The WSJ Story About Future Trump Judicial Nominees

The Wall Street Journal published an article titled, "Trump Loyalists Push for a Combative Slate of New Judges." The first sentence repeats the theme of loyalty: "A rising faction within the conservative legal movement is laying the groundwork for Donald Trump to appoint judges who prioritize loyalty to him and aggressively advocate for dismantling the federal government should he win a second term." The implied connection is clear: Trump loyalists in executive branch seek to install Trump loyalists in the judiciary branch. Nonsense.

There is not a single word in the story to suggest that Trump appointees would be "loyal" to Trump. These judges have a constitutional vision that far surpasses whatever ephemeral issues matter to Trump. Judicial appointments can last up to forty years. Trump will be in office for, at most, four years. And if Trump prevails, he will not have to stand for any more elections, thus no more Trump-election-related litigation. More likely than not, anti-Trump litigation will be brought in blue circuits, where Trump-appointees are a discrete and insular minority. Does anyone think that a handful of Trump appointees on the Ninth Circuit will make a difference? Judges Katsas, Rao, and Walker will be flying solo on the D.C. Circuit for some time. And the Fourth Circuit is lost for a generation. I truly do not understand the thrust of this "loyalist" meme. It is not accurate, and even if accurate, will have no practical effect.

Instead, the true thrust of the piece comes in a quote from Mike Davis:

Future Trump judicial nominees must be "even more bold and more conservative and more fearless," than those appointed in the first administration, said Republican legal activist Mike Davis, one of the conservative lawyers pushing for a harder line in a potential second Trump administration.

As I've written "judicial courage," should be an important metric for any future judges. I think any plausible judicial nominee will profess fidelity to textualism and originalism. Or at least they will pretend to. That is a given. The better question is what a judge will do with that jurisprudence. To use an analogy, what quantum of originalist evidence is sufficient to upset the status quo. This is not merely a question about stare decisis. I've written at some length how Justice Barrett has imposed extremely onerous burdens on litigants seeking to change things. And the Barrett mode is common enough on the lower courts. Of course lower court judges cannot reverse Supreme Court precedent. And individual panels cannot reverse circuit precedent. But between those lines, there is some space for lower-court originalism.

The article goes on to say that conservatives were "surprised" by Justice Gorsuch's Bostock majority and Justice Kavanaugh's concurrences.

Some were shocked in 2020, for instance, when Gorsuch, the most libertarian of the Trump three, joined with liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts to extend federal civil-rights protections to LGBT employees. Others have expressed exasperation at Kavanaugh's practice of filing concurring opinions that credit the concerns of liberal dissenters even when he votes with the conservative majority—something he did in the 2022 decision eliminating women's federal right to abortion before fetal viability.

No one should have been surprised by anything the Trump appointees have done. They are behaving now exactly as they behaved below. To the extent that conservatives are frustrated with these Justices, they should reconsider the criteria for appointment.

The rest of the article tries to sketch some divide between the "old guard" and the "new guard" within the Federalist Society.

The movement's old guard, including lawyers who helped found the Federalist Society in the 1980s, is pushing back, fearful of discrediting the conservative principles they worked for decades to legitimize within a legal profession that leaned left.

Since losing the 2020 election, Trump has broken with Federalist Society leaders who had eagerly boosted his blitz of judicial appointments during his first term but later balked at his efforts to thwart President Biden's victory and didn't openly support him as he faced dozens of criminal charges.

Trump has gravitated to more-combative lawyers outside the conservative legal establishment who have said they want to hobble regulatory agencies and concentrate power in the White House. The shift has sidelined the old guard in favor of groups like America First Legal, run by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who isn't a lawyer but said he set up the group to fight what it called "an unholy alliance of corrupt special interests, big tech titans, the fake news media and liberal Washington politicians."  . . . .

Longtime Federalist Society members said the group was designed not to advocate for specific positions but to promote conservative and libertarian thought more broadly—and provide a career network for right-leaning lawyers interested in government and the judiciary.

"I'm one of the traditionalists who believe the strength of the Federalist Society is that it doesn't take positions, it allows its members to take positions," said former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who took part in the 1982 conference at Yale Law School where the group was founded. . . .

Sarah Isgur, who was a spokeswoman for the Trump Justice Department and considers herself more of a traditional conservative, said that while the Federalist Society historically sought to associate its movement with the most prestigious law schools and professional accomplishments, the upstarts have other criteria.

The direction of FedSoc seems separate from the question about potential Trump nominees. But I do think that FedSoc is standing at something of a turning point, given the pending search for President.

Comments

[bacchys]

Blackman is quite the apologist for fascism.

[Michael Ejercito]

What fascism?

[Riva]

What? Define what you mean by “fascism.”

[Sarcastr0]

From CNN: "a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition"

Exalts nation - check (he claims nationalism is good)
Often race - check (blacks, immigrants, Latinos...all are against MAGA)
Above the individual - check (all serve Trump)
A centralized autocratic government (See the OP, or Trump re: Media companies, or Project 2025, or Trump saying he'd be dictator for a day yada yada)
Headed by a dictatorial leader (MAGA is Trump and Trump is MAGA)
Characterized by severe economic regimentation (Trump is wise because he's rich)
...and social regimentation (gays, trans, hippies, etc)
forcible suppression of opposition (Trump at his rallies talking about beating people up; Trump and the media; Trump recently saying he'd use the media to suppress dissenting protesters)

I'm quite careful about using the f-word, and won't start now. But Riva, got bad news about what you support.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://johnkassnews.com/what-would-we-do-without-democrats/

What Would We Do Without Democrats?
By Steve Huntley

February 4, 2024

I thank heaven for Democrats. What would we do without them to warn of the impending doom we face if Donald Trump is returned to the White House? So, we’re fortunate that they are around to caution us about the danger of the authoritarian ambitions of “MAGA Republicans.” And where might those tyrannical impulses lead us? Perhaps to a GOP Washington micromanaging our lives to the point of dictating to us which stoves and dishwashers we can have in our kitchens and what light bulbs we can install in our lamps.

Oh, wait a minute, that’s what Democrats in Washington and state governments are already pushing on us. Then maybe those MAGA autocrats will restrict what cars we can drive. Uh ho, that’s what Democrat climate-change fanatics in the Biden cabinet, the federal administrative state and liberals running some states are already out to do. They’re busy calculating what year automakers must stop producing gasoline-powered cars and exclusively manufacture electric battery vehicles.

Okay, then surely the danger is Czar Trump and his minions of thought police will crack down on media so the big web organizations will toe the line to his messaging. Argh — the Democrats are already at it. Journalists such as Matt Taibbi have documented how petty but powerful bureaucrats in D.C. have bullied, cajoled and pressured social media sites to characterize as “misinformation” and “disinformation” any dissent from liberal groupthink to minimize or outright banish it from the public forum.

