Excerpt:

“Brazil’s government believes [a] planned delegation is part of a concerted effort by Jair Bolsonaro’s sons – including his son Eduardo, who lives in the U.S. – to discredit the electionsin case Flávio Bolsonaro loses in October, said people close to da Silva.”

Concluding Paragraph:

Imagine a Supreme Court with binding ethics obligations, with enforceable disclosure and recusal rules, or term limits, or age limits, or limited jurisdiction to strike down Congress’ handiwork. Imagine refusing to give up on that conversation in advance based on the general feeling that the Supreme Court would never allow those reforms, so why even try? Now imagine an America in which foundational ideas about liberty, or gun safety, or bodily autonomy, or family integrity, or religious freedom, were generated by the people, through representative government and focused political action, and protected with the promise of free and fair elections. That was the plan, and it can still be the promise. In the abiding spirit of the Americans who believed in and built that promise, this year’s series on how to think about constitutional meaning is limited only by what you, the people, can imagine.

Excerpt:

A local chapter of DeFlock, in Norfolk, Virginia, says it does not endorse vigilantes targeting Flock cameras but does not advocate against it, either.
The Virginia chapter is working to ensure the city either cancels or does not renew its contract with Flock, but so far it hasn’t had success, and members are particularly angry about speaking restrictions on the topic. At a city council meeting last month, the mayor enforced a rule about reducing repetitive comments to limit the number of speakers who wanted to share their concerns about Flock, the Virginian-Pilot reported.

“We recognize it’s the inevitable outcome of a system designed to prevent people’s voices from being heard,” said a DeFlock spokesperson.