Grief & questions follow another mass shooting

Today we’d like to express our profound gratitude for you, our Topline readers. In an era when democracy is being tested in the U.S. and around the world, your commitment to liberty, equality, and truth gives us hope for the enduring cause of human freedom. We wish you and your loved ones a happy Thanksgiving and safe travels. Our team will be enjoying the holiday break, so there will be no Topline on Friday. We will return on Tuesday, Nov. 29. See you then. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor

• Biden extends student loan repayment freeze as forgiveness program is tied up in courts —CNN

• U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to Republican-drawn Texas electoral district —Reuters

• Iran enters ‘critical’ phase as it tries to quash anti-regime protests —The Guardian

• TikTok draws bipartisan fire in U.S. on China surveillance concern —Bloomberg

• 2024 Republican rivals put Trump on notice at GOP conference —Politico

‘When I heard about this, my heart just broke’

A torrent of grief has swept across the country in the wake of another mass shooting—this time at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, Col. Less than a week after a shooting at the University of Virginia that left three dead, five people were killed and at least 19 others were injured on Saturday night, leading to mounting questions over whether the massacre could have been averted. The 22-year-old suspect, Anderson Lee Aldrich, faces preliminary charges of five counts of first-degree murder and five counts of a bias-motivated crime—known elsewhere as hate crime—causing bodily injury. —CNN

• What is collateral relief? Aldrich was already known to law enforcement. Last year, sheriff's deputies responded to his home after he threatened his mother with a homemade bomb, forcing neighbors in surrounding homes to evacuate. That’s exactly the type of behavior that police or family could typically use to request an "emergency risk" order to strip firearm access. But through a program called collateral relief, those accused of a crime are given a chance to move on in an arrest that never resulted in a conviction, as was the case with Aldrich. In fact, if members of the public inquire about such an incident, the police, court, and prosecutors are required to say there is no record of it, as though it never happened. —USA Today

• What about red flag laws? Authorities do not appear to have filed a petition seeking to confiscate any weapons Aldrich may have had under Colorado's red flag law. But that’s not entirely surprising, as there is deep opposition to red flag laws among some of Colorado's sheriffs and local political officials. More than half of the state's 64 counties, including El Paso County, which encompasses Colorado Springs, have declared themselves "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" in opposition to the statute. —Reuters

• “Tremendous firepower.” Aldrich burst into the nightclub just before midnight with a long rifle and a handgun and opened fire. He was subdued by heroic patrons, who were credited with saving lives. Aldrich is the grandson of outgoing California Republican State Assemblymember Randy Voepel, who represents the 71st District in the San Diego area. There were calls to expel Voepel from the State Assembly last year after he made comments comparing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol to the Revolutionary War. —Heavy.com

MORE: Police investigate brick attacks on NYC gay bar as hate crimes —New York Daily News

Rosenzweig: Why is the Supreme Court losing Americans’ support?

“Legal interpretation garners public respect and support principally to the extent that it appears to be the application of neutral principles. That is why Chief Justice Roberts’ famous characterization of judges as calling ‘balls and strikes’ resonated so well with the public. We all know, of course, that the strike zone changes depending upon which umpire is behind the plate. But we want our system of law to aspire to mitigating and minimizing that difference as much as possible.” —Paul Rosenzweig in The UnPopulist

Paul Rosenzweig is an author, adjunct law professor at George Washington University, senior editor of the Journal of National Security Law and Policy, and former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security.

MORE: Lawmakers urge action after report of other high court leak —Associated Press

Seligman: Don’t let fearmongering spark a constitutional crisis

“Overstating the legal consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper for presidential elections is a case study in the dangers of legal misinformation—and this time, unlike most others, the misinformation is coming from the left. … Although it’s obviously unconstitutional for a state legislature to appoint electors after Election Day in an attempt to reverse the results of a presidential election, it’s much less clear that a state legislature won’t try. … The battle for the minds of Americans who don’t know the details of arcane constitutional doctrine will be much harder to win if those who attempt to overturn the 2024 election can point to their political opponents’ uninformed hyperventilating from just two years prior and say: See, you already said we have this power.” —Matthew Seligman on Politico

Matthew Seligman is a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. His recent work focuses on disputed presidential elections.