The country’s school children still haven’t recovered from damage caused by Anthony Fauci and other self-declared public health experts shutting down any national conversation about how to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Okay, okay! But watch Trump try to brainwash our children with MAGA curricula from elementary to high schools and beyond. Uh, wrong again. As we’ve learned from zoom classes during the Covid-forced school closings, it’s Democrat teachers, administrators and local school boards shoving down the throats of vulnerable children woke cultural claptrap about race, gender and American history.

Prestigious universities take the ball from there and, well, the shocking outbreak of anti-semitism on their campuses pretty much sums up the results of far left-wing indoctrination. The record is clear. For all their shrieking about Trump despotism, Democrats are the agents of authoritarian, quasi-dictatorial government — from the school board to city hall to state legislatures to Washington.

The attacks on individual liberty are coming from all sides of the Democrat government complex. It’s difficult sometimes to say which is worst: The school boards that try to characterize as domestic terrorists those parents furious at the political indoctrination of their children? The government censors out to undermine the First Amendment and control who can be heard on the critical issues of the day?

The bureaucrats who wrapped themselves in “science” to shut down the economy and cripple the education of America’s children during the Covid-19 pandemic?

Perhaps the strongest assault of our republican form of government, the most powerful attack from authoritarian forces, comes from the administrative state, known in the conservative circles as the Deep State. It has bestowed on itself the authority to govern us by seizing the power to decide what our laws mean.

Unfortunately a few decades ago the Supreme Court green-lighted that power grab by ruling that the executive branch — from the president down to unelected government bureaucrats — has the right to interpret laws passed by Congress if the details of legislation seem ambiguous.

That decision established what is known as the “Chevron deference.” It means the courts and the rest of us should defer to the president, his department heads and unelected apparatchiks when they decide this or that law is ambiguous. They then interpret that ambiguity the way they want to write the regulations they want.

It’s a viewpoint that Democrats love, for reasons easy to understand. Even when a Republican occupies the White House, the functionaries of the administrative state remain overwhelmingly Democrat, liberal and progressive. With a stroke of a pen, they can rewrite laws to achieve ends Democrats could never get through Congress.

From the education department to the energy agencies to the interior department to the many government mandarins overseeing the economy, the bureaucrats took that ruling and ran with it. Paragraph 5, Section 2, Clause 14 of a law isn’t crystal clear? No problem. We in government are here to help.

So off the bureaucrats went to impose regulations on American citizens not explicitly or even implicitly written into the nation’s vast body of laws. That’s as authoritarian as you can get. It empowers presidents and faceless bureaucrats with near dictatorial authority. Just ask the Idaho couple wanting to build a home who had the hammer of the Environmental Protection Agency come down on them. It declared a soggy part of their property to be “wetlands” and thus a federally regulated waterway. That case ended up in the Supreme Court, which found that EPA bureaucrats used the Clean Water Act in a way Congress never intended.

Presidents also try to enact policies that Congress would not authorize. A couple of years ago then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi observed that Congress had never authorized forgiveness of student loans, so President Biden didn’t have the power to cancel student debt. Biden said never mind and tried to do it anyway — only to see his plan struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Never mind that, he’s back to trying to find a way to do it.

Screw the taxpayer, the millions of them who paid their own college costs or never went to college.

(Pelosi, being a good big-government Democrat, blessed Biden’s power grab when she realized she couldn’t get Congress to do her bidding and that executive action was the only way to achieve student debt forgiveness.)

The ground work was laid by former President Barack Obama. Remember he declared that if Congress wouldn’t enact legislation he wanted, “I’ve got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won’t, and I’ve got a telephone to rally folks around the country on this mission.”

To their shame, members of Congress from both parties have acquiesced to this coup by the White House and the nameless bureaucrats. Spineless lawmakers write vague laws to outsource the hard work to apparatchiks hungry to increase their power.

Now there’s a chance to turn the tide.

The Chevron deference theory was back before the Supreme Court in January — a challenge to the desk jockeys in Washington who decreed commercial fishermen must pay the salaries of federal monitors on their boats. The tough questioning from justices seemed to indicate that they are leaning toward restricting that all-powerful bureaucratic discretion.

Still, such a victory would mark only a first step toward reclaiming our democratic republic from authoritarian government.

The bottom line is that Democrats — with foolish Republicans occasionally joining in this project — have worked for decades to slowly expand the power and reach of presidents and, more critically, the unelected bureaucrats of the administrative state.

For all their hand-wringing and often expressed anxieties about an authoritarian presidency under Trump, Democrats are the ones who have greased the way for that. They have erected a maze of complex laws and an unelected government colossus free to interpret them in any way its functionaries see fit. It’s a system ready made for an autocrat to exploit. Democrats have seen the enemy — and, surprise, it’s them.

[SRG2]

Man with blog posts article.

[Michael Ejercito]

He recounted facts.

[SRG2]

He may well claim them to be, but as I demo'd last week, just because something's in print doesn't make it so.

[bacchys]

Not so much.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, almost all your supposed evidence has nothing to do with the point you pretend it upholds, or is just based on talking points, not reality.

And, "Often race"? What does that even mean? Could you have used a few more words, to actually describe a doubtless mistaken but at least fully formed concept?

[Sarcastr0]

If you are fighting the definition and clarity, you, uh, don’t care about fascism.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know right? If he really truly cared about fascism, like you do, he'd buy into all your fact-free tropes and slogans! And definitions from revered authorities, such as CNN!

After all, that's what smart people do! Screw evidence! We got witches to burn!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, what the hell do you mean by "often race"? I mean it: There aren't enough words there to construct a concept.

[Sarcastr0]

I cited a source for my definition so asking me is misaligned.

But the idea that fascism often targets a racial outgroup but not always doesn’t seem hard to understand.

Feel free to Google the definition.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why not go to the original source, Benito himself?
https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf

Not enough commie propaganda?

>Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic,
based on broad foundations of popular support. The
Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic
field no less than in others; it makes its action
felt throughout the length and breadth of the
country by means of its corporative, social, and
educational institutions, and all the political,
economic, and spiritual forces of the nation,
organized in their respective associations, circulate
within the State. A State based on millions of
individuals who recognize its authority, feel its
action, and are ready to serve its ends is not the
tyrannical state of a mediaeval lordling

Sounds like right up your alley!

[Brett Bellmore]

See, that's enough words to understand what you're getting at. Maybe you should have used a few more initially, instead of some private shorthand.

Yes, fascism often targets a racial outgroup, but your 'evidence' of Trump doing this is instead that a racial outgroup doesn't like Trump.

Which isn't evidence of him targeting anybody. Surely you understand that.

[Sarcastr0]

Your problem is with Webster’s it seems.

Per below, you have a whole different anti-regulation definition you would prefer.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, literally, you claim that Trump is targeting minorities, and your supposed evidence of that is minorities being against MAGA. NOT MAGA being against minorities!

"Often race – check (blacks, immigrants, Latinos…all are against MAGA)"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't forget how Gaslightr0 ignores all the recent headlines of Trumps historic levels of support among those same groups... except the illegals of course

[Martinned2]

The guy who proposed to deport millions of people from ethnic minorities isn't, according to you, "targeting minorities"? Are you nuts?

