Posts by Robert Hubbell
It was a great honor and a total blast to chat with @rbhubbell.bsky.social for his Today's Edition newsletter about our campaign in MA-08! Check out the video of our whole conversation in (appropriately) today's edition!
roberthubbell.substack.com/p/as-another...
"Take a breath . . . and then prepare for the next battle. Ours must not be the generation that falters in preserving the flame of democracy for the next generation.
Stay strong"! open.substack.com/pub/roberthu...
"It is difficult to endure Trump’s ugly rhetoric. The antidote is to be the best Americans and global citizens we can be, in the hope that the rest of the world sees us and knows we represent America".
Follow @rbhubbell.bsky.social if you aren't doing so already.
open.substack.com/pub/roberthu...
You are correct. The authority cited in the executive order for paying TSA is a statute that prohibits using funds for any purpose other than that specified in the appropriations bill. Trump is violating the Antideficiency Act.
I discussed this issue at greater length in my Today’s Edition newsletter dated 3/27/26, "Trump reminds us why we are rallying on Saturday," bit.ly/4sGvfRY
The Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1), says no person may “make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation.” It is a felony to willfully spend money not appropriated by Congress. 31 USC 1350.
The only legal authority cited in the memo, 31 USC 1301(a), contains a PROHIBITION on using funds. It reads, in part, “Appropriations shall be applied ONLY to the objects for which the appropriations were made.”
Trump's “presidential memo” [not an executive order] to pay TSA is here: bit.ly/4vbrDZU. It authorizes DHS head Markwayne Mullin to use funds with "a reasonable and logical nexus to TSA operations." That test is a legal fiction for which Trump offers no authority.
As always, Josh Marshall has the best analysis of this mess.
In a just world, he would be the editor of the NYT or the WP.
He and his team do fantastic invaluable work and deserve your support.
@rbhubbell.bsky.social referred to this analysis in Today's Edition. It is spot on and led me to unsubscribe from several substacks that I had pretty much stopped reading because their repetitive messaging was more doom and gloom than I need in any day.
open.substack.com/pub/theconne...
When it comes to the impact of #MeToo, it’s important first of all to recognise that it was not a deus ex machina event out of nothing and nowhere. It was a consequence of the preceding five years of feminist upheaval, which in turn built on earlier feminist work. That upheaval took place as a vast public discourse educating the public about the pervasiveness of gender violence and the fact that it very often does not unfold as “stranger in alley attacks pure young lady”. It got people to let go of a lot of the stereotypes and slanders that protected rapists by blaming victims or portraying them as incapable of bearing trustworthy witness to their experience. It created the editorial willingness to publish stories that exposed movie producer/convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein and a host of other abusers and creeps and unpacked the mechanisms of protection they employed. That in turn resulted in changed laws. Six years after that 2017 upheaval, two women said, in a talk at the Practising Law Institute, “Prior to #MeToo, only three states had passed anti-harassment reforms.” They counted 70 workplace anti-harassment laws passed, in 40 US states and 3,000 pieces of legislation introduced overall that were impacted by #MeToo. A nationwide law passed in 2021 ended forced arbitration of sexual assault and harassment, giving victims the right to go to court. All this legislation created a lot more accountability and victim protection, but it’s the kind of consequence that often goes unnoticed. Unnoticed because it’s complicated, slow, incremental and, for the most part, legislative reform is not a hot headline. The eager obituary writers tended to announce that #MeToo had failed whenever further incidents of high-profile sexual abuse were reported (though the very fact they were reported and in some cases successfully prosecuted may have been a result of these shifts). The single most important impact of #MeToo, I believe, is akin to what many environmental victories look…
"It’s naively defeatist to assume millennia of patriarchy entrenched in law, culture, social arrangements and economics could be or should have been fully disassembled in one lifetime."
Palintir’s board of directors needs to stage an intervention before Karp gives another interview. Talk about supply chain risk . . . That was scary.
That’s not all I said. Check out the newsletter.
Trump cannot make, change, or repeal laws by executive order. Therefore, he cannot ban mail ballots or require proof of citizenship by executive order. True, he can try, but courts can, will, and have invalidated Trump’s efforts to regulate federal elections by executive order.
bit.ly/3MKhZfp
The Court reached the right result for the right reasons. It moved expeditiously. Three conservative justices applied the Major Questions Doctrine as a direct limit on presidential claims of delegated authority. The Court is not a reliable ally, but last Friday, it did the right thing.
Some commentators claimed the tariff decision was an illusory victory, a victory for big business, or that conservative justices would not apply the same rationale against Trump if he attempts to assert presidential power over federal elections.
We need to learn how to take a win.
bit.ly/4aGSd3r
The seven opinions by nine justices are unnecessarily complicated, but at root, the majority agreed that the Constitution means what it says (Congress has the authority to impose duties and taxes) and that a statute that does not mention tariffs does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Good news to start our weekend! The Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s illegal tariffs in an opinion that reasserts the separation of powers, the primacy of the Constitution, and the role of Congress in making law. Clear-cut victories are rare; we should celebrate!
bit.ly/3MHGKsz
But Trump cannot abide anyone getting attention that could be diverted to him. On Thursday, Trump gave a speech that was a frat-boy special: He asked his friends to “hold my beer” while he showed them how to dive from a third-floor balcony into the shallow end of a swimming pool. He flopped. Bigly.
Democrats are gleeful over the prospect of billionaires, creeps, and white supremacist Cabinet members explaining to voters why Trump’s Ponzi-scheme-RICO-enterprise administration is helping Americans who are struggling to buy groceries, as they fear that AI will replace their jobs.
bit.ly/4kL4bxu
One of their brilliant ideas is to dispatch members of Trump’s cabinet to key congressional districts to defend the administration’s handling of the economy, immigration, healthcare, and the Epstein files.
We can only hope that the administration follows through on this monumentally bad idea.
Trump’s handlers know that a blue wave is swelling in the distance, timed to crash on the Republican Party on November 3, 2026. In panic mode, they are “spitballing” ideas to convince voters that things aren’t as bad as they seem.
bit.ly/4kGIy1q
A brilliant piece that everyone should read. Ignore the sniping in the comments about who showed up first / was right all along. Buckle is right: Millions of Americans raised the alarm and were dismissed and ignored. No more. Stop fighting old battles and confront the one that matters: Trump.
if centrists admit resit libs were right, they should stop dismissing & disparaging us
my latest for @newrepublic.com
newrepublic.com/article/2060...
I hope that Anderson Cooper will explain why he really left CBS--which appears to be for the right reasons. But slinking out "to spend more time with my kids" fails to meet the moment. Otherwise, he will be remembered as the Susan Collins of Journalism. All of the concern, none of the conviction.
Don’t be Anderson Cooper. Don’t make up excuses for doing the right thing. Like Anderson Cooper, we are being called to choose where we stand in the defense of American democracy. Be proud to tell your children how you came to the defense of your country. That requires us to speak the truth.
Anderson Cooper quit CBS’s 60 Minutes with a gracious note explaining that he wanted to spend more time with his kids—when we all know he quit because he could not abide the editorial control over 60 Minutes by Trump's financial backers and Bari Weiss.
bit.ly/46RYyb6