Pun Salad

The Eye Candy du Jour over there on your right is one of the many Getty images covering the "No Kings" march in New York City on October 18. Getty's caption claims that "over one hundred thousand" participated in NYC alone.

And then a couple weeks later, NYC elected Zohran Mamdani as its next mayor, and he'll go into office a few days from now, January 1.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown's article suggests "King Zohran I" might be a better title than Mayor Mamdani: Mamdani Needs a Maximalist Vision of Mayoral Power To Achieve His Goals. Lina Khan Has a Plan. (Yes, in this movie Lina is playing Thomas Cromwell to Zohran's Henry VIII.)

Strangely enough, there have been no 100K-strong protest marches on 7th Avenue in Manhattan about it. Why it's almost as if Gothamites are copacetic about one-man rule as long as the man is on the left.

Also of note:

• Why not? It's not as if Congress will have anything more important to do. We're about a year away from getting some new CongressCritters in DC, and Kevin D. Williamson has an agenda item for them: Yes, Impeach Him Again. (archive.today link)

  At this moment it is just barely possible, as a matter of arithmetic, that Democrats could go into January 2027 with a position in Congress that would enable them to successfully impeach and convict Donald Trump for his latest batch of high crimes and misdemeanors, which range from gross financial corruption to conducting an illegal war—a campaign of mass murder, in short—in the Caribbean. The corruption of the Republican Party is so complete that it is impossible to imagine a single Republican senator siding with the Democrats against Trump—meaning that Democrats would have to sweep the midterms, winning practically every contested seat, to arrive at the 67-vote minimum they would need to convict Trump after the relatively simple matter of impeaching him in a Democrat-controlled House, should that come to pass. I’d bet good money that, in the unlikely scenario in which they had the votes, Democrats would be happy to impeach and convict Trump—and not only Trump, but other members of his administration as well, and that they would go further and exclude them from holding future positions of public trust. I would cheer them on if they did. Hell, I’d check the columnists’ handbook and see if it was okay to send Chuck Schumer a bouquet of roses.

  But the most likely scenario at this time is that Democrats end up with a thin majority in the House while Republicans retain control of the Senate, possibly with a slightly diminished majority. The notion that victorious Democrats will exit the midterms vindicated and in a position to stage a final triumphant humiliation of Donald Trump looks very much like a fantasy at this time.

  In such a case, impeachment would be more a matter of political messaging than the campaign of effective constitutional hygiene that our moment requires. In general, I think Democrats probably should listen more to people like me when it comes to how they talk about certain issues and their vision of the national interest, but they are not going to do that, and, in this particular case, I do not have any Machiavellian advice to give them. Besides, working through that kind of political calculation is not really my role.

  Not that it matters, but (as I type) the Lott/Stossel Election betting Odds site gives the Democrats a 74.5% probability of controlling the House in 2027, and the Republicans a 67.5% probability of controlling the Senate.

  <cliché type="tired"> But a lot could happen between now and then. </cliché>

• Tom Steyer's too, while you're at it. The WSJ editorialists chime in: By All Means Raise Mitt Romney’s Taxes. It is a response to Mitt's NYT dreadful op-ed mentioned here on Sunday.

  The first point to make is that if Mr. Romney wants to pay more taxes, by all means go ahead. Write a check to the Treasury. It’s a writ of attainder to target an individual with legislation, Democrats, but maybe Mitt won’t mind.

  Mr. Romney is especially eager to raise the annual income cap on Social Security payroll taxes. That cap is $184,500 in 2026 and rises each year with inflation. Democrats want to raise the cap much higher or eliminate it. Mr. Romney thinks this should be the trade for entitlement reforms.

  Not likely. Democrats eliminated the income cap for Medicare payroll taxes of 1.45% (2.9% including employer) in 1993, but have you noticed a Democratic desire to reform Medicare? They ran against Mr. Romney in 2012 by saying his modest reform amounted to throwing grandma off a cliff.

  If you don't remember Tom Steyer: he ran for president in 2020. He came in sixth place in the New Hampshire primary, behind even Joe Biden (who came in fifth). But he squeaked by seventh-place Tulsi Gabbard!

  But his relevance here: he's a billionaire fond of (like Mitt) asking Please raise my taxes.

  Oh, and Tom's now running for California governor.

• On the civil liberties front. Jonathan Turley notes the latest tactic in Democratic Despotism: The left Moves from Censored to Compelled Speech.

  More than five years ago, I wrote in these pages of a growing trend on the left toward compelled speech — the forcing of citizens to repeat approved views and values. It is an all-too-familiar pattern. Once a faction assumes power, it will often first seek to censor opposing views and then compel the endorsement of approved views.

  This week, some of those efforts faced setbacks and challenges in blue states like Washington and Illinois.

  In Washington state, many have developed what seems a certain appetite for compelled speech. For example, Democrats recently pushed through legislation that would have compelled priests and other clerics to rat out congregants who confessed to certain criminal acts. Despite objections from many of us that the law was flagrantly unconstitutional, the Democratic-controlled legislature and Democratic governor pushed it through.

  The Catholic Church responded to the enactment by telling priests that any compliance would lead to their excommunication.

  U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston enjoined the law, and the Trump Administration sued the state over its effort to turn priests into sacramental snitches. Only after losing in court did the state drop its efforts.

  Jonathan also mentions the Stuart Reges imbroglio at the University of Washington, mentioned here yesterday.

• And a small victory here in the LFOD state. Damien Fisher brings the news from a city apparently too close to Massachusetts: Appeals Court Rules Nashua Flag Pole Policy Violates First Amendment.

  In its fight against free speech, it may be time for the city of Nashua to fly the white flag.

  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled Monday that Nashua’s Citizens Flagpole policy — used by city officials to block political messages they disliked — amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

  In a unanimous ruling authored by Judge Sandra Lynch, the court held that Nashua could not claim the Citizens Flagpole constituted “government speech,” a designation that would have allowed officials to pick and choose which messages were permitted.

  “Nashua’s attempt to characterize viewpoint-based decisions as to which flags are approved to fly on the Citizen Flag Pole within this short-lived program as government speech is unpersuasive,” Lynch wrote.

  Also (if you're in the mood for some salty language), see Granite Grok's Steve MacDonald on the decision: Nashua Loses, Scaers and Free Speech Win.

  You will be familiar with the numerous instances of the City of Nashua exercising unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. A commoner with a basic understanding of free speech could see it. But the City of Nashua is suffering from the “leadership” of a Machiavellian Narcissistic Psychopath (just my opinion) whose arrogance just cost the city a hefty sum in legal fees to defend the indefensible.

  It’s their own fault. They keep re-electing him. And he keeps behaving like a Nashole, and the city’s legal team plays along as if they are arrogant pricks like their dear leader or just afraid to give him good advice.

  Sadly, the sensitive citizens of Nashua will have to forego the protections desired by their city censors.