[Michael Ejercito]

It is illegal.aliens who would be deported.

[Brett Bellmore]

While illegal aliens ARE, thankfully, a minority in the US, they are not an ethnic or racial minority. They're a minority based on the legal status of their presence in the country. A Swedish visa overstay is just as much an illegal alien as a Honduran who waded across the Rio Grande.

[Purple Martin]

Well, instead of Swedish, Trump says Norwegian but as opposed to, say, Hondurans, doesn't typically display nearly as much animus.

[Riva]

Sarcastr0, it is relatively pointless to respond to your various lies and distortions, in part because you know yourself that you’re lying. Just to comment on a few. It is not President Trump’s “Project 2025” and it is absurd to characterize Project 2025 itself as fascistic. And, media/pundits/academics/democrats (is there ever a difference?) ranted incessantly the silly “Trump is a dictator.” President Trump’s chose to respond jokingly and sarcastically, which is all those insults deserved. And as aside, the irresponsible “dictator” rhetoric only contributes to an environment that encourages more crazy leftist violence.

But the amazing thing is how aptly your definition of fascism actually aptly describes Democrats. They want a one party-state exerting pression on corporations and even individuals to enforce their censorship and cancel culture. The only thing you do is project the left’s policies on President Trump. It’s all you clowns ever do.

[Longtobefree]

What everyone means, a totalitarian system of government where the state controls the citizens at every level.

The Nazi term Gleichschaltung (German pronunciation: [ˈɡlaɪçʃaltʊŋ] ⓘ) or "coordination" was the process of Nazification by which Adolf Hitler—leader of the Nazi Party in Germany—successively established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society "from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education".

Sound familiar?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, that's pretty much a description of left-wing economics: Rather than a free market, the government dictates market outcomes.

So, say you don't like market outcomes in an industry, like health insurance. Rather than just banning the industry and having the government take over directly, you promulgate regulations that dictate fundamental aspects of the market: Who can/must be sold to, who is mandated to buy the product, what the price will be, what will be covered.

Classic fascism.

Or, say you don't like the fact that customers prefer ICE vehicles to electric. You mandate that electric vehicles be sold, regardless of customer preference. Maybe by writing regulations that are simply impossible for ICE vehicles to comply with, but which have a loophole for EVs; Capping the amount of CO2 per mile for the ICE vehicles at an unrealistically low level, while not counting power plant emissions against EVs.

Totalitarian control over the market, dictating what products are permitted to be sold.

[Sarcastr0]

No body uses fascism like this except you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Foundation for Economic Freedom: Economic Facism

Mises Institute: The Rise of Economic Fascism in America

The basic difference between socialism and fascism, in the economic sphere, is that socialists prefer that the government take formal ownership of the means of production, while fascists, reasoning that the businessmen knew better how to run them, simply exerted such comprehensive control over what businesses were allowed to do that they became de facto extensions of the government.

Modern left-wing economics is thus fundamentally fascist, in that it has given up on government ownership of the means of production, and instead just regulates it into compliance.

[SimonP]

Regulation is not “fascism,” Brett. You are totally off your rocker today.

Fascism is what you get when you use the power of the state to compel institutions to cooperate with your totalitarian agenda. When you, say, threaten an FCC license of a broadcaster over unfavorable coverage, award government contracts and power to the owner of a media platform who is dedicated to furthering your message and agenda, prosecute critics of your judicial picks for engaging in some kind of “manipulation” of judges, plan a purge of military leadership so that you can install leaders with a greater commitment to your agenda than the Constitution, and so on.

This is not really that hard to understand, Brett. We have historical analogues for all of this. How did the German Nazis get into power? Look at what they did, step by step. They had significant but minority popular support. They took advantage of discontent over economic and political circumstances, exacerbated it, and then leveraged that discontent to consolidate power. The history of Nazi Germany is not one where you find years of excessive but well-intentioned over-regulation of the economy, resulting in widespread economic collapse and ultimately electoral defeat. Rather, it’s a series of steps where the institutional guardrails preventing the consolidation and abuse of power were systematically dismantled, enabling greater and greater atrocities, resulting ultimately in a devastating war of aggression and genocide.

That’s how it played out in Spain, Italy. It’s what we’re seeing in Russia now. We see Hungary, Turkey, India on earlier steps along the same path. The space for dissent and electoral accountability is shrinking, the space for corruption and abuse of power is increasing, the independent media is being shuttered. Not because the leaders in those countries are zealots pursuing a radically “green” agenda that relies on principles of a command economy. The leaders in those countries – again, same pattern in every single one – consolidate popular support by shoveling money and welfare programs to lower-educated, more rural populations. They cater to those populations by vilifying an “other” – in Hungary, it’s migrants, in Turkey it’s Kurds, in India it’s Muslims, in Russia it’s “westerners.” They push back against progressive social values and use state power to re-establish “traditional” moral values. And while they do that, they consolidate power in a single executive, they undermine judicial independence, they decrease power of the legislative branch and eliminate meaningful opposition. Again and again and again. Same exact pattern.

You do not see this, Brett, because you are a fascist at heart. You refuse to see these historical patterns and how they’re playing out in American politics. You’re ideologically committed to not seeing them. You will bend over backwards to recast the Democratic agenda as “fascistic,” even while your preferred candidate in the upcoming election is talking about reaching back to an archaic law in order to justify directing the military to shoot protesters. You will tell us that you are really a “libertarian” and that you believe that Trump’s worst impulses will be constrained by our institutions, while you are signing on the dotted line of a platform that promises to use state power to impose the MAGA agenda on every American, everywhere, and to eliminate any institutional hurdle that gets in the way.

At the end of the day, I don’t know whether you are an ignorant, deluded, useful idiot – or if you really are just a fascist slimeball with so little respect for your fellow Americans that you will smile to their face while preparing to stab them in the back.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Regulation is not “fascism,” Brett. You are totally off your rocker today. "

Neither is a rubber hose "fascism", I use one to water my garden.

But both can be a tool of fascism, depending on how they're used.

[SimonP]

Well, you're definitely a tool of fascism, Brett.

[Michael Ejercito]

How has Trump undermined judicial independence?

[SimonP]

In our system, the main way this can be done is by appointing carefully-vetted loyalists to the bench, and then relying on non-governmental networks to channel benefits to judges who support your agenda. Trump's judicial appointments haven't consistently followed this model, but it looks like his supporters understand this better now and have a plan for their next bite at the apple.

The test will come if Trump wins - you'll see. The Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, and a variety of district courts have handed Biden a number of losses, constricting federal power. The fear that some of us have is that the courts won't hold Trump to the same limits, or will find increasingly dubious reasons to ignore the anti-Biden precedents when necessary to reach pro-Trump results.

