Hello it's the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕

Drenched by a flood of stories about right-wing Supreme Court justices partaking in episodes of various unethical conduct, Senate Democrats had no choice but to … gesture vaguely in the direction of oversight.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week really started out with a bang, as members were faced not with Chief Justice John Roberts — who had flatly rejected Chair Dick Durbin's (D-IL) invitation — but with a panel of (I'm sure very nice) stodgy ethics and law experts.

The exercise was downright soporific. Republicans performed the greatest grievance hits — Clarence Thomas, but circa 1991, Robert Bork, etc. etc. — while Democrats tepidly suggested that all other levels of the judiciary do bind themselves to an ethics code, and maybe perhaps perchance the Supreme Court should start thinking about having one too.

It was quite the juxtaposition: Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) mocking Democrats for being unable to stomach some Court losses — losing a constitutional right just being another day at the racetrack — beside one of the most emotional moments from a Senate Democrat, when Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) got worked up about a witness criticizing the Department of Agriculture.

An alien descending upon the hearing would have concluded that Republicans had been grievously wronged, not that they had been gifted a Supreme Court supermajority that will likely endure for decades.

Some of this is practical: There are no easy options to reform the Court at this point. Democrats would have to expand the Court or limit its jurisdiction, both of which are massive changes (proponents of these measures would argue that the Court is so thoroughly rotted and all-powerful that such changes meet the moment).

Some of it is defense: Democrats are worried that as campaign season heats up, they may need Republicans to help get some of their nominees over the line and are wary of pissing them off (though the same dynamics that will make vulnerable Democrats less likely to keep in line would also, logically, keep Republicans from wanting to help out the opposition party).

Some of it is characterological: Even now, after Donald Trump and Jan. 6 and all the rest, Democrats still get squeamish about doing anything that can be seen as a partisan attack, about getting down in the mud and fighting back. When I asked many of the members of this committee about an idea circulating around Senate policy wonks on Twitter, that they may be able to appoint a proxy for the indefinitely absent Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and push through subpoenas to haul the justices' asses before their committee, I got a mix of blank stares and preemptive headshakes.

We have now witnessed, in multiple elections, the energy this Court can unlock, a dynamic which has benefited Democrats so far. But they still seem utterly bamboozled about how to translate that activation into any semblance of a political strategy, and far too polite to even echo the rage and pain of their constituents. 
 

More on other news below. Let's dig in. 

— Kate Riga

Any Day Now

The good ol' boys in Tallahassee wrapped Florida's annual legislative session on Friday morning, after sixty days of passing legislation to Gov. Ron DeSantis' right-wing agenda. Among the proposals approved include a six-week abortion ban, permitless concealed carry, and several anti-"woke" bills seeking to roll back trans rights.

The Republican-controlled state house also passed legislation that just happens to benefit the governor personally, like allowing him to hide his travel records and nixing the "resign to run" provision in state law so he could simultaneously run the state and for president.

Speaking of, we're due for a formal campaign announcement any day now: DeSantis has long been expected to launch his bid after the sessions ends, and NBC News reported back in April that he could announce a presidential exploratory committee as soon as mid-May.

— Kaila Philo

Zephyr Weighs Appeal To State Supreme Court

Montana Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr and her legal team might take up their lawsuit against the Republican House Speaker Matt Regier and Sergeant at Arms Bradley Murfitt all the way to the state Supreme Court.

This came after District Court Judge Mike Menahan denied Zephyr's request to return to the state House on Tuesday. Zephyr — who's the only transgender lawmaker in the state — was banned from the House floor by her Republican colleagues last week for the remainder of the legislative session for remarks she made on gender-affirming care legislation the House was considering.

"It's a dark day in Montana, when a conservative supermajority can vote to strip a duly elected representative of her constitutional rights. We do not believe that's what the law in Montana provides," Legal Director for ACLU of Montana Alex Rate told TPM after the judge's decision. "We are considering all options including a potential appeal to the Montana Supreme Court."

— Emine Yücel

You Know Who Loves Talking About Ratings? Nope. Glenn Greenwald

There are people out there who think consumption is a measure of quality. According to this line of thinking, NYT best sellers are the best books, box office sensations are the best movies, and restaurants who sell the most food have the best cuisine.

None of these things are true, of course. Consumption may or may not correlate to quality. You have to account for things like marketing and distribution, for example. If you want to get philosophical you can ask, well what even is good?

Which brings me to Glenn Greenwald. For the last few years, Glenn has been obsessed with ratings. It's an almost Trumpian obsession. A common line would be something like "Does (insert MSNBC host) ever consider why nobody watches their show? Corporate media is dying."

You won't catch me pouring one out for corporate media. On that, Glenn and I agree. But ratings are a peculiar dunk. There's a kind of logical incoherence to running about ratings while hyping up independent journalism and sticking up for the little guy. By definition a lot of the most important work—not just now, but always in the history of mankind—occurs on the fringes, with the weirdos who want not to toe the line but push society forward by challenging what is popular.

After wondering about this for years, this tweet really got me. What is the implication here? That despite the jingoistic, racist, sexist, homophobic rants, Tucker was good because of his ratings?

It's hard not to read this as a long-form temper tantrum from Glenn over never being shown the love he thought he deserved for his legitimately very good work, and so now he wants to let everyone know how cool he is now. The whole thing smacks of high school, and fwiw, I was very popular, Glenn.

— Joe Ragazzo

"That'll be up to them. They are the ones that'll get the documents." 

That was Sen. Ron Johnson's (R-WI) answer when a Fox News anchor asked if the recent allegations being peddled by Republicans against President Biden and his family turns out not to be credible, will Republicans acknowledge that?

At least someone in the Republican party admits that whether the supposed allegations are true or false or make believe does not matter. As long as Fox News lets them keep yelling about Biden and amorphous, spooky allegations in the same sentence, all is well.  

— Emine Yücel