by The Editors, National Review, July 3, 2026 - Criticism comes, rightly, with the territory of being a Supreme Court justice. Hysteria shouldn’t.
With the conclusion of the 2025–26 Supreme Court term and Donald Trump’s defeat on birthright citizenship, we have been treated to another round of abuse from right-leaning commentators directed toward Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The immediate trigger of their ire is Barrett’s joining the Trump v. Barbara majority (along with Chief Justice John Roberts and, on the outcome, Justice Brett Kavanaugh) striking down Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
... It’s the intemperate vitriol of these attacks, and their utter lack of perspective, that appalls us. Critics brand Barrett a traitor, a DEI hire, and a left-winger who has doomed the country. They complain that she makes poor decisions because she is a woman and a mother of adopted children from Haiti.
... the predictable, faithful rule of written law is a positive end in itself, and a pillar of the good society. If judges are to be loyal to a party or impose their own preferred ends, they may as well be elected
... aside from her devotion to process and methodology, it is hard to find a pattern of issues in the cases where Barrett breaks with conservative outcomes, (read it all)
The Justices are doing a job worthy of America’s 250th.
by The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2026 - What is this Supreme Court’s project? ... Read the Justices, and it becomes clear they are focused on the Constitution and the law. They are protecting ordered liberty, correcting deviations from the Founders’ design, and taking the Bill of Rights seriously. ...
... The separation of powers is fundamental to the Constitution, ... The Justices are also ruling against Presidents who try unilaterally to impose policies ... When the Justices strike down executive overreach, they’re upholding the Constitution. ... The Court’s effort to re-separate legislative and executive powers is constitutionally correct. ... The Second Amendment means the government can’t disarm casual marijuana users (U.S. v. Hemani) or ban firearms by default (Wolford v. Lopez). ... America has a “colorblind Constitution,” as the Court said in a brief unsigned opinion, after its decision removing race from partisan redistricting ...
... Originalism is a method, not a party line, and nobody will like every decision. (read it all)
by Rod Williams, June 2, 2026- This is a great video telling the Nashville story. It covers the founding up until the present day.
I love this city. There is no other place I would rather live. I have lived here most of my adult life, and I have embraced all the city has to offer. I lived in Nashville for about five years in the early seventies and then work took me away, and I lived in upper East Tennessee for about six years before retuning.
During that first stay in Nashville and then for about six or so years after returning to Nashville, I was a "honky tonk hero." I am not a musician nor a songwriter, but I was a super fan. I was one of those guys you see wearing a cowboy hat and boots whose hobby is immersing himself in the music scene. I went to live music events, including following bands that played small bars, and usually I would go to two or three writers' nights a week. I was here when the outlaw movement happened in Nashville and saw a lot of people who went on to become famous and kind of got to know some of them. I attended almost all of the Charlie Daniels' Jam events. I learned how to crash the parties during the annual D J conventions. The D J convention was the precursor to Fan Fair and the CMA Fest. During the convention, I would take a couple days off from work and go to parties and receptions and see lots of live music. The concerts were for the benefit of Country Music D J's and the record labels would all host big concerts with almost all of their roster of artists. They pulled out all stops. I love being part of that Nashville.
In addition to the music side of Nashville, I experienced a lot else the city had to offer. Except for the winter months, there was always some kind of community festival, either commemorating a historic event, a season, a holiday, a food, or a particular neighborhood. This being Nashville, almost any event for any purpose would have live music. I took in as many of the festivals and special events as I could.
Being the State capital, there was an energy and a vibe the city had that was exciting. During my time away from Nashville, I returned for about four months as a college student and served as an intern working for the State legislature. That gave me an insight into State government, and I developed a greater appreciation of our state and Nashville.
In 1980 I ran for a seat on the Metro Council and won. This was before there were term limits, when there was very little turnover in the Council, and there were fewer opportunities to serve. Serving in the Metro Council certainly curtailed my hanging out in bars and my hobby of immersing myself in the music scene. I served on the Council for ten years. If you take the job seriously, it takes all of your time that is not devoted to earning a living. I took the job seriously. I was very engaged in the business of the city and tried to have an impact. Being one of the few conservatives on the Council and being one of the youngest members to ever serve in the body, I felt I had to be better informed and better prepared than most of my colleagues. I served on the Planning Committee of the Council, which is one of the more demanding committee assignments. My stint in the Council made me more vested in Nashville. I still follow closely what happens in local government.
After leaving the Council, I worked for a community-based organization that had several missions, but most of my work involved working with low-income people and helping them become homeowners. The work was rewarding, and in this capacity I worked with other non-profit organizations, service providers, funders, churches, and government. This kept me engaged with the city and was another tie to the city that others may not experience.