The next step would require exercises of power that are difficult to imagine now but may be easier to push through once the judiciary has been filled up with corrupt, pro-Trump judges. Things like mandatory retirement ages, impeachments of judges for the crime of being appointed by a Democrat, manipulation of judicial circuits (e.g., combining circuits and districts to minimize "Democratic" judicial control, multiplying districts and splitting circuits to maximize "Republican" judicial control, etc.).

[Brett Bellmore]

By the first standard FDR all but abolished judicial independence already, which is the only reason 90% of what the federal government does these days is being upheld as constitutional.

By the latter standard, only the Democrats are threatening judicial independence.

[Sarcastr0]

You live in a world all by yourself where things aren’t the way you want them only because of bad faith.

FDR did not abolish an independent judiciary.

I’m reading a book on that era right now.

[SimonP]

By the first standard FDR all but abolished judicial independence already, which is the only reason 90% of what the federal government does these days is being upheld as constitutional.

It's news to me that we have any FDR loyalists on the bench today, much less judges who are supported by non-governmental networks channeling benefits to those who uphold FDR's agenda.

Again - off your rocker today, Brett. Maybe you need a nap. You're like Trump dancing at his town hall.

[GKHoff]

You mean like the appointment of carefully vetted loyalist Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, followed by her non-governmental publisher bestowing on her a $3 million dollar advance?

[Sarcastr0]

Carefully vetted loyalist?
Loyal to who?

You seem to have refuted yourself on the book advance.

[SimonP]

What reason do we have to believe that Biden vetted KBJ for her loyalty to his agenda? What evidence do we have that it would be a relevant consideration, for him?

What kind of quid do you suppose the book publisher was trying to secure, by making the $3 million advance?

Show your work, Jerk-Hoff. Don't just put words together and think you've made a point.

[bacchys]

This new variant of MAGA.

[Mark Regan]

"The direction of FedSoc seems separate from the question about potential Trump nominees. But I do think that FedSoc is standing at something of a turning point, given the pending search for President."

The search for President of what? The Federalist Society, or the United States?

[Brett Bellmore]

The Federalist Society.

Federalist Society Head Tells Group He’s Searching for Successor

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is not a single world in the story to suggest that Trump appointees would be "loyal" to Trump.

Usual exaggeration.

The article is predictive. We don't know what will happen. Let's hope the whole thing is academic. It would be appalling if Trump won.

Here are some quotes from the article:

This ascendant faction wants more judges like U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the controversial Trump-appointed Florida jurist who dismissed one of the criminal cases against Trump, and fewer like U.S. appeals court Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Third Circuit, another Trump appointee, who in 2020 rejected the former president’s bid to overturn his election loss that year.

Future Trump judicial nominees must be “even more bold and more conservative and more fearless,” than those appointed in the first administration, said Republican legal activist Mike Davis, one of the conservative lawyers pushing for a harder line in a potential second Trump administration.

Trump has spoken admiringly of Davis as “tough as hell.”

“We want him in a very high capacity,” the former president said at a recent rally.

There is some evidence that Trump wants to ensure that he has less limits on his power and discretion. He and many of his supporters were mad on the limits put on his power.

So, when choosing judges, they will try to seek out more people who would be loyal. There has been much more effort in recent years to pick nominees who will give you certain things. For instance, they got their white whale -- Roe is gone.

Loyalty to Trump would be an acceptable quid pro quo for many nominees. As noted, they would have good behavior tenure & only have to serve his interests for a limited number of years.

Of course, many will believe they are just being loyal to their beliefs while doing so. Judge Cannon, for instance, is likely to believe she is not just a hack.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair, it suggests a lot, it just doesn't do much of anything to back up the suggestions.

[David Bremer]

It's a prediction, and the story gives the reasons why the author made those predictions, including his actions toward the end of his first term, statements he's made on the campaign trail, activists affecting the party's position, and a former spokesperson for Trump's justice department.

Now, maybe you disagree with those predictions, but they are backed up by several reasons. If you're looking for some sort of evidence that this has definitely occurred, well, like all predictions, you need to wait to see what comes to pass.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Loyalty” means something different with Trump. It means issuing whatever rulings are required to keep him out of jail after he leaves office.

[Roger S]

Trump has a record of appointing judges based on competence. They have been much better than the Biden DEI appointees.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Show your work.”

I don’t have to show mine. Look at Aileen Cannon’s lawless jurisprudence, and the Court’s own decision in the case which immunized him from liability (and would have immunized Nixon from liability, making Ford’s pardon unnecessary).

[Roger S]

I think that we are reaching a consensus that the actions and decisions against Nixon were bad law, and judges got caught up in the hysteria of the day. Ford's pardon was unnecessary.

Judge Cannon's dismissal is being appealed. We shall see. I think that Jack Smith will be found to be acting illegally.

[Sarcastr0]

I think that we are reaching a consensus that the actions and decisions against Nixon were bad law

No we are not. You and Blackman just fucking suck is all.

Your Mom really did a number on all of her kids, eh?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Christ, what an asshole.

[Commenter_XY]

The true colors show.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at you, wagging your finger at how I treat antisemites.

He’s linked his blog if you want tot are a look.

Pretty sad set of bedfellows you have chosen.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hopefully he'll heed your rebuke and turn towards our Lords and Saviors in Washington D.C.!

Praise be the Bureaucrat!

[Sarcastr0]

Roger S? Yeah he’s a Jew hating white supremecist.

You defend the worst people.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You said that you didn’t use that kind of language.

Are you man enough to admit ownership of your words this time around?

[Frank Drackman]

Lots of guys did a number on Yo' Mama, I think it was "69"

[bacchys]

The only such "consensus" is in the minds of idiot MAGAts sniffing each other's asses.

What's bad law is a decision that presidents can violate the law as long as they doing their job with complete impunity.

[Michael Ejercito]

What is your criticism of Cannon's jurisprudence?

[David Nieporent]

That it routinely ignores binding precedent in order to benefit Donald Trump.

[SRG2]

She has jurisprudence? Who knew?

[Roger S]

Everything about the prosecution goes against how the justice system has worked under the constitution for 200 years. Jack Smith is just a private citizen with no proper authority or funding, and prosecuting made-up crimes that have never been prosecuted before.

[windycityattorney]

I think you are confusing the case in Florida for some other of Trump's criminal cases. The case in FL is pretty straight forward. Obstruction of justice is not a 'made up crime' only because the person who did it was a former president. He got a lawful subpoena and attempted to ignore it; then half-ass complied after being told by retained lawyers to comply with it BUT enlisted his attorney(s) in submitting a knowingly false certification that the subpoena was fully complied with. He also enlisted his *checks notes* pool boy to try to destroy video of his attempts at hiding evidence.

Of all the cases against him, the obstruction charge is likely the easiest to prove and there is overwhelming evidence to support it. But what he was obstructing is also rather easy to prove. He had a bunch of documents that belonged to the US GOVT that were not his to possess. ALSO not a 'made up crime.'

