Iowa will have a recently offered 2025 edge on campus visiting this weekend. Hawkeyes haven't landed a pass-rusher yet, so could be a big weekend for them and potentially getting him back for an official in a couple weeks.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Who do you support?

Login to view embedded media
Vs.

Login to view embedded media

A couple of opinions today. Boring arbitration stuff. Boring MSPB appeal stuff on whether time limits for appeals form agency decisions are jurisdictional (other than the fact that the case involves a great story of a DoD guy who had time on his hands and kept at his case for five years and got to the court).

But the big enchilada today was that CFPB funding mechanism was upheld under the appropriations clause. Majority opinion by Thomas, who took a pretty straightforward textualist and minimalist approach to what the clause requires (here, basic specification of amount and purpose by Congress), with a fascinating constellation of the Chief, Soto, Kagan, Kav, Barrett, and Jackson joining him.

Now don't say he never did anything nice for you.

And in completely unrelated (hockey) news, I'm thrilled to see that one of my all time favorite Washington Capitals, Matt "The Paralyzer" Hendricks, has been named GM of the Iowa Wild:

Login to view embedded media

It is great to be an Iowa Wrestling fan.

Go Hawks!

With the endorsement of a specially convened session of lawmakers at Versailles, France on Monday became the first country in the world to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in its constitution — an effort galvanized by the rollback of protections in the United States.

The amendment referring to abortion as a “guaranteed freedom” needed the approval of three-fifths of lawmakers.

Hundreds of Parisians gathered on a crisp winter’s day to watch the proceedings live on a giant television screen at Le Parvis des Droits de l’Homme — or “Human Rights Square” — in central Paris, with the Eiffel Tower looming dramatically over the scene.
Before the political debate began, the television screen showed a montage of women’s rights campaigners around the world holding signs declaring, “My body is mine” and “My body, my choice.” The sound system blared Aretha Franklin’s “Respect.” Parisians driving by honked their horns.



France decriminalized abortion in 1975; abortion is legal for any reason through the 14th week of pregnancy. This amendment won’t change any of that.
But while other countries have inferred abortion rights protections from their constitutions, as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, France is the first to explicitly codify in its constitution that abortion rights are protected. France is not interpreting its constitution; it is changing its constitution.
“March 4, 2024 is now engraved in the great history of human rights and women’s rights as a historic turning point‚” said Senator Mélanie Vogel, one of the main backers of the bill.
The outcome was “also a promise for all women who fight all over the world for the right to have autonomy over their bodies — in Argentina, in the United States, in Andorra, in Italy, in Hungary, in Poland,” said lawmaker Mathilde Panot, who had introduced the bill in the National Assembly. “This vote today tells them: your struggle is ours, this victory is yours.”

A reaction to the United States​

Activists and politicians have been transparent that this is, above all, a response to what has been happening in the United States since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022 and determined that the right to abortion has no constitutional stature — it could no longer be inferred from constitutional privacy protections.



France has moved in the opposite direction, with its politicians saying that abortion is indeed a matter of constitutional relevance. And more than that: The right to an abortion should be a “guaranteed freedom.”
Macron moves to add abortion to France’s constitution, reacting to U.S.
“It’s interesting to see French politicians saying, ‘We’re going to take the constitution into our own hands and away from the courts, or at least limit how much discretion the courts are going to have in this area,” said Mary Ruth Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis and the author of “Roe: The History of a National Obsession.”
The overturning of Roe was a “major shock around the world,” said Floriane Volt, a spokesperson for Fondation Des Femmes, a women’s right’s organization that organized Monday’s gathering.

“In France, it helped us so that French politicians understood what we were saying to them for years and years … we have to fight for abortion rights,” she said.
In many countries, abortion is protected by law, not court decision
She added that she hoped that the success of the French campaign would strengthen other abortion rights movements.

“U.S. activists — don’t give up the fight,” said Lola Schulmann, an advocacy officer with Amnesty International in Paris and another organizer of Monday’s gathering. “What is happening in France is for you and all women fighting for abortion rights in the world.”

A protester holds a placard during a demonstration against abortion and euthanasia in Versailles, France, on Monday. (Geoffroy Van Der Hasselt/AFP/Getty Images)

What would it take to change the U.S. Constitution, too?​

In both the United States and France, polls show that a majority of people broadly support abortion rights. But abortion is more divisive in the United States than in France. That may be in part because France is proud of its commitment to secularism. It may also be because abortion in France has long been framed as a public health issue, rather than a privacy issue, said Stéphanie Hennette-Vauchez, a professor of public law at the University of Paris-Nanterre.



