?After Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced his intention to help break a potential filibuster of the Republican spending bill, America’s fascist president, Donald Trump, took to Truth Social to praise his old friend: “Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing,” he wrote. “This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning.”

Schumer’s stance justifiably angered the Democratic base, as it gave away all leverage the anti-fascist coalition has for the foreseeable future to stop Trump’s illegal power grab. The minority leader defended himself from progressive criticism, saying he had the overwhelming support of his caucus, which I actually don’t doubt, despite the fact only nine other Democratic senators voted with him.

I’m no expert in Senate procedure, but it’s my understanding any member of the body could have denied the bill unanimous consent, forcing a debate which would give the opposition time to mobilize against the legislation. No Democratic-aligned senator did that, including various liberal darlings. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion this was all carefully-coordinated political theater.

In other words, Democrats who were retiring or not immediately up for reelection supported the Republican bill, knowing it would anger their progressive base. These senators provided cover for other Democrats to vote against the legislation. Perhaps this is overly cynical, but I don’t think so. Any senators who genuinely object to Schumer’s stance should publicly call for new minority leadership.

The progressive base must assume any Democrat who doesn’t do this actually supports Schumer’s handling of the showdown. They should be primaried by Democrats willing to take the fight to fascist Republicans seeking to establish an authoritarian state. We urgently need a Tea Party-like movement from the left, which will sweep all the accommodationist Democrats from office.

The Democratic coalition has a wide variety of policy goals. For instance, I’d like to see a massive infusion of federal funding into cultivated-meat research. The new protein is grown from livestock cells, without slaughter. The emerging technology is the most promising means of reducing nonhuman suffering and premature death. However, none of our goals can be achieved under a fascist government.

In order to save American democracy, we need a fighting opposition party. Building such an organization will mean replacing the Democratic organization root and branch. There are only a handful of incumbents worth saving, in my view, and even they could benefit from left-wing primary challengers pushing them to fight harder. Frankly, the current era requires vicious partisans.

A good place to start, however, is launching credible primary challenges against any national Democratic politician who supports keeping Schumer as Senate minority leader. While I’ve had many criticisms of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, to his credit, he held his caucus together, in opposition to the Republican spending bill. Schumer betrayed the anti-fascist coalition he purportedly represents.

At the risk of surrendering independent thought to negative polarization, if Trump is praising the actions of a nominal opposition leader, that leader has almost certainly failed at doing his or her job. We have to primary Schumer and other Democrats who voted for the Republican legislation. But we also have to primary Democrats who won’t publicly call for a change in Senate minority leadership.


Jon Hochschartner lives in Connecticut. He is the author of a number of books, including The Animals’ Freedom Fighter: A Biography of Ronnie Lee, Founder of the Animal Liberation Front. Visit his blog at SlaughterFreeAmerica.Substack.com.

Brad Schimel was a one-term Wisconsin attorney general, serving from 2015 to 2019, before being voted out. In a recent YouTube post, attorney Tom Dawson, who headed the Environmental Protection Unit at the Wisconsin Department of Justice, described how he observed Brad Schimel unfairly favoring polluters when Schimel was attorney general. Dawson concluded that Schimel was unfit for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

 

I had a similar experience with a water quality case when I was a state of Wisconsin administrative law judge conducting environmental hearings for the Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA). I remember it very well because, for me personally as well as for the parties, it was the case from hell. Personally, because it was initially scheduled on the day that my late wife Rebecca passed. It was hell for the parties, too, because the case dragged on for eight years. I wonder if any of that extended litigation would have happened if Schimel hadn’t been attorney general or if he’d had more respect for the rule of law.

 

The case was by far the most egregious regulatory failure that I’d encountered in many years of hearing water law cases. A large dairy categorized as a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) sought a permit to expand its operations. The local area had features that had severely impacted groundwater quality. Several expert witnesses testified that up to 50% of private wells in the township were contaminated and that as many as 30% of wells had tested positive for E. coli bacteria. No witness disputed those numbers. Mothers testified that they worried when their children bathed, lest they imbibe some of the filthy bath water.

 

I entered a decision on behalf of DHA on Oct. 29, 2014. It allowed the dairy to expand its operation, but it imposed two important new conditions. It required that the DNR put limits on the number of animal units, and it also required that the dairy conduct off-site groundwater monitoring to protect the water quality of nearby farms. By law, my decision was the final legal decision of the DNR unless appealed to a circuit court or the DNR secretary.

 

Ten months later and well after the time limits for appeal, in September 2015 the DNR secretary overturned my order and struck the two conditions protecting water quality. Why? Because of an attorney general opinion issued by Schimel and Assistant Attorney General Daniel Lennington on Aug. 18, 2015.

 

That attorney general's opinion argued that my decision conflicted with 2011 Act 21, in that it imposed conditions on the water quality permit without the DNR having explicit authority to do so. That argument, later rejected by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, had been available to the parties in my case at the time of their briefing of the legal issues informing my decision.

 

Further, issuance of that attorney general's opinion was highly unusual. It was requested by the then DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp, even though such a request directly conflicted with longstanding Department of Justice policy against issuing such opinions during litigation. DOJ policy was clear and longstanding: “An opinion should not be requested on an issue that is the subject of current or reasonably imminent litigation since an opinion of the attorney general might affect such litigation.”

 

Indeed, it was the first time during my 24-year career as an administrative law judge that an attorney general's opinion directly addressed a reviewable issue in one of my Division of Hearings and Appeals decisions. It was especially odd because it was issued after the parties had had an opportunity to address the same issues in a four-day contested case that included extensive briefing. Further, Secretary Stepp had already denied an effort to overturn my decision by her own review.

 

After Schimel issued his opinion, Stepp later reversed herself and struck the two new permit conditions. That seemed to me at the time to be an end run around the contested case hearing process and its time limits for appeal. It still strikes me as a violation of the due process rights of the parties who had retained lawyers and experts at some expense to address the same issues. At a minimum, it displayed a lack of respect for the environmental hearing process.

 

In July 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld my October 2014 DHA decision, finding that the DNR had clear authority to impose both permit conditions ordered in my original decision. Significantly, that decision came when the Wisconsin Supreme Court had a conservative majority. A permit containing those two new conditions was finally entered in 2022.

 

Does Brad Schimel respect the rule of law? My experience was that Attorney General Schimel demonstrated a profound lack of respect for the environmental hearing process. His late and highly unusual intrusion into the case on behalf of the CAFO needlessly extended the case from hell.

 

I will be voting for Susan Crawford for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

 

 

Jeffrey D. Boldt was an administrative law judge for the Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals from 1991 to 2016. He is also the author of two legal thrillers with environmental themes, "Blue Lake" (2022) and "Big Lake Troubles" (2024). More at: Jeffreydboldt.net.