Because the chances of conviction of at least some federal felonies were so high with any conceivable jury, Cannon seems to have bought Trump a reprieve past the election with the granting of the motion to dismiss. If he does win the election, then we get to witness the spectacle of a president ordering his atty general to drop the federal cases against him in a brazen unethical act of self -dealing. It is no doubt 100% likely that any Atty Gen nominee will be given a litmus test of throwing the fed cases out as a pre-condition of employment as our country slides even deeper into MAGA-tardation.

[hobie]

During Senate confirmation, I'm sure most Democrats will ask one question:

'Will you acquiesce to the president's command to drop charges levied by a grand jury?'

And I'm sure each will use their time to describe in detail all the crimes. Not that it will matter. In that scenario MAGA will be running the nation, and nothing will break the fealty

[SimonP]

Given that Josh was a contributor to Project 2025, which laid out a systematic strategy for co-opting the various institutions of the federal government in service of a radically conservative agenda, I don't think we have any reason to take him very seriously here.

Is there some other place you could shitpost, Josh? I understand that you're just trying to goose the search algorithms so that this turd will float to the top of any search hitting on the WSJ piece, but do you need to subject us to this?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Speaking personally, I owe Josh a lot.

[Life of Brian]

Given that Josh was a contributor to Project 2025

What material in the 922 page document did he contribute that you disagree with?

[Brett Bellmore]

The document itself confirms that he was a contributor, but doesn't identify what he contributed.

[Life of Brian]

I know. I'm waiting with bated breath to see how Simon tries to justify his per-se tarring without knowing such pesky little details.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's pretty simple: Since the Party is criticizing the document, obviously everything in it, without any notable exception, is evil. So you don't have to identify what his contribution was to know it was bad.

[bacchys]

If it was any good the Party wouldn't be pretending none of them had anything to do with it.

[Brett Bellmore]

You forget my "Once you put a turd in a sandwich, it's a shit sandwich no matter what else is in it." principle. All they need for a reason to point out it's not THEIR "project" is to find one thing in it objectionable. They don't have to hate the whole thing.

[Sarcastr0]

This is, notably, neither a defense of anything actually in Project 2025 nor of Blackman for contributing to it.

It’s Dems Bad handwaiving.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm noting that you're criticizing Blackman for having contributed to a nearly thousand page document, without knowing which part of it he contributed to. I see three possible basis for that.

1) You've read it from end to end, and in your considered opinion, there's nothing at all in it that's within the range of acceptable opinion.

2) You've read enough of it to have a considered opinion that SOME of it is bad, and through guilt by association, anyone who contributed to it in any way, when it wasn't innocent from cover to cover, is equally guilty.

3) You've been told by the Party that it's wrongthink, and anybody who's associated with wrongthink is bad, and no more reasoning than that is necessary.

Look, you already knew Blackman's politics weren't yours. Is it somehow illegitimate to not share your politics?

[Sarcastr0]

This is the same argument as the 'many fine people' argument.

Project 2025 doesn't just contain bad parts - it's purpose and conception is an authoritarian transformation of America.

I don't need to read it end to end to understand what it is. Maybe it has some policies I think are OK or even good. But that does not change what it is, as a whole.

This is how documents work. This is elementary.

Look, you already knew Blackman’s politics weren’t yours. Is it somehow illegitimate to not share your politics?
This argument proves to much. To with - it can be used to defend Nazis. Funny you keep having to make arguments that can do that these days, eh?

[SimonP]

Josh is welcome to clarify the extent of his involvement. I would assume that he contributed to portions relating to the judiciary, since that is what apparently gets his jollies off.

While we await Josh's clarification, perhaps you could explain why you think your comment is an effective rebuttal to my "per se tarring" of Josh, by associating him with the document. Am I not allowed to criticize his choice to contribute to that document, without knowing precisely what he contributed?

Put another way: a number of VC contributors have not publicly affixed their names to Project 2025 or the conservative agendas being pursued by people like Abbott/Paxton, DeSantis, Mitchell, and other MAGA legal advocacy groups. Still, they have made their ideological commitments clear by what they've written, what they've not written about, and by their tangential association with litigation they publicly claim not to have anything to do with.

It takes a special kind of chutzpah to look a document like Project 2025 directly in the eye and sign your name to it. By this choice, Josh has made clear that he not only agrees with its aims, but he wishes to be publicly associated with it. I see no reason not to note this, as often as it needs to be noted.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Am I not allowed to criticize his choice to contribute to that document, without knowing precisely what he contributed? "

Well, of course you're free to be an idiot.

It's an over 900 page grab bag of policy proposals. Criticizing somebody for having contributed to it without identifying what they contributed is like saying, "He contributes to Wikipedia, the fiend!"

I mean, are you going to claim that every last item in it is horrible? Then you're just saying having a conservative viewpoint is horrible, and Blackman would probably say, "Guilty as charged, so what?"

[SimonP]

Well, of course you’re free to be an idiot.

It doesn't stop you, does it? Can you explain in what way Project 2025 is relevantly similar to Wikipedia?

Project 2025 is not intended to be some "grab bag" of possible policy positions, arranged for people to choose a la carte. It's a mission statement. Don't waste my time by trying to pretend it's not.

The analogue to Project 2025 is not Wikipedia, Brett. A better comparison would be to Hamas's charter. It's a call to action, motivated by an ideology, setting forth a series of aims, not all of which may be actually achievable. If every Hamas member can be said to be in favor of the elimination of Israel, due to the content of that charter, then Josh can properly be said to be in favor of Project 2025's aims.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A better comparison would be to Hamas’s charter."

And there we have it: You're taking the position that conservatism is awful enough, on a par with terrorism, that any association at all with it is damning, so you don't have to be specific.

Having gone there, why should anyone the least bit conservative care about your opinion on this?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did he criticize “conservatism” or Project 2025?

You are an idiot.

[SimonP]

And there we have it: You’re taking the position that conservatism is awful enough, on a par with terrorism, that any association at all with it is damning, so you don’t have to be specific.

No. I am making an intentionally inflammatory analogy as a response to your own specious analogy, which you have refused to support, instead bawling your head off about a strawman you’d rather fight over.

Again: You have compared Project 2025 to Wikipedia. My response to this was to say that these two things are not relevantly similar. Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced online encyclopedia that permits any volunteer to contribute or edit contributions. It maintains a record of edits and has developed standards designed to ensure that its entries are factual, relatively balanced, supported by citations, and so on.

In contrast, Project 2025 is a comprehensive agenda of reforms, animated by a conservative vision of the presidency. Its authors are seeking to present a playbook for using the powers of the executive branch to implement, through law and federal power, a MAGA revolution. It is not some loosely organized “grab bag” of policy positions, and is not in any sense like Wikipedia.

Thus, signing on to Project 2025 is not like signing on to Wikipedia. It is like signing on to any other mission statement or policy agenda in furtherance of an ideology. I chose Hamas’s charter (though I could just as easily have chosen similar platforms from Israeli right-wing parties that are currently part of its governing coalition) because people like you are fond of attributing to members of Hamas agreement with every statement you can find in its charter. If that is justified, then so too is my attribution of statements in Project 2025 to Josh.

