We've reached our critical tipping points
Discussions about 'tipping points' have been getting plenty of coverage in the last few years as the planet hurtles forward in a climate crisis we seem incapable of stopping. Ice caps and glaciers are melting, sea levels rising more rapidly than expected, acidification of the oceans, and vast wildfires sweep the globe as the Sixth Mass Extinction event wipes species from existence at a sickening pace.
What's not been normally referred to as such is the 'tipping point' we have now reached in the governance of our nation. But make no mistake, what's going on right now with the would-be king in the White House fully qualifies as a tipping point — from democracy and adherence to the law and Constitution to a dictatorship under an individual who claims he is 'done playing by the rules' and now turns our own military against we, the people.
Apparently this delusional old man has forgotten what happened the last time a king tried to suppress freedom in this country. That was 250 years ago, when those who fled the oppressions of monarchy for the liberty of a new nation rose up to throw the king's heel off their necks.
Just as the founders of the United States kicked the king's royal troops out, make no mistake that the fire of liberty and democracy continue to burn hot as the 'No Kings!' movement sweeps our nation with more than 1,800 demonstrations planned for June 14th. If the red coats could not extinguish the flame of liberty on which this nation was founded, neither will the red hat grifter-in-chief who wants to play king.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the tipping point we have reached in Montana's world famous rivers and wild trout fisheries. As recently pointed out in a grim assessment of the impacts of the climate crisis here in the Big Sky State, we are at a point in early June with low flows and high water temperatures that have not occurred recently until late July-August.
How bad is it? Well, according to the fisheries biologists at Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Clark Fork and Blackfoot are at one-third of their usual flows. Stretches of the Big Hole are at their lowest levels in more than 15 years, with the upper river — where the last of the Fluvial Arctic Grayling in the lower 48 states are barely hanging on — has already hit 70 degrees, nearing the lethal point for trout and above that point for grayling.
The Madison River coming out of Yellowstone National Park is now reaching its historic 1931 lowest point, with flows at half of usual and, like the Big Hole, temperatures already approaching 70 degrees. It's so bad NorthWestern Energy says it 'may not be able to meet all the needs of the system' and is limiting outflows from Hebgen Reservoir, which is not expected to fill this year.
The Dearborn River, which drains the now basically snow-free Rocky Mountain Front, is already lower than it's been in 55 years — likewise the Sun River, which is at a stunning 1/14th of usual flows. A comprehensive assessment of our 'read 'em and weep' river flows is here at the USGS site.
As our 'tipping points' inexorably mount, the choices become clear. To protect our liberty and freedom, we must reject the would be king. To protect Montana's world famous rivers, we must likewise reject his insane, planet-killing fossil fuel agenda — or neither our nation nor Montana's famous rivers will ever 'be great again.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
Florida's culture war gets dinged in court
Florida's culture war has faced trouble in court. Why it matters: Activists have long said the state's restrictions on pronouns and school libraries violated federal civil rights law and the U.S. Constitution; recent rulings, for now, bolster their argument. Catch up quick: Gov. Ron DeSantis signed several bills in 2023 aimed at the LGBTQ+ community, among them a measure that bars K-12 schools from requiring employees and students to use a person's preferred pronouns. The same law lets parents challenge classroom and library books that "describe or depict sexual conduct," requiring their removal within five days and keeping them off shelves until the matter is resolved. Critics called the legislation "an all-out attack on freedom." Driving the news: Federal judges sided against the state in separate challenges to the law last week. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker said Florida's pronoun restriction violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employee discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," WUSF reported. Walker, however, paused further action on the case, which concerns a Hillsborough teacher, until an appeals court weighs in on a Georgia case over an alleged Title VII violation involving a transgender employee. U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza in Orlando, meanwhile, ruled that the state's prohibition on material that describes sexual conduct ran afoul of the Constitution.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Amy Coney Barrett Offers Some Advice to Judges
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett offered advice to judges and others in the legal community during an address at the Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference on Monday night. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office for comment via email. Why It Matters Barrett has emerged as a swing vote on the nation's highest court. Although she was appointed by President Donald Trump, she has at times shown a willingness to break from the court's conservative majority. Americans' confidence in the judiciary has fallen in recent years, according to Gallup, which in December 2024 found that only 35 percent of Americans have confidence in the judicial system and courts. The pollster's latest survey on Supreme Court approval yielded similar skepticism from Americans, with only 39 percent approving of the High Court. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Washington on October 21, 2020. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Washington on October 21, 2020. Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images What To Know Barrett addressed hundreds of judges and other legal professionals during a brief address at the conference in Chicago. She urged courts to maintain a sense of "camaraderie and professionalism," Fox News reported. She acknowledged that there are disagreements in the legal field, Bloomberg reported. "Law is a profession that, unlike some others, operates continually under the strain of disagreement," she said, according to Bloomberg. "Doctors cooperate and coordinate to deal with patients. Engineers work together to build a bridge. But litigants and their lawyers are pitted against one another on opposite sides." While this may sound "bleak," it allows attorneys too learn how to argue "without letting it consume relationships," she said. "I'm grateful to the way our bar conducts itself in that regard, because that is what enables the judicial system to work well, that collegiality," she said. During the most recent Supreme Court term, Barrett sided with liberal justices on some issues, including a key deportation case in which she opposed the Trump administration's use of wartime legislation to deport civilians, or a case in which she rejected efforts to freeze foreign aid funding. She has also given the Trump administration wins, including in her ruling on a major birthright citizenship case. What People Are Saying Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in May, per NBC News: "In our judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. And that innovation doesn't work judiciary is not independent. Its job is to, obviously, decide cases but, in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive, and that does require a degree of independence." Gallup, in December 2024: "Few countries and territories have seen larger percentage-point drops in confidence in the judiciary [over a similar four-year span] than the U.S. These include Myanmar [from 2018 to 2022] overlapping the return to military rule in 2021, Venezuela [2012-2016] amid deep economic and political turmoil, and Syria [2009-2013] in the runup to and early years of civil war, and others that have experienced their own kinds of disorder in the past two decades." What Happens Next Supreme Court terms begin on the first Monday of October. This year, it's October 6.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump administration could attack state laws it says stifle US economy
The Trump administration is hunting for state laws that drag down the US economy. But axing statutes it sees as problematic will depend on how it wields the Constitution's powerful Commerce Clause. Last Friday, the Justice Department and the National Economic Council announced a joint initiative to "address" state statutes that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy.' State regulations, policies, causes of action, and practices were also included as targets. The plan is meant to support the White House's deregulation agenda, which President Trump described in a series of separate executive orders issued in January, February, and April. Those orders emphasize the administration's goal of alleviating policies that it views as "unnecessary burdens" on Americans, small businesses, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship. In an unusual twist, the agencies also solicited help from US citizens, asking members of the public to point out economy-slowing state laws and to propose legal theories that could reverse the laws' adverse effects. "They're crowdsourcing their legal theories," said Emily Berman, a constitutional scholar with the University of Houston Law Center. However, the plan stopped short of explaining what theories the administration would rely on to undo suspected harmful state laws. Jeremy Rovinsky, a federal prosecutor who teaches constitutional law at Crestpoint University, said the language used in the DOJ's plan to attack state laws shows that the Trump administration has the Commerce Clause in mind. "It's clear that Trump's lawyers are thinking through it this way," Rovinsky said. "The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to regulate state power in an almost unlimited way." But the Commerce Clause doesn't guarantee the administration power to alter state law. The provision vests power to regulate commerce in Congress, not in the executive branch. A more straightforward type of challenge, the lawyer said, is one where state law directly conflicts with federal statutes. In those cases, the Justice Department could raise preemption challenges under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Preemption challenges argue that a state rule essentially steps on the federal government's toes, Berman said. The Commerce Clause Absent such a clear-cut conflict, the administration would need more legal leverage to countermand state law. That leverage could come from the Commerce Clause, the constitutional scholar said, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. "Anything that regulates commerce falls within the scope of Congress's authority, which has been interpreted relatively broadly," Berman said. To tap into the federal government's authority over commerce, the administration would need to persuade lawmakers to pass new federal legislation invalidating state law. Ravinsky said he sees the DOJ's announcement as an opening salvo to persuade members of Congress. "I think the people that are in [Trump's] inner legal circle wrote that document the way they did, because they want to give Congress a heads up to have them codify what he's doing with executive actions into actual congressional legislation," Ravinsky said. Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law, said it's possible, but not certain, that pressure on Congress from either President Trump or others in the executive branch would lead to new, preemptive federal laws. "If the president says this is a big priority, then maybe a fair number of people in both the House and the Senate would go along with it," Entin said. "Now, whether there will be enough votes, that's a separate question," he added. "Congress does not legislate very much." "If Congress wants to move legislation against state laws that they say hurt the economy, they need 60 votes in the Senate," Entin said. "And the chances of getting 60 votes in the Senate for much of anything these days are pretty slim." The Supreme Court has largely upheld Congress' power over interstate commerce in a series of cases evaluating the Commerce Clause stretching back more than 80 years. In 1942, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Wickard v. Filburn that expanded the federal government's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. The case involved an Ohio farmer who grew more wheat than permitted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The court rejected the farmer's argument that the federal government could not regulate his excess wheat supply under the act because it was grown for personal, rather than commercial, use. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the court reasoned that while a single farmer's excess crop may not substantially impact interstate commerce, the same actions, if taken in the aggregate by multiple farmers, could indeed influence the national market. Despite the Supreme Court's longstanding support for expansive application of the Commerce Clause, Entin suspects that even new federal legislation could fail to preempt certain state laws. States still retain their police powers, he said, and can exercise those powers as long as doing so doesn't interfere with interstate commerce. "It's not clear to me that Congress can use its commerce power to preempt the state's exercise of their police powers, even if state laws may, in fact, be unwise or even foolish," Entin said. The 'dormant' Commerce Clause Still another, and equally uncertain, path to challenge state laws could involve a judge-created theory known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause," the lawyers said. The concept further expands Congress' power over interstate and foreign commerce by limiting states' authority to regulate commerce even when Congress has not directly legislated on an issue. The theory is intended to prevent states from adopting discriminatory, protectionist laws that benefit local economies to the detriment of the national market. The theory was put to the test and shown to have limits in a recent case decided by the Supreme Court. In 2023, the court loosely upheld a California state law known as Proposition 12, which criminalized California sales of pork meat that came from pigs housed in pens measuring less than 24 square feet — 10 square feet larger than the industry standard. The Iowa Pork Producers Association and 23 states argued that the law discriminated against out-of-state pork producers, imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce. However, Berman said, Dormant Commerce Clause challenges to state rules have historically been brought by private litigants, not the federal government. "It's going to be a private business sector actor saying, 'Our business is being harmed ... we shouldn't have barriers to markets along state lines." Entin agreed that it would be unusual for the federal government to sue states over their regulations. Alternatively, he said, Congress could try to persuade states to change laws through conditional federal spending. The administration may not find support from the high court for pushing Congress' authority over commerce even further, Entin added. Conservatives on the court in recent years have expressed "real skepticism" about whether courts should be in the business of enforcing the Commerce Clause, he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