MORE: GOP delivers final brief to Supreme Court in North Carolina redistricting case —The Center Square

Focus on the Trump investigations

Just a few days after Donald Trump threw his hat in the 2024 ring, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced last Friday that he had appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee two federal criminal investigations implicating Trump—one regarding interference in the transfer of power, and the other related to mishandling of classified documents. A longtime prosecutor, Smith previously worked in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, which focuses on corruption and election-related crimes involving elected officials. More recently, he has investigated war crimes committed in Kosovo at The Hague. “The pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch,” said Smith. “I will exercise independent judgment and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.” —The Dispatch

• From special counsel to special master. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned Trump’s lawyers today about the seizure last August of 11,000 documents during an FBI search of Trump’s Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago. The ex-president previously won approval of a special master to review the records and potentially prevent their use in a criminal case. DOJ lawyers have countered that the special master was unwarranted and are appealing the ruling. Members of the panel asked whether Trump is seeking special treatment as a former president, since he hasn’t alleged that the search itself was unlawful. “If you can’t establish that, then what are we doing here?” Chief Judge William Pryor asked. —USA Today

• “This rises above politics.” Elsewhere in court today, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Internal Revenue Service to release Trump’s tax returns to a House committee for oversight purposes. The court’s move is a major loss for Trump, who has sought to shield the release of his tax returns for years and is currently under multiple investigations. “Since the Magna Carta, the principle of oversight has been upheld, and today is no different,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal. “The committee will now conduct the oversight that we’ve sought for the last three and a half years.” —CNN

• “A great refresher for the American people.” It is unclear what Trump thinks of the restoration of his Twitter account after nearly two years (he hasn’t tweeted yet, as of this writing), but he may not be thrilled by the possible ramifications. Former Rep. Denver Riggleman, who worked as a consultant for the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, explained that it could provide valuable data. “I think it's a good reminder, a refresher of how insane the Trump White House was around that time,” he said. Americans can read the tweets again and see “the danger presented by someone who is completely unhinged…[and] intending to keep power any way [he] could,” said Riggleman. —Raw Story

MORE: Jan. 6 sedition trial of Oath Keepers founder goes to jury —Associated Press

Mockaitis: American democracy is still fragile

“The new Congress will include more than 170 senators and representatives who have denied or at least called into question the results of the 2020 election. That reality and Trump’s declaration of his intent to run again guarantees that the 2024 election will be contentious. … We can all breathe a sigh of relief that the midterms took place without violence or serious problems, but we must not become complacent.” —Tom Mockaitis in The Hill

Tom Mockaitis is a professor of history at DePaul University and the author of “Violent Extremists: Understanding the Domestic and International Terrorist Threat.” 

MORE: Maine's biggest Republicans haven't called their opponents to concede —Bangor Daily News

Vance: It’s time to break through the calcified two-party system 

“Rigid tribal partisanship drives politics now. Outside the few remaining competitive legislative seats, the outcome is predetermined by partisanship. Campaigning is almost a waste of time. … The marketplace of ideas is very, very narrow. Are we all OK with that, or might it be time to seriously talk about an alternative to our two-party system?” —Chris Vance in The Seattle Times

Chris Vance is a former chair of the Washington State Republican Party, and a former Metropolitan King County Council member and state representative. He is now a political independent and a senior fellow at the Niskanen Center.

MORE: What will Andrew Yang’s Forward Party do next? —Deseret News

I am not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one. That said, I have read that many people, including lawyers, claim that by Mr. Trump announcing that he is a candidate for president in the 2024 election, he has sealed the deal that he will not be indicted nor prosecuted for alleged past crimes and any future crimes he may commit while a candidate. How special.

I wonder why everyone currently sitting in jail or prison, and all those people being arrested today and in the future, don't just state, as Trump has done, that they are running for the presidency in 2024. Bingo, all past crimes are excused, and they are free to commit all the crimes they wish. So much for criminal justice reform and all that wasted time writing laws; just announce that you are running for the White House. But remember, no one is above the law, or so we are told. LOL. Buckle up, America. —Bill T., Arizona

I, too, was disappointed by Evan McMullin's loss in Utah, but still believe in him and his attitude of working across aisle to find solutions. I hope to see his continued presence on the political scene.

As for Trump's announcement, I note many pundits are saying things like, "It won't happen" or "His time is over." To which I reply, "Remember 2016." None of us thought we'd end up with Trump in the White House, yet it happened (despite his losing the popular vote).

RCV (ranked-choice voting) in the primaries then would have prevented his nomination. Without it, I fear the same outcome ahead, with moderate Republicans splitting slices of the primary pie, and the MAGA Republicans winning the whole pie while not even getting a majority of the primary votes.

Heaven help us (to help ourselves)! —Read G., Utah

The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Renew America Foundation.