That comparison was intentionally inflammatory, but I did not anticipate that you would prefer to clutch your pearls over an insinuation I haven’t made rather than to address any point I’ve actually made. This is (once again) a bit childish of you. I would expect a little more maturity from a rational adult.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In contrast, Project 2025 is a comprehensive agenda of reforms, animated by a conservative vision of the presidency. Its authors are seeking to present a playbook for using the powers of the executive branch to implement, through law and federal power, a MAGA revolution. It is not some loosely organized “grab bag” of policy positions, and is not in any sense like Wikipedia."

It's a collection of proposed reforms, yes, all of them aiming at making the upcoming election actually matter if Republicans win. Nobody is obligated to agree with all of it in order to have a part in some of it. You may sign onto the end, of the next Republican administration being effective, you don't thereby sign on to every proposed means.

Sure, it's slightly more agenda driven than Wikipedia. It's more like an alternative platform. The similarity is that contributing one piece doesn't mean you've co-signed the whole thing. It's not nearly one coherent program that stands or falls as one piece. It's more of a laundry list of proposals. Heck, the article on the Import/Export bank is literally a debate over whether it should be kept or abolished! Which side of that debate are you signing onto if you contribute to a different part of the document?

[Sarcastr0]

aiming at making the upcoming election actually matter if Republicans win
Centralization of authority to one political faction. The Party. This is cartoonish levels of authoritarianism.

It’s more like an alternative platform
The issue with it is means, as well as ends.
The means are nakedly authoritarian – eliminating all checks on the power of The Party.
The ends are also authoritarian – turning the DoJ and FBI into organs of The Party. For pro-white ends.

And then there’s all the social conservative shit. The long arm of the government keeping your morality up to snuff.
You are defending a document that posits criminalizing porn.

You're the worst libertarian ever.

[bacchys]

It's a good thing you're free to be an idiot, eh?

[Life of Brian]

I would assume that he contributed to portions relating to the judiciary

It's not clear at all what "portions relating to the judiciary" you have in mind of a document that appears to be cabined to the Executive branch. Have you even skimmed it?

Am I not allowed to criticize his choice to contribute to that document, without knowing precisely what he contributed?

Of course. But now you're playing motte/bailey with your original proposition.

It takes a special kind of chutzpah to look a document like Project 2025 directly in the eye and sign your name to it.

Or, maybe he's just developed a more advanced immunity to this sort of guilt-by-association bullying than whoever else you may have in mind. Or maybe the others weren't asked to contribute. This seems like a particularly murky constellation you're claiming to see over a document that, again, I strongly suspect you haven't even read.

[SimonP]

Of course. But now you’re playing motte/bailey with your original proposition.

I don't understand what you think the "motte" and "bailey" in this situation is. I've noted that Josh has co-signed Project 2025, which is a mission statement for the radical reformation of federal institutions to serve a MAGA agenda, so we shouldn't take what he says about the judiciary very seriously.

You've asked: Well, what is he personally responsible for, in Project 2025. I don't know; Josh hasn't clarified. You're right that it has no section on the judiciary, as such. So...? I had guessed wrongly on what Josh may have contributed, then. What do you suppose he's contributed, then?

It doesn't particularly matter to the point I'd made, does it? You're just trying to have a derailing fight over what it's possible to know about Josh's contribution. I am just pointing to what's known.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's listed as a "contributor". I'm not seeing where there's any list of "co-signers" who have expressed support for everything in it.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean there were lots of people who wrote the USSR’s internal security policy too but I would not be calling them all fine people off the break.

[Brett Bellmore]

And there we are again. Analogizing a mere faction in the GOP to Hamas and to the KGB.

You don't really have any tolerance for political dissent, do you? The moment the opposition from the right, (Outright Marxists on the left are fine.) disagrees from you in any material degree, it's beyond the pale.

[Sarcastr0]

You have once again failed to engage with the argument. You're saying contributing to an authoritarian project is OK if your contribution might be good.

I think that's obviously false.

And you of all people don't get to tell me I'm intolerant. Every single mote away from your worldview and you telepathically find someone has a secret evil leftist agenda.

Telepathy like that I'm intolerant. Because it sure isn't an argument - the blanked generalization that if I condemn Blackman for associating with Project 2025 I must be utterly completely intolerant of all dissent is nothing but an assertion. And you have nothing else but your usual.

[Brett Bellmore]

You haven't established that Project 25 IS an authoritarian project! You've just asserted it.

What it is, is a "Winning an election should actually matter, how do we see to it that it does?" exercise. It starts from the assumption that Republicans win the election, and asks what's necessary for that to lead to Republican policies actually getting put into effect, instead of being bogged down in bureaucratic dumb insolence and systematically undermined by the people whose job is to instead implement the policies of the people who got elected.

Maybe it goes too far in some places. That means nobody can have a part in it? Is that a principle you EVER apply to groups you like? No, it isn't.

[Sarcastr0]

I and others have, in previous weeks. You were spending that time saying Trump wasn’t involved as I recall. Hardly a rousing defense.

Now you have come around it seems. With your usual everyone is stymying the outcomes I want so we gotta do some authoritarianism. Which is the argument of literally every authoritarian. It is increasingly amusing you call yourself a libertarian with what you inevitably come around to support.

I won’t relitigate that here in the dying embers of this thread. Perhaps a pep. Thread.

Feel free to look up the many summaries of what it plans to do, and how.

[SimonP]

Suck a dick, Brett. I'm tired of this bullshit from you.

[Frank Drackman]

"Suck a Dick"???
Gee, that wasn't kind or gentle (its 2024 and telling someone to commit Fellatio is still a common insult, would you ever say "Go Eat Out Scarlett Johannsen's Pussy!!!!!" ????)
but good on ya, getting to the Anger stage so soon, hopefully by November 6, you'll survive the Depression and reach Acceptance.

Frank

[hobie]

Most likely Blackman is looking for a judgeship himself. Anything to get him out of the drudgery of teaching in a converted office building in downtown Houston where the campus quad is a parking lot and a taco truck

[Sarcastr0]

I dunno he actually seems to like his job.

For all the crap he posts here he seems good with the kids.

[Frank Drackman]

You ever been to Houston? way better than that Shit Hole of Cleveland, but that's why You're Hobie-Stank, Cleveland is probably an improvement over your base level essence.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

I don't really understand why you insist on rudely calling arguments you don't agree with a "meme". You think the language is sloppy or inapt? Fine. But it's not a meme, the people writing it assert that it accurately characterizes what they want to say. They are not attempting to repeat a pre-packaged idea they heard. You repeat the same ideas often -- actually, almost always, it's sort of remarkable the extent to which you could set a bingo card to your posts -- and no one thinks it's because you're just repeating something you heard. Everyone understands you actually believe what you say. It's an incredibly ugly personality trait to treat people you disagree with as dumb rather than wrong.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Whatever else the OP tells you, it tells you Blackman is all in for a partisan, politicized judicial system.