Changing the U.S. Constitution would be harder — it requires not only two-thirds majority support in both houses of Congress, but also ratification by at least 38 of 50 state legislatures.
“The obstacles are more significant,” Ziegler said.
She noted that one of the most “notorious examples” of how hard it is to change the U.S. Constitution was the failure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which declared that sex discrimination was unconstitutional in the United States. “I think most people would think that’s less controversial than an abortion amendment would be,” Ziegler said.
Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified in the 1780s, it has only been amended 27 times, including the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. “That sort of perspective gives you a sense of just how difficult it is” to change it, said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University. “It’s even more difficult today to come up with a supermajority given the political divisions.” By contrast, the current constitution of France, adopted in 1958, has been amended 24 times.



State constitutions in the United States can be amended more easily than the U.S. Constitution. And so, “for people supporting women’s rights, the strategy has been to go incrementally through the states, and hope to build eventually towards something nationally,” Ziegler said.
Since the end of Roe, six states — California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont and Ohio — have approved abortion-related constitutional amendments. At least 13 additional states are trying to get abortion amendments on their ballots this year.

The future of abortion rights in France​

In France, nothing will change immediately as a result of the new constitutional amendment.

The amendment doesn’t change the status quo or the content of legislation as it stands today. For instance, it is not suddenly legal for any reason to terminate a pregnancy after the 15th week of pregnancy. The French National Assembly and the Senate would need to pass legislation if they wanted to make that kind of change.


“It’s up to Parliament to regulate in this field,” Hennette-Vauchez said. But, going forward, “Parliament cannot do exactly what they want. They need to legislate in a particular direction. And that direction is one that would preserve the idea of a guaranteed freedom.”
She hypothesized a situation in which a new government decided that abortion was no longer fully covered by the country’s health insurance system. That kind of change probably wouldn’t fly under the new amendment.

But she noted that judicial interpretation is difficult to predict. “In that sense, the word ‘guarantee’ is very important, but it’s also relatively undefined.”
France’s constitutional amendment doesn’t safeguard abortion rights in France for eternity. Recognizing a right doesn’t eliminate all of the questions about that right. There will still be judicial interpretation over what a “guaranteed freedom” means.
And as lawmakers this year have shown, constitutions can be changed.
Far-right leader Marine Le Pen dismissed the historic nature of Monday’s vote, saying that it did not respond to any particular difficulties in France and was merely “a day that Emmanuel Macron organized for his own glory.”

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a broad challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, reversing a lower-court ruling that would have undermined the watchdog agency created by Congress 12 years ago.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

The CFPB case is one of several the Supreme Court heard this term that challenge the power of federal agencies, long a target of conservatives concerned about regulation and government bureaucrats whom they see as unaccountable to the public.

The case involved a decision by the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that said the funding mechanism Congress adopted to ensure the CFPB’s independence was unconstitutional. A panel of three judges, all nominated by President Donald Trump, ruled in 2022 that the mechanism violated the Constitution’s command requiring congressional appropriation of money. The decision said the agency’s insulation from congressional committees doubled the violation.



Skip to end of carousel

Supreme Court 2024 major cases​

We’re tracking the major Supreme Court cases of 2024.

End of carousel
The Biden administration rejected 5th Circuit’s view, telling the justices that the Constitution bestowed the power of the purse to Congress but set few limits on how appropriations could be made. Upholding the appeals court decision could have implications for the funding of other regulatory agencies, the government said, including the Federal Reserve Board, and could even cast doubt on Social Security and payments to the national debt.
Follow Election 2024
The CFPB said it has recovered more than $20 billion for consumers since it was was created by Congress in response to the 2008 financial crisis, putting scattered federal consumer protections under one structure. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who at the time advised the Obama administration, played a lead role in the legislation.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...tid=mc_magnet-scotus2024_inline_collection_17

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act moved to insulate the CFPB from political influence by making the agency independent from Congress’s annual appropriation process. The agency instead is funded from the profits of the Federal Reserve, which itself is funded through bank assessments. The bureau’s budget may not exceed 12 percent of the Fed’s annual operating expenses. So far, the agency has not asked for all of its authorized budget in any given year.
The case is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/16/supreme-court-cfpb-funding/

Iowa governmental bodies could circumvent the state’s open meetings law and discuss public matters in private without restrictions if new legislation is signed into law, a state board on open government has warned Gov. Kim Reynolds.



The Iowa Public Information Board, which resolves disputes over Iowa’s open meetings and records laws, in a May 3 letter describes the potential impact of a last-second amendment to a bill approved in the recently concluded session of the Iowa Legislature.


The amendment, which was added just before the bill was passed April 18 on the floors of the Senate and House, the penultimate day of the session, says the open meetings requirements would not apply to a gathering of a local body at a political or civic event.




According to Republican lawmakers, the language was added to ensure members of a local governmental body could attend civic or political events without triggering open meetings laws as long as they don’t discuss policy related to their public positions.


However, the Iowa Public Information Board noted in its letter to Reynolds — and Iowa Rep. Chuck Isenhart, a Democrat from Dubuque, noted during legislative debate — that the bill’s amended language does not contain the qualifying provision that open meetings law does not apply so long as no policy discussions take place.


Iowa’s open meetings law requires public notices for any governmental meetings, and for most policy discussions to take place where the public can attend.


“The language, as drafted and passed in (the bill), now allows government bodies and their members to engage in deliberation at private, civic and political events rather than as intended under Iowa law in an open, public meeting,” reads the letter, which was signed by Iowa Public Information Board Executive Director Erika Eckley.


“Based on this new exception to the definition of a meeting under (state open meetings law), government bodies can now meet privately, and without any limitations on deliberation on public matters, without violating the open meetings law,” the letter says.


“This language is in direct conflict with the transparency requirements of Iowa’s sunshine laws and will create an enormous loophole for government bodies to allow for decisions to be made in secret, avoiding public consideration and disclosure, which is contrary to ensuring accountability of government to Iowans and the legislative intent behind the legislation,” it reads.


The letter expresses the board’s concern, but falls short of calling for a Reynolds veto.


Her office did not comment on the letter when reached Wednesday by The Gazette.






House File 2539 increases penalties for Iowans who violate state open records laws. The original bill was drafted in response to lawmakers’ concerns about a $1.6 million settlement agreement between the city of Davenport and a former city administrator, which the Davenport City Council approved without a public vote.


During debate in the Iowa House, Isenhart expressed the same concern as the board’s letter: that the new clause in the amendment does not specify that government officials only avoid open meetings law if they do not discuss policy. Isenhart at the time recommended adding clarifying language that would have stated open meetings laws are not triggered when there is no discussion of policy.


Rep. Brent Siegrist, a Republican from Council Bluffs, during debate said it was not legislators’ intent to allow for the circumvention of open meetings requirements, and that he did not believe the amendment did that. He said Wednesday he was assured by lobbyists that the amendment would not have that impact.


Siegrist said if the bill is signed into law and does create a loophole as the Public Information Board fears, lawmakers may have to address that during next year’s legislative session. Or, if Reynolds vetoes the bill, lawmakers could return next year and work on the topic again with different language, he said.


Iowa Sen. Scott Webster, a Republican from Bettendorf who introduced the amendment, also said it was not designed to allow local officials to skirt open meetings law, and also said he does not believe the amendment’s language creates that loophole.


The bill passed the Iowa Legislature with broad support: it passed the House, 87-6, and the Senate unanimously, 46-0.


The Iowa Public Information Board is scheduled to conduct its regular meeting Thursday in Des Moines. The letter to the governor is on the meeting agenda.

Last night's game was BORING. The scheme does not fit her. Her teammates lack fire. There is no fast breaking. There is no kick out from the paint to outside shooters. The crowd despite being large made no noise. Her team is slow. At Iowa , everything was electric for her. On this team , everything is slow and muted.

Marco's QB coach Tony Racioppi occasionally posts vids of him working out on Twitter.

Here's the most recent one:
Login to view embedded media

How does anyone from Iowa, cheer for anything in that God forsaken, anti-America, marxist state??

Count me in!

Caleb Williams beating the Packers on Christmas sounds wonderful

Login to view embedded media

Sometimes it feels like the “deeper” Iowa gets, the worse Fran’s sub patterns get. I think we have been at our best under Fran when we play 8 or 9 guys tops. With 12 guys who Fran feels good about, im worried we’ll see more hockey line shifts this winter.

Adam, Ross and I get together to break Jan Jensen's introductory presser as the next head coach of the #Iowa women' basketball team, Payton Sandfort's NBA Combine performance, Manhattan transfer Seydou Traore committing to the Hawkeyes, and Jacob Gill transferring from Northwestern.
YouTube link
Login to view embedded media
Apple, Spotify and Podbean links coming tomorrow.

Ah well.

Will be interesting to see if he gets the time to see if it works.

Not holding back.

Login to view embedded media

Is she an exact Bluder Clone? How will her approach differ from Bluder, if at all?

Jensen has a well earned reputation as an excellent low post coach. That should bolster Iowa’s standing with C/F prospects (Hays, e.g). Bring in a top flight assistant and the program should (hopefully) maintain momentum.

It is great to be an Iowa Wrestling fan.

Go Hawks!

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media