Who’s Complaining?

Hello, it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕

For my piece earlier this week about the Society for American Civic Renewal, the men’s-only, Christians-only secret society, I had one intentionally understated working title: Wealthy White Christian Men Plan to Form Right-Wing Elite.

We didn’t run with that, and for good reason. That story did not exactly demand reserve, so to speak. But the understatement goes to a fundamental truth about what’s going on in the case of SACR, and to an extent with Christian nationalism more broadly: it’s the same group of people that have been the elite since the country’s founding, white Christian men, fighting a rearguard action to hold on to power.
 

In the case of SACR, the group members are wealthy and credentialed. There are Harvard Law graduates, private equity financiers, successful businessman, the head of the Claremont Institute, local city council members. They call themselves new, but what’s radical about them is what’s old: coalescing to recreate an all-male, Christian, white elite that’s only been eroded in recent years.

I spoke to several experts who study Christian nationalism about this question. These guys have it all — what’s missing? What are they so mad about? In some part, the answers were familiar: their own ebbing status, a deeply held belief that the country has lost its way.

But there’s a deeper, unresolved issue here which goes more towards what they say Christian nationalism is: the idea that a very narrow, specific view of Christianity should define our country, and should play a supreme role in grounding national policy. If that’s really the case, then should it matter who is in charge? After all (and as we regularly see), a public servant of any race or creed could implement the policies that they likely prefer. Anyone can play politics, anyone can appeal to the subset of voters who wants this.

My guess is that would only whet their appetite. What they want, and as SACR said, is for their group to be in control: the wealthy Christian men of yore. It’s not standing athwart history and yelling stop; it’s an attempt to drag the country back towards a past that’s long gone.

We got the surprising news this week that the federal courts intend to self-police the growing problem of judge shopping. 
 

While Republicans wail that Democrats also seek to file cases in jurisdictions with more ideologically aligned judges (sure), the most egregious court manipulation is happening on the right. There’s a reason that a random district judge in Amarillo, Texas has become a national figure. 

The Judicial Conference is trying to root out the practice by requiring a randomization of assignment within a district when it comes to cases seeking national injunctions on federal or state action. This could put a kibosh on President Matthew Kacsmaryk single-handedly dictating federal government action. Depending on how the policy is enforced, it could massively decrease the power of these Trump judges to stymie the Biden administration whenever it tries to do anything big.
 

I’ll be keeping a close eye on the final policy text when it’s released; experts, on the whole ecstatic that the Conference took action, are wary about potential wiggle room for right-wing judges displeased with the loss of power.

Based on the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth from the right, it’s very clear that these folks know where their bread is buttered. 

“This was an unforced error by the Judicial Conference,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Thursday. “I hope they will reconsider, and I hope district courts throughout the country will instead weigh what is best for their jurisdictions, not half-baked guidance that does Washington Democrats’ bidding.”
 

Amid the capitulation to Donald Trump and the loss of the heart of his party, remaking the federal judiciary in a right-wing image is McConnell’s greatest triumph. He knows the threat this new policy poses to that carefully crafted world order.

Following the barrage of violence against election workers after the 2020 election, 14 states – both red and blue – have introduced or passed legislation to protect election workers against threats, harassment, and intimidation. 
 

Election officials and experts hope that these bills, part of a growing legislative trend, will help to decrease instances of violence against election workers during the 2024 election. 

“Having these laws on the books could be a very effective deterrent preventing someone from taking the step beyond being angry about the election to actually threatening or harming an election official,” David Becker, the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research told TPM.
 

Backers of these bills have emphasized that the legislation is bipartisan and not intended to be political, even if most instances of election worker intimidation were fueled by conspiracy theories backed by Donald Trump and his allies. Nicole Browne, president of the Indiana Association of County Clerks, Monroe County Clerk and the person at the forefront of pushing legislation to protect Indiana election workers, described Indiana’s legislation as simply being a “proactive” effort to protect workers before a violent episode, and not, as she describes it “a political thing.” 
 

Read more of TPM’s new coverage of threats to the upcoming election here.

• New in TPM Cafe: This new wave of Republicans is not reversing course. What seems like a shift on fundamental issues is, rather, the latest expression of the same underlying force that has propelled voters for nearly half a century.
• Ron Klain speaks to TPM: Former Biden chief-of-staff Ron Klain makes his case for believing that Biden can hold it all together and defeat Trump a second time.
• Kari Lake dabbles in sanity: After earning an endorsement from the NRSC at the beginning of the year, Kari Lake is trying to appear less insane to Arizonans who have had the unfortunate experience of being exposed to her politics since 2020.
• Delay, delay, delay: Federal prosecutors have started to produce tens of thousands of documents in response to a subpoena from Donald Trump in the New York state hush money case, threatening to delay the start of that trial by weeks.