I have seen Nashville change a lot over the years. There was a period in the seventies and early eighties when Lower Broadway was only home to about four bars, and the main businesses were pawn shops, furniture stores and adult book stores. It was pretty seedy back then. In 2020, the Ryman reopened and new life was breathed into the area, and Lower Broadway began to grow and grew to become the madhouse it is now.
A lot of people who live here like to trash-talk Nashville. I am not one of them. Nashville has changed but it is still Nashville. There are dozens of bars frequented by tourists where the band is playing someone else's music and trying to sound just like the original, but if you look, there are still venues where new bands develop and where writers try out new material. If you want to experience Nashville off Broadway, I suggest Dee's Country Lounge, Santa's Pub, or the Idle Hour. I am an old man now and don't have the desire to hang out in bars anymore, and music, while still important to me is not my main interest anymore, so I don't know all the places where music is being created, but I know there are still lots of places where aspiring songwriters and performers hone their craft.
While many say they hate Lower Broad, I don't. It can be overwhelming at times. A few times a year, I still hit Lower Broad. I don't mind the crowds and the bachelorette parties. I like seeing people have a good time and enjoy themselves, and I am happy they are doing it my town.
In some ways, Nashville has gotten better. The influx of emigrants has brought a slew of ethnic eateries, and I enjoy discovering new places to eat. Nashville has several five-star Michelin restaurants, not that I have eaten in any of them, but I am glad they are here. Nashville has a much more cosmopolitan feel than it used to, and I don't mind. There are more high-paying jobs, and recent college graduates do not have to move somewhere else to have a good career.
On the other hand, the growth has made housing unaffordable for many young people. Of course, some of that is a national issue, but Nashville's growth has priced many people out of the market. I wish growth had been slower and would slow down. I guess the thing I like least about the new Nashville is the traffic and the lack of parking. There was a time as recent as fifteen years ago or so when Nashvillians would brag that we were a "fifteen-minute city," - you could reach any destination in fifteen minutes. Now, rush hour runs from about 3 PM in the evening to about 6:30 PM. If there is a big sporting event ending and several big conventions in town coming to an end, the drive to the airport, which is about 8 miles east of downtown, making it roughly a 15–25-minute drive under normal traffic conditions, can take an hour or longer. There have been occasions when traffic has been paralyzed, and people have been stuck on the interstate for much longer periods.
There was a time when parking was cheap, and there were parking spaces. I even knew some free parking spaces. Not anymore. I hate having to pull out my phone, use a QR code, put in my license plate number, and then put in a credit card number. Maybe it is because I am old and slow to adapt, but sometimes I may want to go somewhere, but because parking is a hassle and expensive, I won't go.
The change in Nashville has its pluses and its minuses, however, this is still a great city with a soul, but please don't move here.
by Rod Williams, June, 30, 2026 - The Supreme Court has ruled as I expected, upholding birthright citizenship. The language is clear and unmistakable: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This has been adjudicated at least on three occasions, and the "subject to the Jurisdiction," which some were hanging their hats on to void birthright citizenship, had been settled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. I would have been shocked if the Supreme Court had voted to overturn the 14th Amendment's meaning. I am surprised that the court ruling was narrowly decided.
Some argue that the 14th Amendment was meant solely to make citizens of former slaves. That is obviously not true. It was recognized that the 14th Amendment would make citizens of the children born in America to non-citizens at the time the Amendment was adopted.
For an understanding of the Court's ruling and the logic of that ruling, see the following.
Supreme Court Affirms Original Meaning of Birthright Citizenship, Strikes Down Trump's Executive Order
by Damon Root, Reason, 6-30-2026 - When the 14th Amendment was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 1866, the first senator to speak out in opposition to it was a Pennsylvania Republican named Edgar Cowan. He objected in part because the Citizenship Clause of the proposed amendment would make American citizens out of the U.S.-born children of unwelcome immigrants. "Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?" Cowan asked. And what about the "Gypsies" that he claimed were present in his own state? "These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society," he declared. Yet the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship would cover them, too. "If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right," Cowan said, "then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous."
Cowan's objections were answered by another Republican senator, John Conness of California. "I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast," Conness said. "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others." (read it all)
Birthright Citizenship: The Majority Opinion
by Dan McLaughlin, National Revied, June 30, 2026 - Given the stakes and the extensive body of scholarship on the citizenship clause, the 26-page majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts in Trump v. Barbara is surprisingly brisk. On the question of the constitutional scope of birthright citizenship, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts and the Court’s three liberals.