[Frank Drackman]

so he supports the current system? good for him.

[Vryedni]

I'm deleting my comment. It consisted of some uncomplimentary things about Josh, all of which was accurate. But it were also ad hominem, so I'm swallowing it. Mea culpa.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure you swallow a lot

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol got'em

[Vryedni]

There you go confusing me with your mother again, Frank.

[Dan Schiavetta]

V,

I've done that too occasionally. Thank heavens for the Edit feature!

[Vryedni]

Ugh, typos.

[Lawman45]

As Josh writes "I think any plausible judicial nominee will profess fidelity to textualism and originalism. Or at least they will pretend to."

The "pretenders" must be VIGOROUSLY (and SUCCESSFULLY) rooted out in the pre-nomination process. Their resumes ought to litter the floor. Do not demand or accept false promises. Nominate only those of proven (by actions) to have fidelity to the solemn contract between the people and their government. Words mean what they meant when the contract becomes effective to parties to it. Changes are what amendments are for (see Article V) not normal Congressional tinkering nor transitory Judicial band-aids.

For example "no law" does not mean only those laws we (whomever?) now like nor does "not be infringed" become mere silly putty by the passage of time.
The Bill of Rights restricts government (federal and, through the 14th Amendment, state). It grants them no power.

Candidates who are doubtful on these points need to be eliminated ASAP in the internal WH process.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Lawman45 — Your comment displays an absolutism about constitutional interpretation which history cannot justify. Only ignorance can make someone so recklessly at ease with paradox.

[Commenter_XY]

Did anyone remember the judges nominated by a hypothetical '47' must be confirmed by the Senate? There is significant consultation with Senators on the Judiciary Committee regarding judicial nominees before they are nominated. The 'loyalty' meme is just that; a meme.

Much more concerned about FedSoc. Hope they remain true to the original vision, because that is what got them this far.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll bet our AG remembers

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Republican Senate, and it is likely to be one if Trump is elected [reasonable chance it will be one if Harris is], did not pushback much on Trump judicial nominations.

I doubt there will be much of a check in that regard.

[Commenter_XY]

You'd be thinking wrongly.

[Sarcastr0]

What are you talking about? There is no judicial filibuster and blind party loyalty to Trump is as high as its ever been.

[Swede425]

So, it's agreed then: Trump's judicial nominees will be different than other judicial nominees.
Because Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

they were certainly different than most of the Surpremes nominated by Milhouse, Ford, Ronaldus Maximus, GHWB, and "W", which is a good thing

[SRG2]

Blackman's argument is that because past Trump appointees have not generally proven to be lackeys, if they find more explicitly loyalist nominees, they too will not turn out to be lackeys. It's a moronic argument.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know right? Because someone's past actions definitely can't be used to predict his future actions!

That's crazy talk!

[FivebySixThree]

WSJ as a whole picked a side and it has been obvious both to subscribers and readers for quite some time. They are nearly as biased as the New York Times. I would love to see statistics on positive and negative stories by candidate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

FivebySixThree — Of course you would love that. And whatever the statistics, you likely would take any variation among candidates as evidence of media bias. Which would be stupid, but not uncommon.

[ReaderY]

In his first term, Trump outsourced selecting federal judges to the federalist society, who generally picked candidates who, while conservstice, still had relatively conventional attitudes towards concepts like judicial independence, fairness, constitutional rights, and limited governmental and Presidential powers. He may have had to. He was relatively weak in 2016, still an outsider who didn’t completely control the party. He had to get past old-guard folks like Mitch McConnell, who favored federalist society judges who were constitutional loyalists, not Trump judges personally loyal to Trump.

But in the eight years since, Trump has gained control of the Republican party and pushed former opponents out of leadership positions with many banished outside the party entirely. He is now in a position to appoint whkl he wants and expect them to get approved.

I think Professor Blackman’s assurances that Trump won’t nominate personal loyalists are completely unwarranted, to the level of being potential smokescreen material, what a Trump loyalist would say to try to reassure suckers that their lunch isn’t going to be eaten.

I think it’s pretty clear from recent rhetoric that Trump wants to do things differently this term, that he regards what happened last time as being a mistake he won’t repeat and a failure that won’t be allowed to happen again. This time, he will do his best to appoint personal loyalists who can be counted on to advance his imterests and not those of the “deep state,” AKA the constitutionalists as distinct from the Trumpists. And he is very likely to do so.

If he gets a Republican senate majority next time around, they are very likely to be as under his thumb as a grand jury is reputed to be under the thumb of the prosecutor, to the point where, to paraphrase the old adage, they would confirm a ham sandwich.

We may get judges whose opinions will read like Carl Schmitt’s famous loyalist manifesto, “The Fuhrer upholds the law.”

[Roger S]

How would Trump appoint loyalists, even if he tried? The fact is that Trump has appointed a great many people who were not loyal to him. Probably more than any other President. Just look at how many have turned against him.

[ReaderY]

Simple. Read what I wrote above about Trump not having enough loyalists in the Senate to appoint whomever he wanted in the first term, but today he likely does, having been very successful in increasing his grip on tbe Republican party and kicking non-loyalists out. Most of the former non-loyalist Republican Senators he had to deal with in his first term have either left or come around to being loyalists, and new people coming in are pretty much uniformly loyalists.

Trump didn’t kick non-loyalists out using methods as quick or as ruthless as Hitler’s in the Night of the Long Knives. But while taking more time, Trump’s methods have been very effective all the same.

[Roger S]

Will the Senate be under his thumb anymore than today's Senate Democrats are under Biden's thumb? Or the Senate under Obama under his thumb? It seems to me that the Democrats are much better at demanding and getting loyalty than Trump will be.

[Brett Bellmore]

But "kicking out non-loyalists because your mutual voters agree that you should be a loyalist" is largely how politics works; In 2016 Republican voters elected a President, subsequently they've gotten rid of a number of elected officials (Either by voting them out, or making it so obvious they would that they retired.) who opposed/didn't support that President.

Why would the voters be expected to tolerate having their choice of President thwarted?

[Purple Martin]

You mean, Why would the voters be expected to tolerate having their choice of President, lose? As happened with all but two of all U.S. presidential candidates in history? (think about what happened after the first).

Yes, that is the issue and it’s quite a tell that you believe it’s in your favor.

As to the first part of your reply, nothing it contradicts the statement you’re replying to.

[Sarcastr0]

Leader not getting what he wants is illegitimate?

This is…quite a take on our federal republic.

Sounds more like you want a parliament.

[Brett Bellmore]

Voters for a party, who have just elected a President, do not normally take lightly their other elected representatives trying to thwart what they elected that President to do.

[Sarcastr0]

Parties don’t elect a President.

Presidents don’t just serve their party.

What you describe is closer to what happens in a parliament.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But it combines a weakness in parliamentary practice, with an equivocal feature in American constitutionalism—where there is nothing like a vote of no-confidence—to leverage and thus multiply the disadvantages of both systems.

