Trump says there are "methods" to serve a third term (He's right. The constitution could be amended. Or he could simply ignore it.)
Patriarch Kirill: Of What Spirit Are You?
18 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.Friday, February 28, 2025
A Day of American Infamy
In August 1941, about four months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt met with Winston Churchill aboard warships in Newfoundland’s Placentia Bay and agreed to the Atlantic Charter, a joint declaration by the world’s leading democratic powers on “common principles” for a postwar world.
Among its key points: “no aggrandizement, territorial or other”; “sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them”; “freedom from fear and want”; freedom of the seas; “access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.”
The charter, and the alliance that came of it, is a high point of American statesmanship. On Friday in the Oval Office, the world witnessed the opposite. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s embattled democratic leader, came to Washington prepared to sign away anything he could offer President Trump except his nation’s freedom, security and common sense. For that, he was rewarded with a lecture on manners from the most mendacious vulgarian and ungracious host ever to inhabit the White House.
If Roosevelt had told Churchill to sue for peace on any terms with Adolf Hitler and to fork over Britain’s coal reserves to the United States in exchange for no American security guarantees, it might have approximated what Trump did to Zelensky. Whatever one might say about how Zelensky played his cards poorly — either by failing to behave with the degree of all-fours sycophancy that Trump demands or to maintain his composure in the face of JD Vance’s disingenuous provocations — this was a day of American infamy.
[Emphasis mine A/O]
Where do we go from here?
If there’s one silver lining to this fiasco, it’s that Zelensky did not sign the agreement on Ukrainian minerals that was forced on him this month by Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary who’s the Tom Hagen character in this protection-racket administration. The United States is entitled to some kind of reward for helping Ukraine defend itself — and Ukraine’s destruction of much of Russia’s military might should top the list, followed by the innovation Ukraine demonstrated in pioneering revolutionary forms of low-cost drone warfare, which the Pentagon will be keen to emulate.
Read the rest here.
(Link fixed.)
Quote of the day...
My fellow Americans, we are in completely uncharted waters, led by a president, who — well, I cannot believe he is a Russian agent, but he sure plays one on TV. -Thomas Friedman
Thursday, February 27, 2025
First kill all the lawyers
After President Trump lost the 2020 election, his allies thought about what to do differently if he returned to power. One lesson from his first term, they decided, was that government lawyers, even very conservative Republican political appointees, had frequently raised legal objections to ideas he or his White House advisers put forward.
If they got another shot, they said in campaign-era interviews, they would install much more permissive gatekeepers. Now, a month into a term that has been defined by Mr. Trump’s radical challenges to the basic structure of government, his administration is moving aggressively to curb a critical internal check: independent legal thinking.
His appointees have swiftly cleared the Justice Department’s top ranks of career lawyers, even as Mr. Trump stocked leading posts with his own defense attorneys. His aides sidelined the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, bypassing its traditional role of vetting draft executive orders and giving it no acting chief. Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi added to the purge by firing the top lawyer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
This subjugation of lawyers has now extended to the Pentagon. Late last Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top judge advocates general for the military. As three-star uniformed lawyers, they give independent and nonpolitical advice about the international laws of war and domestic legal constraints Congress has imposed on the armed forces.
Read the rest here.
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
In Trump’s Washington, a Moscow-Like Chill Takes Hold
She asked too many questions that the president didn’t like. She reported too much about criticism of his administration. And so, before long, Yelena Tregubova was pushed out of the Kremlin press pool that covered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
In the scheme of things, it was a small moment, all but forgotten nearly 25 years later. But it was also a telling one. Mr. Putin did not care for challenges. The rest of the press pool got the message and eventually became what the Kremlin wanted it to be: a collection of compliant reporters who knew to toe the line or else they would pay a price.
The decision by President Trump’s team to handpick which news organizations can participate in the White House press pool that questions him in the Oval Office or travels with him on Air Force One is a step in a direction that no modern American president of either party has ever taken. The White House said it was a privilege, not a right, to have such access, and that it wanted to open space for “new media” outlets, including those that just so happen to support Mr. Trump.
But after the White House’s decision to bar the venerable Associated Press as punishment for its coverage, the message is clear: Any journalist can be expelled from the pool at any time for any reason. There are worse penalties, as Ms. Tregubova would later discover, but in Moscow, at least, her eviction was an early step down a very slippery slope.
The United States is not Russia by any means, and any comparisons risk going too far. Russia barely had any history with democracy then, while American institutions have endured for nearly 250 years. But for those of us who reported there a quarter century ago, Mr. Trump’s Washington is bringing back memories of Mr. Putin’s Moscow in the early days.
The news media is being pressured. Lawmakers have been tamed. Career officials deemed disloyal are being fired. Prosecutors named by a president who promised “retribution” are targeting perceived adversaries and dropping cases against allies or others who do his bidding. Billionaire tycoons who once considered themselves masters of the universe are prostrating themselves before him.
Judges who temporarily block administration decisions that they believe may be illegal are being threatened with impeachment. The uniformed military, which resisted being used as a political instrument in Mr. Trump’s first term, has now been purged of its highest-ranking officers and lawyers. And a president who calls himself “the king,” ostensibly in jest, is teasing that he may try to stay in power beyond the limits of the Constitution.
Some versions of this are not new, of course. Other presidents have taken actions that looked heavy-handed or put pressure on opponents. No president in my experience at the White House, which goes back to 1996, particularly liked news coverage of him, and certainly there have been times when journalists were penalized for their reporting.
After an article on whether Vice President Dick Cheney might be dropped from the re-election ticket in 2004, The New York Times found it no longer had a seat on Air Force Two. President Barack Obama’s team tried to exclude Fox News from a briefing offered to other networks, only to back down when the rest of the press corps stood up for Fox.
But those relatively contained disputes were nothing like what is happening now. The White House takeover of the pool — a rotating group of about 13 correspondents, photographers and technicians given close access to the president so they can report back to their colleagues — upends the way the president has been covered for generations.
The alarm has been felt by media outlets across the spectrum. Just as the other networks backed Fox against the Obama administration, Fox has backed The Associated Press against the Trump White House and its senior White House correspondent criticized the pool takeover. The precedent being set now, certainly, could be used by a future Democratic administration against media that it disfavored.
Read the rest here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