Subjects of the King
Roberts began with English common law, under which birth within the king’s dominions made one a subject owing duties of allegiance, but with exceptions for those born in “discrete areas within his kingdom that were temporarily outside his control. . . . And the same held true for ambassadors (and their families), who were considered—by a fiction of extraterritoriality—to remain on foreign soil and thus ‘under the ligeance’ of their home country.” This extended even to the children of “gypsies” (today known as Roma or Romani) who were legally banned from the country. (read more)
by Rod Williams, June 29, 2026- This is an outrage. Government should not use eminent domain to take someone's property just because public opinion does not support what the owner wants to do with their property. I would bet that the owner will sue and win, unless the city so overpays for the property that the owner is happy to take the money and build elsewhere. Either way this will cost the city dearly.
by Rod Williams, June 29, 2026 - I am certainly not an expert on data centers, and if I were presented with evidence that they were dangerous or detrimental to people's health in some way, I could favor more regulation. However, it appears to me that opposition to data centers is being driven by fear more than facts. That is what Clint Brewer argued recently on The Michael Patrick Leahy Show.
If you are one who follows local news and politics in Nashville, you probably know Clint Brewer. He has worked as a journalist with several Nashville publications over the years and has served in government. He is now in public relations, so he very well may have a teck company as a client. That being said, that does not negate the essence of his argument. I am posting excerpts from an article in the Nashville Star where Clint makes his case.
It seems to me that a lot of people fear AI. Maybe robots will take over. Maybe AI will put most people out of a job. This fear of technological change, it seems, leads to opposition to data centers.
There is a large data center being proposed near the Nashville Zoo that has generated a lot of opposition. One argument I hear made in opposition to that data center is that data centers are noisy and emit a high hum. I would like to know just how bad that is. Many people live near interstates or busy roads, as do I. Others live in neighborhoods with the airport flight path over their house. People still buy homes near interstates and beneath the airport flight path. They get used to the noise. The proposed data center site near the Nashville Zoo is appropriately zoned for this use. It is not as if the data center was seeking a rezoning and trying to put the data center in a residential neighborhood. I would need to be persuaded that the noise is a danger to the mental health or hearing of residents near the center before I would be persuaded that this is a reason to stop the development. Is the data center more of a nuisance than what could otherwise be built on this commercially zoned property?
Another argument one hears in opposition to data centers is that data centers use a lot of water and electricity. Having served on the Planning Committee of the Council and having otherwise observed zoning battles for years, opponents of a new development always fall back on the argument that infrastructure does not support the new development. Sometimes it is the capacity of the local school, or the water system, or the wastewater system, or the roads. I am never persuaded by these arguments. A utility, a school system, or a city does not build excess capacity and just wait for it to be used. Demand for the schools, roads, or utilities bumps up against existing supply, and then new capacity is created, and this repeats over and over as long as there is new demand.
I could be persuaded that data centers are bad for certain places, but I am not persuaded yet. I assume if the land is zoned to allow a data center, then a data center should be allowed. For those who think a data center should not be permitted anywhere ever, please turn in your cell phone and get off the computer.
by Kaitlin Housler, Nashville Star, June 29, 2026 - ... Brewer acknowledged that resistance stems from multiple concerns, including apprehension about AI and preserving rural communities.
“It’s a complicated mix of fear of AI taking people’s jobs, coupled with… and rightfully… people in rural areas wanting to keep them rural,” he said. “If you look at where data centers go, disproportionately they go to rural areas.”
... Brewer noted how many communities have responded by imposing restrictions before fully evaluating the industry’s long-term benefits.
“I think there are many states and counties and communities reflexively putting a moratorium on them,” Brewer said. “I think it’s bad for the country overall. We desperately need data centers.”
He argued that data centers are essential to the nation’s technological future and its competition with China.
... Brewer also rejected the notion that data centers fail to generate lasting employment.
“Data centers do create jobs not just in the construction phase, but there will be a long-term legacy sector for maintaining them, servicing them. It is not a jobless endeavor,” he said.
... “I think the utility companies across the South have done a terrific job ramping up production to accommodate data centers,” Brewer said.
Brewer pointed to neighboring states as examples of governments embracing artificial intelligence and related infrastructure.
“Mississippi’s all in… Arkansas,” he said. “They’re incorporating them into their power grid plan. They’re incorporating artificial intelligence into making state government more efficient. There’s some real forward-looking things happening in some parts of the South.”
... the issue has created an unusual political coalition.
“It’s one of those weird places politically where, if you think of politics as traditionally a spectrum with a right on the one end, left on the other end, this is one of those issues where the right and the left come in the back door behind the spectrum and get together,” Brewer said.
According to Brewer, that alliance combines “pro-rural populism coupled with progressive anti-Americanism and anti-growth and anti-industrialization.” (read it all)
As the author of A Disgruntled Republican I often post items which I think may be of interest to the conservative, Republican, libertarian or the greater community. Posting of a press release or an announcement of an event does not necessarily indicate an endorsement. Rod
Posts
