Trump says there are "methods" to serve a third term (He's right. The constitution could be amended. Or he could simply ignore it.)
Hospitality
2 hours ago
Monday, March 31, 2025
Thursday, March 27, 2025
On the rule of law
The MAGA movement is attacking the American judiciary. The evidence is everywhere.
Let’s begin with President Trump. On his Truth Social account, in post after post he has ranted against the judges who’ve ruled against his policies. He has said that judges who rule against him should be impeached. He’s called them “lunatics,” and on Sunday he posted an article by the far-right outlet Gateway Pundit that made the case that federal judges were guilty of “sedition and treason.”
It’s tempting to ignore Trump’s rants as examples of an undisciplined man merely venting, but if there is one thing we know from the opening months of his second term, it’s that his powerful supporters are taking all of Trump’s words very seriously indeed.
On Tuesday, for example, Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, floated the idea of enacting legislation that would eliminate judicial districts or defund the courts in response to rulings against the Trump administration.
“We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things,” he said. “But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.”
So this is when Congress rises from its slumber? To make sure that Trump is protected from prompt judicial review? This is a telling indication that the Republican Congress exists only to please Trump.
Elon Musk, Trump’s virtual co-president, has called the rulings against the Trump administration a “judicial coup,” has demanded the impeachment of federal judges, and has said the Trump administration should fight against “activist” members of the judiciary.
The list goes on. Stephen Miller posted on social media last week, “Under what theory of the constitution does a single marxist judge in San Francisco have the same executive power as the Commander-in-Chief elected by the whole nation to lead the executive branch?” He called the rulings against Trump “naked judicial tyranny.”
In February, JD Vance posted, “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.”
And lest we think this is all just words, Republican lawmakers have now filed articles of impeachment against several federal judges in response to their rulings.
Trumpists are having a temper tantrum, but it’s a mistake to treat their arguments against the federal judiciary as merely a fit. The second Trump term is substantially different from Trump’s first term in a key respect — the people around him have developed actual legal theories and policy ideas to buttress, direct and channel Trump’s impulses.
And these legal theories and policy ideas make Trump’s second term far more dangerous to the Constitution than his first.
In a nutshell, here’s the Trumpist argument: As Miller put it in a press briefing last month, “The whole will of democracy is imbued into the elected president.” He is the only elected official who represents the whole of the American people, and he embodies the people’s general will. Every member of the House has his or her small, defined constituency. Every member of the Senate is confined to representing a single state. The president, by contrast, is elected by the whole of America.
As a result, Miller argued, he is the best expression of American popular will, and Article II of the Constitution, which vests “the executive power” in the president, gives the president the power to hire staff to “impose that democratic will onto the government.”
Under this theory, the president even has the power to issue definitive legal interpretations that control executive branch functions. As he said in an executive order in February, “The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.”
Read the rest here.
Wednesday, March 26, 2025
Various for 3/26
Trump floats possibility of compensation for Jan. 6 rioters (This would be for the rioters, not the people they hurt.)
Monday, March 24, 2025
Various...
‘Amateur hour’: Washington aghast at Trump administration’s war plan group chat
America’s rich scramble to open Swiss bank accounts over Trump fears
That Portrait (I'm not seeing the big deal. I saw it and it looks pretty good to me.)
Sunday, March 23, 2025
Saturday, March 22, 2025
Friday, March 21, 2025
Worth a read...
Facing a suddenly hostile US; Europe turns to Germany and Berlin steps up...
Meanwhile Russia continues its campaign of disruption...
Moscow and Beijing rejoice at the imminent demise of Radio Free Europe and VOA...
Four conservative columnists discuss Trump's enduring popularity on the right...
On the huge run-up in gold...
(I agree in part, but also think there is more to the story. Gold has always marched to the beat of its own drum. Geopolitical and US specific political tensions, and the out of control US debt are all contributing. Also there has been a voracious demand for gold coming from other parts of the world, notably China.)
Europe sees opportunity in Trump’s economic chaos...
The weird world of anti-vaxxers...
Tesla owners are trading in their EVs at record levels...
How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices...
Thursday, March 13, 2025
95 Years Ago
The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 4), commonly known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was a law that implemented protectionist trade policies in the United States. Sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, it was signed by President Herbert Hoover on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods.
Excluding duty-free imports, when enacted, the tariffs under the act were the second highest in United States history, exceeded by only the Tariff of 1828.[3] The act prompted retaliatory tariffs by many other countries.
The act and tariffs imposed by U.S.'s trading partners in retaliation were major factors in the reduction of American exports and imports by 67% during the Great Depression.
Economists and economic historians have agreed that the passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff worsened the effects of the Great Depression.
Read the rest here.
Sunday, March 09, 2025
Thursday, March 06, 2025
Wednesday, March 05, 2025
Memory Eternal
My aunt Catherine (Cathy), reposed last night following a battle with cancer. Excepting my mother who still lives, she was the last member of the family from that generation. May her memory be eternal.
Tuesday, March 04, 2025
Monday, March 03, 2025
Sunday, March 02, 2025
Forgiveness Sunday
On the eve of the Great Fast, I ask forgiveness for anything I may have done or said, especially on this blog, that may have been a source of injury or offense. The last year has been a trying one on many different levels. The last several months have been especially so. Strong opinions have been expressed, which have at times sparked vigorous discussions. I think this is a good time to step back and disengage from the affairs of the world, at least briefly. Absent something extremely urgent there will be no blogging this week on any topic unrelated to the Fast.
Saturday, March 01, 2025
Ooops
Citigroup mistakenly credited a customer’s account with $81 trillion last year when it meant to send just $280.
The payment, which took place last April, was missed by two employees but caught 90 minutes after it was posted, the Financial Times first reported Friday. It was reversed several hours later and reported to the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency as a “near miss.”
Read the rest here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
