In the news today: Responding to the transparent absurdity of the Supreme Court's stance on the Texas "bounty hunter"-premised state ban on abortions, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he's calling the court's bluff, pushing for a similar bounty-hunter bill that allows any Californian to sue those who manufacture, sell, or own assault rifles in the state. How will court conservatives justify their backing of one but not the other?
Helpful tip: They won't try. The Supreme Court's hard-right contingent has reliably landed on hard-right decisions even if their new reasoning blatantly contradicts their proclamations of only a few decisions back; this has produced reasoning so wildly inconsistent, from case to case, that colleagues and court watchers alike have made a game of calling it out. (Also three of the justices allied with an international extortionist and national traitor in order to get their robes, so let's not pretend there are any deep principles to be had here to begin with.)
On the nation's front pages, new news of PowerPoint documents circulating widely in Trump's inner circle describing the steps they would take to topple our government and erase an election went largely unmentioned. Meetings inside the White House on how to erase our constitutional government just don't have the dazzle of scoops on proper email handling protocols, no doubt.
Here's some of what you may have missed: