Honestly, I think the bridge has already been crossed. There's clearly a coordinated messaging effort across the administration that the judiciary can't restrain executive action, and a DoJ that won't enforce judicial rulings against the executive renders those mere opinions and advice. Laws are for using against enemies; Trump has presumptive immunity.
Yeah but you've been saying the game is over since 2005.
4: Twice a day, baby.
If your correctness lasts more than 6 hours consult an epistemologist.
I'm so angry about the failures to deal with him between 2020-2024, both legally and by the media, and whoever else might have had any power to shape this path.
Well, at least we were able to take care of the absolute nightmare of having. Claudine Gay as president of Harvard.
He is not entertaining the idea of, he has already disregarded Court orders.
Chuck Schumer being in denial about this is why he has to go.
Merrick Garland would have been a decent Supreme Court Justice, but he was not the AG for our time.
I agree that he has already disregarded Court orders, but I also think he hasn't entirely disregarded the process the way Musk would in his shoes.
Or, that's the kind of disregard that he's teetering on the brink of.
"If it turns out that the administration is determined to violate court orders it does not like, however, then it is likely that the legal system has run out of tools to check Donald Trump."
I said in 2016 that Obama should have disqualified that election for Russian interference, appointed a one-year placeholder president and re-run the elections and everyone was all 'no, that's too extreme and shocking and we could never' and I was right then and I never want to hear again about proceduralism and norms because actually doing the thing is what legitimizes it.
Also, fuck it. Marchan should have sent Trump to prison immediately after sentencing for a couple years.
On the enforcement point in 13: can state-level agencies arrest people for federal crimes? I'm not clear about how that bit of the system works despite assiduous watching of gritty US crime dramas. But presumably they can? Like if a NYC policeman sees a wanted kidnapper on the street, he can arrest him, he doesn't have to leave it to the FBI or whatever. And presumably he can pop him in the back of his car and take him over to the federal court for trial and sentencing.
||
This is a war on civil society. This is a private organization, the US government does not own this building. Read it in full, alarming, frightening, and absolutely enraging.
This is what they did there (lord knows what they did to the computer systems and USIP works with dissidents and peace activists worldwide
https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lkqia7po5c2a
|>
The point being that a federal court might not be dependent on US Marshals to enforce a contempt charge. Though I guess the criminal could simply get pardoned immediately.
17: But I think even in almost any such scenario it quickly gets handed off to some arm of the feds. Even absent a pardon.
And another concern is that as far as I have seen nearly every level of security force is massively onboard with T and minions. See for instance the role of Washington Metros in the USIP saga in 16.
15: This is the big thing about "sanctuary cities". They always help if there's a criminal warrant. They just decline to enforce civil immigration law for ICE.
17: sometimes contempt is civil and sometimes criminal.
||
A French Scientist on his way to a conference in Houston was denied entry into the country. There were things critical of Trump on his cell phone, so his work laptop was seized.
|>
||
A French Scientist on his way to a conference in Houston was denied entry into the country. There were things critical of Trump on his cell phone, so his work laptop was seized.
|>
https://bsky.app/profile/jackiantonovich.bsky.social/post/3lkquc3cevk2q
You need to be logged in to see it.
24: I know. I thought I hadn't posted and there's no "undo".
See 26 and 25.
20: Merrick Garland would have been a decent Supreme Court Justice, but he was not the AG for our time.
I think he would have been adequate (not going along with the Roe destruction or immunity follies) but in the event I think he turned out to have been the worst kind of nominee fir the circumstances*; a bland who cares nominee which was a big factor in the Supreme Court (incredibly) not being a major factor (for Dems at least) in the 2016 election despite McConnell's unprecedented obstruction. I think a more dynamic and even "controversial" pick had a good chance of heightening visibility and relevance to potential D voters.
*A classic Obama-brained centrist pick; of course Obama had little chance to anticipate the McConnel move, but like so much of his anticipatory unilateral compromise actions it ultimately backfired.
