It’s pretty obvious that you continue to prove me correct about you.
I’ve been having episodes of extreme anxiety.
And depression.
Yesterday I cried in my car on the way to the doctor.
Going through the stages of grief I guess.
I’ve been doing what I can and trying to maintain but the unpredictability and utter carnage do have an impact on me personally and professionally.
And I truly cannot express what that means to me, because there are no units of measurement small enough.
I feel you. I’m still in shock and everyday the news gets worse. In my district we are dealing with ICE raids and no one really knows what we can do when an agent starts knocking on the classroom door. I have accepted that I might end up in jail on “obstruction” if they come to my classroom door. Interestingly enough, no one has said, “That’s a bad idea.” or “You’re over-reacting.” but rather, “You have to do what’s right.” Some things are worth going to jail over. Like we teachers need more stress on the job.
Yes, we’ve already established that you don’t care and your priority is feeling smug and superior, as I said.
I note that you neglected to address the point about you continuing to insist that “no one” said the thing you claimed they didn’t say even though they did and one person even admitted it. But you were saying about “bad-faith mischaracterizations”?
OK, so let me attempt to steer this back on track:
Nobody is saying everything will be OK, nothing to worry about under this administration
Nobody is saying let’s just panic and lay down and do nothing
The key point of dispute is simply that some posters, like the OP, feel that this term will be pretty much the same as Trump’s first. That the various guardrails, such as the state and federal courts, and SCOTUS will hold.
And others, like me, while conceding that state and federal judges may be a bit of a brake on some of Trump’s impulses, nonetheless think Trump is going to be a lot less constrained this time. This is because the government is staffed this time by yes men and extremists from day one, and a supreme court that has bent the law to Trump’s whim when he was a private citizen, let alone now. Plus he got away with Jan 6th, so Trump now knows just how much he can do without consequence.
Is it possible for us to have a nuanced discussion based on people’s actual positions?
One of the hardest parts is knowing that, barring any miracles, it will get worse, with no end in sight.
This is the Straight Dope, so no.
It has already gotten so much worse than his first term that anyone saying anything like this just astonishes me.
I mean, where would the fun be in that?
But this is correct:
To be honest, it’s already worse than the latter case, given what the Muskovites are busily doing, the active pogrom against trans people, war against DEI and active purging of government data on quite a lot of important subjects. Most of the constraints have been removed by means of right-wing capture, and those that still exist are being heavily taxed. The courts (and potentially other things, including practical considerations) will slow or prevent some of the current government’s initiatives but given that the strategy is to Zerg Rush every aspect of the federal government with people and practices intended to weaken or outright destroy them, a lot of those Zergs are getting through.
We can protest, but that would require the people and entities being protested to care and the media to report the protests, neither of which seems to be guaranteed anymore. We can petition our representatives but the Republicans will ignore it and the Democrats seem reluctant to use the minority powers they do have. And we can try to help those victims of the current administration (most notably but not exclusively the trans community) with whatever moral, financial, medical etc support we can.
Judge Coughenour has again blocked Trump’s attempt at ending birthright citizenship. In doing so he said,
I said this two weeks ago, and I’ll say it again today: There are moments in the world’s history when people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges?’ In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today
,
I’ve received a reply from my House Representative:
Dear John:
Thank you for contacting me about President Trump’s executive orders and Elon Musk’s illegal takeover of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. It is critical to my work to hear from you and I welcome the opportunity to write to you.
Thank you to everyone who has called in, written in and rallied against Musk’s illegal takeover of the Treasury. Your voice and the voices of your family members, friends and neighbors are needed to fight back – and it’s working.
America has already won several rounds of the Republican Rip-Off. But we need to keep up the pressure.
You can see my full statement on these issues here and on my social media pages.
Thank you again for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you, and I am listening. Please continue to reach out.
If you are interested in receiving periodic updates about my work in Congress, please sign up for my newsletter by clicking here. I also invite you to follow me on Facebook , Twitter, Instagram, Medium and YouTube.
Sincerely,
Rick Larsen
United States Representative
Washington State, 2nd District
A form letter, of course, but I doubt anyone gets personal replies anymore.
Evidently the assertion in this thread’s title is not all that correct. A CNN analyst found the argument interesting enough to pen this.
Trump’s power grabs will go on until someone stops him – and that’s not happening soon
The article is a very good roundup of the stunts Trump is pulling and his republican office-holder enablers are actively assisting him with.
The Resolute Desk Resident just got a free pass from a federal judge. (The link goes to AOL.)
A federal judge on Friday declined to block Elon Musk’s government cost-cutting department from accessing the U.S. Department of Labor’s systems, an initial setback for the government employee unions resisting his efforts to shrink the federal bureaucracy.
The temporary ruling by U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington, D.C., is the first step in a lawsuit against the Labor Department by one of the largest U.S. labor unions, which alleges billionaire Musk could obtain sensitive information about investigations into his own companies and competitors by accessing government computer systems.
Bates ruled that “although the Court harbors concerns about defendants’ alleged conduct,” the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) had not shown it was harmed by the Labor Department’s actions.
Over on Bluesky, Ken “Popehat” White retweeted an analysis suggesting that the judge is using his ruling to tell the plaintiffs how to amend their complaint so that they can show standing.
FTR, Bates is a Dubya appointee and during Trump’s first term he blocked Trump from ending DACA. He doesn’t seem the kind to issue a writ of “Trump can do whatever he wants lol”.
I’m trying not to follow the news too closely, but I saw JD Vance and other Trump toadies are starting to float the idea that Trump can ignore judgements against him. This is the trial balloon. I give it 2 weeks before we see it in action. Tops.
Am I missing anything?
I think he and his cronies are trying to push so much bullshit out there as fast as possible so that there is no possible way to stem the time. It is going to be one step forward, ten steps back for as long as he can get away with it, hoping that people will celebrate the rare (and usually temporary) wins while the losses pile up.
So you think they’re happy to float the notion that Trump can ignore judicial rulings but they daren’t follow through?
Vance gave that Jackson quote as far back as 2021 - I think you’re not wrong about it being a trial balloon but I also see a lot of weasel words
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.
If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.
Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.
He’s absolutely correct - a judge can’t tell a general how to conduct an operation or command the AG in how to use her discretion. Judges can only tell the general he cannot conduct the military operation that way, or the AG that she can’t use her discretion in a particular way.
And of course, judges can’t control the executives legitimate power- but that’s the question, is this a legitimate use of power ?
I don’t know how any of this will turn out - and I suspect Trump is not that sure. Because I’ve heard about what Musk is saying and what Vance is saying and about some X user who doesn’t like defying judges but wonders what options they are leaving “us” but I haven’t heard a peep from Trump himself - and I think that’s for multiple reasons. He wants to be able to disassociate himself if defying the courts doesn’t go over well and what absolutely won’t go over well is if he defies a Supreme Court order that his nominees signed onto.
The latest (and I’m having a hard time believing this is actually for real): Trump has ordered NASA to remove all references to women in leadership, even though (or because?) it’s currently HEADED by a woman.
The American Medical Association’s YouTube page is doing updates on assorted public health issues as well, now that the CDC cannot.