cases this week, Miller raised the specter of President Trump suspending habeas corpus:
The Bulwark @thebulwark.com
Stephen Miller: "The writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So I would say that's an option we're actively looking at."
Well, the Constitution is clear. And that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts, thats the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases. So Congress actually passed whats called jurisdiction stripping legislation. It passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren't even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.
I know theres a lot going on, and that Miller says lots of incendiary (and blatantly false) stuff. But this strikes me as raising the temperature to a whole new leveland thus meriting a brief explanation of all of the ways in which this statement is both (1) wrong; and (2) profoundly dangerous. Specifically, it seems worth making five basic points:
First, the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, which is in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 is meant to limit the circumstances in which habeas can be foreclosed (Article I, Section 9 includes limits on Congresss powers)thereby ensuring that judicial review of detentions are otherwise available. (Note that its in the original Constitutionadopted before even the Bill of Rights.) I spent a good chunk of the first half of my career writing about habeas and its history, but the short version is that the Founders were hell-bent on limiting, to the most egregious emergencies, the circumstances in which courts could be cut out of the loop. To casually suggest that habeas might be suspended because courts have ruled against the courts in a handful of immigration cases is to turn the Suspension Clause entirely on its head.
Second, Miller is being slippery about the actual text of the Constitution (notwithstanding his claim that it is clear). The Suspension Clause does not say habeas can be suspended during any invasion; it says The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. This last part, with my emphasis, is not just window-dressing; again, the whole point is that the default is for judicial review except when there is a specific national security emergency in which judicial review could itself exacerbate the emergency. The emergency itself isnt enough. Releasing someone like Rümeysa Öztürk from immigration detention poses no threat to public safetyall the more so when the release is predicated on a judicial determination that Ozturk poses no threat to public safety.
Third, even if the textual triggers for suspending habeas corpus were satisfied, Miller also doesnt deign to mention that the near-universal consensus is that only Congress can suspend habeas corpusand that unilateral suspensions by the President are per se unconstitutional. Ive written before about the Merryman case at the outset of the Civil War, which provides perhaps the strongest possible counterexample: that the President might be able to claim a unilateral suspension power if Congress is out of session (as it was from the outset of the Civil War in 1861 until July 4). Whatever the merits of that argument, it clearly has no applicability at this moment.
Fourth, Miller is wrong, as a matter of fact, about the relationship between Article III courts (our usual federal courts) and immigration cases. Its true that the Immigration and Nationality Act (especially as amended in 1996 and 2005) includes a series of jurisdiction-stripping provisions. But most of those provisions simply channel judicial review in immigration cases into immigration courts (which are part of the executive branch) in the first instance, with appeals to Article III courts. And as the district courts (and Second Circuit) have explained in cases like Khalil and Öztürk, even those provisions dont categorically preclude any review by Article III courts prior to those appeals.
Toward the end of the video, Miller tries to make a specific point about whether revocations of TPS (temporary protected status) are subject to judicial review. Here, he appears to be talking about a California district court ruling in the TPS Alliance case, in which the Trump administration is currently asking the Supreme Court for a stay of the district courts injunction (the appropriate remedy in case the district court erred). And as the plaintiffs response brief in the Supreme Court explains in detail, the district court had very good reasons for holding that it had the power to hear their case.
I dont mean to overstate things; some of the questions raised by the INAs (notoriously unclear) jurisdiction-stripping provisions can get very messy. But theres a big difference, in my view, between reasonable disagreements over the language of complex jurisdictional statutes and Millers insinuation that Congress has categorically precluded judicial review in these cases. It just hasnt.
Fifth, and finally, Miller gives away the game when he says a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. Its not just the mafia-esque threat implicit in this statement (Ill make him an offer he cant refuse); its that hes telling on himself: Hes 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, its not the judicial review itself thats imperiling national security; its the possibility that the government might lose. Thats not, and has never been, a viable argument for suspending habeas corpus. Were it otherwise, thered be no point to having the writ in the first placelet alone to enshrining it in the Constitution.
If the goal is just to try to bully and intimidate federal judges into acquiescing in more unlawful activity by the Trump administration, thats shameful enough. But suggesting that the President can unilaterally cut courts out of the loop solely because theyre disagreeing with him is suggesting that judicial reviewindeed, that the Constitution itselfis just a convenience. Something tells me that even federal judges and justices who might otherwise be sympathetic to the governments arguments on the merits in some of these cases will be troubled by the implication that their authority depends entirely upon the Presidents beneficence.
***
Its certainly possible that this doesnt go anywhere. Indeed, I hope that turns out to be true. But Millers comments strike me as a rather serious ratcheting up of the anti-court rhetoric coming out of this administrationand an ill-conceived one at that.
Well be back (no later than) Monday with the next regular issue of One First. If youre not already a subscriber, I hope youll consider signing upand upgrading to a paid subscription if your circumstances permit.
Upgrade to paid
I hope you all have a great weekendwell, except Mr. Miller.
Washington Week full episode 4/18/25
https://www.pbs.org/video/washington-week-with-the-atlantic-full-episode-41825-5vsm4o/Does rump want to decisively ignore the courts' decisions and thereby have a confrontation? Will this constitute a constitutional crisis, or are we in one now?
This quote keeps coming back and I don't know who said it or when but it was years ago and it's so prescie
From a right winger in government I think. It's driving me nuts. Sounds like it could be from Karl Rove or someone like that.
Something like, when we have completed our capture of the tools of government, then we won't hide our motivations anymore. We'll be out there.
Does this ring a bell with anyone? I would sure appreciate it.
This is what has happened, even though they couldn't predict Trump.
Some infantile humor to brighten your evening
https://x.com/DUnitedGraphics/status/1906068749767045174?t=mYSSSC4g18li8TLjFFyFag&s=19It really is time to flush the MAGA GOP out and away!
Agree? Share the meme with a tweet.
#DemsUnited

Hope this works
I think DU is being slowed down somehow. I keep getting "can't be reached" messages.
This hasn't happened to me before. Maybe rarely.
Anyone else?
ETA: I'm on T-Mobile. I'm over my 50 gig limit but that happens every month around this time. Never much difference.
LIVE CELEBRATION on Philadelphia channel:
https://6abc.com/watch/live/I love to watch this!
Can we please have a hierarchy of awful things TSF did today?
I can feel myself getting back into low grade panic mode again, like I felt during the first 4 years.
What's the worst thing?
Me: got rid of USAID. I read about it on r/fednews. (He put about 10 or more higher ups on paid leave)
Maybe there should be a weekly poll or something, so people don't get distracted.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Chicago and Milwaukee
Home country: USA
Current location: Alexandria, VA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 2,894