Thread on USIP hearing going on now. This shit is bonkers https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lkqry2rgus2z
WTF? https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lkqyyygo422x
No TRO. A lot of confusion due to unusual structure of USIP. Howell says not clear will win on merits nor irreparable harm. Latter wrt the actual narrow complaint filed. But als seems to rely on DOJ being truthful about what DOGE is actually doing in the building. And 1) I bet they don't really know; and 2) they've been lying their asses off about lots of stuff lately.
like so much of his anticipatory unilateral compromise actions it ultimately backfired
I'm so mad about this.
I serve on the board of my regional professional organization with former USIP employees (who are fantastic scholars), and I just can't wrap my head around what's happening there.
21 is why even without Trump I checked the "Jesus Christ no, are you insane?" box on the bit of the ESTA form that lets you optionally list your social media. If the NSA wants to know it could check its giant database of illegally collected traffic, ffs.
I disagree with the Garland appointment, but McConnell held all the cards here. At the end of the day you either win the election and the senate, or you don't get to put someone on the Supreme Court, and as long as there were no hearings it wasn't going to be big news. You can blame the media for that last point if you want and Clinton for the first point if you want, but nominating someone younger and better would have changed literally nothing in any way. Fighting and losing doesn't actually make you more popular, people want wins.
36: but nominating someone younger and better would have changed literally nothing in any way.
Strong disagree on this one. context being in that hyperclose election "everything" mattered and this would have been a small spark that I think would have gotten some notice.
But we don't actually know.
Good thread from Angus Johnston on Bluesky putting our hope in the judiciary in context.
https://bsky.app/profile/angus.bsky.social/post/3lkr2nkbags2x
My short, inadequate precis: Current "problem" not something courts designed to solve. Impeachment is the mechanism, but of course...
but McConnell held all the cards here
Obama shoulda told McConnell that if you want to advise and consent, go ahead and hold a hearing. If you don't, that's a default 'yes'. And then Garland shoulda walked in and sat down in the seat. As we are finding out now, there is only power and we should have been using it all along.
Honestly, when I think of all the chances we've had that we didn't take because decorum, I think we fucking deserve where we are now. If we get a next time, we should take it seriously.
As with many things where Democrats didn't appear to fight, if the roles were reversed on the Supreme Court appointment we'd have heard about it on every fucking broadcast media channel ad nauseum. Not just because of media bias but because Republican leadership and Fox (the same thing?) would not have let it go.
I know I've used this example before, but Republican organizations ran television ads pressuring Democrats to pass the FISA amendments in 2009. The fight took place over a few weeks, maybe a month in Congress, and I doubt they even had the ads cut before the fight started. If you suggested Democrats do the same thing in the other direction, all you'd hear about is how it's boring and wonkish and who cares and public opinion won't change, and what can you do? You just have to wait for the next election. Oh well. Pretty easy to put a hold onto the nomination if no one is even bothering to pressure you on it.
I bet a lot of people who now fervently believe that specific judges should be impeached didn't believe that and hadn't even thought about it a couple of months ago. But sure, persuasion is impossible and you have to go with the electorate you've got, there's just no changing anything.
Impeachment is the mechanism, but of course...
I've seen arguments that the framers of the Constitution didn't anticipate what's happening now, but there's a decent argument that they did but what they didn't anticipate is the lack of interest in using the tools provided to deal with what's happening now. Also, I'd have to go back and read, but the worries about factionalism and organized political parties might have touched on the problem where one party takes over each of the branches, effectively subverting any separation of powers.
FISA amendments in 2009
I meant 2008.
Speaking of lawyers, you know that tool who is standing there while his constituents ask him to tax the rich? He went to law school with my sister.
||
taking advantage of the debauched reputation of the ancient convent of Saint-Éloi to evict the scandal-ridden nuns and tear down some of their buildings|>
23, 25: from what I understand, this is why you need to ensure that your devices are not merely locked, but -powered-down- as you're landing. So that if and when CBP demand you unlock them, you can point out that that would involve surrendering a password, not merely applying your thumb to a reader.
And I guess, we all need to make sure we have a good immigration lawyer on retainer before boarding a flight. Sigh.
