I'm finding myself more closely tied to the local activist groups via my local blog, and I'm realizing something about myself: there's a big part of my brain that likes doing things completely and absolutely. For example, a proof is a thorough argument. You can be certain that you're caught up on threads at Unfogged, but not on Facebook. (And you can pick up where you left off.)

Obviously keeping up with the news does not work that way - you're never exactly done - but there's some amorphous level where you feel like you have a handle on things.

Local activism is the exact opposite of that. There's no way to know that you've accumulated all the information in a situation. It's very hard to know the scope and percentage of questionable incidents your police department has participated in, and it's very hard to put what information you have into any sort of context. It's very hard to know if the goals of the activist organization were invented by some dreamy-eyed 22 year old absolutist, or if they found a parent organization online with well-designed goals and asks and used those. Or some amalgamation of these. Etc etc. I have a million questions, and so often there's no way for anyone to have the answer. (And 22 year old absolutists are the ones responding to the emails at the activist groups, with exasperatingly vague non-answers or answers to different questions than the one you asked.) At every step of the way, it's just impossible to get the lay of the land that you can get with larger contexts.

What the hell happened? Is this just straight up corruption?

NickS writes: I'm hoping that people on unfogged will have some perspective on whether this story is as bonkers as it sounds:

In the midst of the wave of anti-LGBTQ laws being passed across the nation in recent years, many of the nation's leading LGBTQ civil rights lawyers have also been defending themselves -- largely in secret -- as federal judges in Alabama have subjected dozens of those lawyers to an unprecedented investigation into their actions in bringing cases to challenge anti-trans laws.

Under federal court rules, plaintiffs can voluntarily dismiss any case without prejudice -- meaning, it could be refiled -- before the defendants take key actions in defense of it. Despite that, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke, a Trump appointee, raised concerns in April 2022 that lawyers' decisions to dismiss two challenges to Alabama's ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors that ended up in front of him "could give the appearance of judge shopping."

That claim, made in one paragraph of an order by Burke closing one of the cases, was then used by the then-chief judges of the three federal district courts in the state to launch what has become an ongoing, oppressive, two-year investigation into the lawyers' actions under the courts' "inherent powers" to address lawyers' behavior in their courts.

...

On April 8, 2022, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed the state's ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors into law.

[multiple cases were filed challenging it]

Neither case was initially assigned to Burke, who sits in the Northern District. The process that got the cases to him -- all in the week of April 11, 2022 -- is somewhat convoluted but essential to all that has transpired since.

Ladinsky went through a few judges. The first judge recused herself on April 11, and the second, a magistrate judge, was not agreed to by all parties, so the case was randomly reassigned to Judge Annemarie Axon, a Trump appointee, on April 14.

In the Middle District, meanwhile, the Walker lawyers had marked this case on the cover sheet as "related" to another case involving transgender issues that had been heard by Judge Myron Thompson. Thompson had ruled for the transgender plaintiffs in the earlier case, which was on appeal when the 2022 case was being filed, and a lawyer for the team called his chambers to let them know that further motions would soon be forthcoming.

Walker, however, was initially assigned to Judge Emily Marks, a Trump appointee. Although the plaintiffs filed a motion for the case to be reassigned to Thompson as a related case, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the new law, Marks, on April 13, instead asked the lawyers why the case shouldn't be transferred to the Northern District to be "decided with Ladinsky." Ultimately, and after some discussion with the Ladinsky legal team, the Walker team did not oppose the transfer, and Marks ordered the transfer of Walker "in light of the first-filed rule" on April 15.

When Walker was transferred to the Northern District, though, it was initially assigned to Burke, who lawyers familiar with Alabama's federal judges agreed was a poor draw, or even the worst draw, in the Northern District. The parties were planning to file a motion in one case or the other to have Walker consolidated with Ladinsky, and they discussed this with lawyers in the Alabama Attorney General's Office. Under what everyone believed to be the practice under the first-filed rule, that would mean both cases would be consolidated before Axon, with Ladinsky being the lead case.

Then, shortly before the close of business that day -- Good Friday and Passover, it should be noted -- two things happened in close succession: Burke scheduled an in-person status conference in Walker for Monday, and -- with no motions from any party -- Axon transferred Ladisnky to Burke "in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy."

No further reasoning was given, and the latter development in particular sent both legal teams into crisis.

Heebie's take: I have no expectation that it's less bonkers than it sounds.

Where are y'all getting your general interest and political news these days? I refuse to give money to the Times; The Chicago Tribune is gutted; the Sun Times is just local these days; the Post is being taken over by Murdoch fucks; the LA Times seems focused on California. The AP? Do we just assume that we have to take some right-wing crap to get regular news? It hurts to pay for that.

1. In December, Austin passed Phase 1 of the HOME ordinances, including:

- Allowing up to three units: Increasing the number of homes allowed on single-family lots to three units, giving homeowners the ability to provide on-site housing options to family members, a caregiver, or earn additional income.

- Including Tiny Homes: Making it easier to install a tiny home, an accessible and affordable way to add a small house to a property.

- Creating Preservation and Sustainability Bonuses: Incentivize saving existing homes that conserve neighborhood character and help keep materials out of area landfills.

- Encouraging the Creation of Smaller Homes: Regulates the size and scale of houses while promoting smaller "starter homes" for homebuyers.

Just recently, they passed Phase 2:

- Reduces the minimum lot size for single-family homes from 5,750 square feet to 1,800 square feet.

- Compatibility: Reduces height restrictions of new buildings based on their proximity to existing single-family homes.

- Equitable Transit-Oriented Development: Encourages transit-supportive development and income-restricted housing along the Project Connect Phase 1 Light Rail corridors.

- Electric Vehicle Charging: Creates a new zoning category that defines where EV charging facilities can be located and prevents them from becoming clustered within active or residential areas.

I don't know if there's a Phase 3 or not. Can I say how grateful I am for Austin to move the Overton Window like this? Heebieville City Council is very uncomfortable with these changes.

2. How 'bout that new President of Mexico?