47: would using signal help? I never signed up for face or thumb recognition. I always use a password.
I have the app. But how do people know I'm me?
Twice as many street protests so far in the US as there were at the same point in Trump's first term:
https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/03/resistance-alive-well-us/
Tooze is very good
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-363-stockholm-syndrome?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=ax7nw&triedRedirect=true
He is - as is the article he links to on "Mar-A-Lago Face". https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/maralago-face-conservative-girl-makeup-brutal-aesthetics-of-maga-trump-gaetz-guilfoyle/
It has only two minor flaws - first, it falls to the strange temptation of people writing for US magazines to insert themselves into the story; and second, it comes close to but never quite makes the link between the obvious plastic surgery that makes up MALFace, and the facial tattoos used by street gangs. The point, in both cases, is a visible symbol of commitment - you disfigure yourself in a way that's repellent to everyone outside the group and is very hard to reverse, to show that you will never leave the group.
OT, some interesting chartage from a Ukraine analyst:
https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1902364609446564027
The charts show confirmed Russian vehicle losses by type, by month. "Tank" and "Civilian" are what they sound like. "IFV" is a tracked armoured vehicle that carries troops. "APC" also carries troops but is 6-8-wheeled and more lightly armoured. "IMV" is "Infantry Mobility Vehicle" - an even lighter sort of armoured troop mover, normally with four wheels, really not much more than a truck with some armour, and quite difficult to tell apart from a civilian truck. "ATV" is an all-terrain vehicle - like a dune buggy.
So what we're seeing here is an army that went from being a "normal" army in mid-2023 - mainly losing, and therefore presumably mainly fighting with, tanks and heavy tracked and wheeled armour - to something that is on average much less well protected. They're still losing roughly as many tanks per day now as then, but they're now also using (and losing) a lot of very lightly armoured and completely unprotected vehicles. And that's coming along with much higher casualty rates (though the ratio of casualties per lost vehicle hasn't actually moved very much at all).
I called my Senators and left voicemails asking them to dump Schumer because of the CR among other things. He was on MSNBC with Chris Hayes saying that we weren't in a Constitutional crisis. Only once Trump refuses to follow a Supreme Court order is it a constitutional crisis, according to Chuck.
Good times (breaking news about "giving Elon Musk access to some of the nation's most closely guarded military secrets"):
But there is a possible reason Mr. Musk might need to know about the war plan. If Mr. Musk and his team of cost cutters from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, want to trim the Pentagon budget in a responsible way, they may need to know what weapons systems the Pentagon plans to use in a fight with China.
I'm heading off on a delirious tangent, wondering if Musk has moved so many properties to Texas because there's a big X in the name, and if this might be a future preteXt for invading Mexico. China offers vast potential for additional conflicts of interest there as well. Unclear what roles the Cyrillic alphabet might potentially play; Kazakhstan could be an attractive target, but only with Russian orthography. Arkhangelsk data centers?
I was going to snap eventually and I guess this was the push.
50: From the jokes and other comments?
||
Abiy Ahmed said on Thursday that his government would not seek conflict with longtime foe Eritrea over access to the Red SeaSo, all good. No worries. I'm sure everything will be great.
58 is indeed deliriously insane but that doesn't make it implausible. I would have thought though that the climate is nicer in Exuma, plus it sounds like "X Zoomer".
||
Magical impotence remained a central plank of his strategy|>
I can't tell which of our co-presidents 64 is referring to
Maybe as the countries fall they get rebranded as "X"[shortened name].
So: XCan, XMeX, XGreen, XPan, XUS.
57.quote (emphasis added): But there is a possible reason Mr. Musk might need to know about the war plan. If Mr. Musk and his team of cost cutters from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, want to trim the Pentagon budget in a responsible way,
If only you believed in miracles so would I.
As we progress further down the rabbit hole our steno-chroniclers find they have to up their game.
Actually, despite that line, the article is not one I should be carping about, provides actual good valuable information for the public presented in relatively concise and way. And it seems to have prompted a denial from the T-ster but has since been "verified" by the WSJ.