[SimonP]

Christ, you really have convinced yourself that Trump should just be a dictator.

Maybe you should refamiliarize yourself with high school civics, Brett. The point of having the legislative and executive branches be separate is for them to be rivals to one another. We elect district or state representatives to one body, to create the laws, and then vote nation-wide for an official to execute them.

The district and state representatives may hail from one party or another, but they’re supposed to represent their constituents’ interests, which are expected to diverge geographically and culturally. There are New Yorkers who voted for AOC, who is critical of Biden, and Schumer, who is his ally in the Senate, and then other New Yorkers who voted for Nadler and Schumer, who are politically aligned. There are also New Yorkers who are represented by Stefanik (and formerly Santos), who must endure being represented by two Democratic senators in the Senate.

These convergences and divergences are an intentional part of our system, and they are intended to mean that the president doesn’t dictate the legislative agenda, while putting limits on the pull of party politics. Representatives of rural districts have similar interests regardless of what party represents them in Congress; the same goes for representatives of more urban districts. Border districts are another example where party politics should take a backseat to actual needs.

What you are describing, Brett, is exactly what we don’t want in the legislative branch, which is a weak legislature that only does the bidding of Herr Leader. The recent hurricanes should show us what happens when we allow and celebrate that kind of dysfunction. Republican governors have called for more federal aid and assistance – which, indeed, they should get. That’s what FEMA is for. But you have Republican representatives from these same districts putting party over their own constituents. They are obstructing aid, promoting misinformation, and trying to hobble the response – because that serves Trump’s interests.

Contrast that with how Democrats behaved, during COVID. Their constituents needed support. They worked with Trump to get it. No one punished them electorally for doing so, even though it arguably helped Trump avoid taking too much blame for mismanaging the pandemic.

Like I said in my other comment – we do not lack for analogues. Everywhere that you find examples where a corrupt, authoritarian leader has seized and expanded their power, you find weak, compliant legislatures. This is true for both right-wing and left-wing regimes.

If you really cared about limited government, Brett – and you do not cease to remind us that you do – then you should want a strong and competitive legislature that is independent of the whims and interests of the President, no matter who holds that office. Yet here you are – you will catastrophize over the risks of a Democratic trifecta while at the same time shrugging off a MAGA trifecta as just the right and normal reflection of the will of the people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

SimonP — It's a shame there is so little left of Bellmore that such a comprehensive take down can deliver barely any effect.

[SimonP]

Since Trump looks like he is rapidly declining, a better question might be to ask how Vance is likely to use his power of judicial appointments, once it falls into his lap.

I can see him going a couple of ways. He is a manufactured candidate, supported by Thiel and others with plans to corrupt our government to serve their own purposes, who has managed to fool Trump into picking him as VP. So he may be far more methodical than Trump could have ever been, in choosing judges and justices that will support his broader kleptocratic agenda.

But it’s also apparent from his background that he was once much more moderate, and disinclined to do stupid things. It may turn out to be the case that, once he no longer needs to pay lip service to Trump or his noxious politics, he can turn back to a more reasonable form of conservative governance. One, perhaps, more focused on immigration controls and social welfare for red state residents than had been the case for the GOP previously. But also one compatible with, you know, good jurists; people committed to a rational constitutional view and less inclined to abuse power. More in the model of an ACB, Roberts, Kavanaugh; less in the model of an Alito or Ho.

Only time will tell. I can’t guess at what’s going on behind Vance’s guylined-eyes.

[Longtobefree]

It is not enough to vote for Trump.
He needs a republican senate and house.

[Martinned2]

...and a Republican judiciary.

[Martinned2]

...and Republican media

[Martinned2]

...and Republican business leadership.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yes, to break the fever of global communism that's destroying Western Civilization.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the Democrats have demonstrated that one alone is enough to eventually produce the rest of them. Stupidest thing the Republicans ever did was let the Democrats get a virtual monopoly on media outlets without lifting a finger to compete with them in that critical war.

Unless maybe it was doing the same with the schools...

[SimonP]

Not that Democrats have had a "virtual monopoly on media outlets" for some time, but - how do you suppose Democrats got this oh-so-valuable "virtual monopoly"? In what sense did Republicans "let" that happen?

[Brett Bellmore]

By, unlike the Republicans, actually trying to get it.

[SimonP]

What's the mechanism, Brett? How does any political party obtain a "virtual monopoly" over the media, when they don't own any of it? Do you have anything but hot air?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/12/15/the_medias_democratic_ties_135794.html

[SimonP]

See this link, Jésus? This link to a seven-year-old conspiratorial op-ed, hosted on RCP, written by some right-wing pundit? It's going straight into the trash.

For crying out loud, try to come to the discussion with some facts.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Give me a sec, I'll scour Dailykos for articles that meet your "journolistic" standards.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Virtual monopoly on media outlets”

I love the imaginary world republicans have constructed for themselves. This is a world where apparently:
Rush Limbaugh didn’t dominate the airwaves for 30 years;
the rest of radio wasn’t filled with conservatives/right-wingers;
FoxNews wasn’t the most dominate cable news channel;
CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN didn’t routinely have republicans on their shows; editorial pages didn’t routinely syndicate republican columnists;
The Wall Street Journal and NY Post don’t exist;
Drudge Report and Breitbart weren’t a thing;
Ben Shapiro isn’t one of the most popular podcasts;
There aren’t thousands of similar hosts big and small of conservative podcasts;
And I’m not getting constant ads for right-wing podcasts on Spotify and YouTube or going to bookstores and seeing shelves overflowing with whatever shit some conservative pundit churned out.

Seriously take me to this world. I would love to live there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh dominated AM radio for many years. AM radio was a media ghetto. It was where conservatives ended up dominating because the left hadn't bothered to take it over.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have numbers establishing AM radio was a media ghetto?

The history of the rise of AM radio isn’t one of liberal neglect.
There are documentaries if you would care to interface with facts not just speculation into confidence about a world you write.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t think that’s what he means by ghetto. He means it lacks cultural and social esteem. 99% of media could be right-wing and Brett would still claim there is a liberal monopoly on media so long as one attractive indie film actor or actress said conservatives aren’t cool.

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean that it was disdained as an inferior broadcast band, subject to short range and serious interference.

Ghettos don't form because the group living there wanted to live there. They form because they weren't permitted anyplace else. That was AM talk radio: It became conservative because conservative voices were being systematically excluded from FM, to say nothing of TV. And then grew because there was a market for conservative voices that other outlets disdained to serve.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is incredibly revealing. Your response to the obvious fact that republicans and conservatives dominate in many many media areas isn’t to deny it, it’s to complain about its social and cultural status. Which is also funny because Rush Limbaugh has had the praise of conservative elites and got a Medal of Freedom at the State of the Union.

But that’s still not enough is it? Because liberals and others still think conservative media and ideas suck. And it rankles you to no end. You don’t want dominance you want respect from people who are never ever going to give it to you.

It’s the Gul Dukat approach to culture: “A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.”

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

When was the last time you saw a major news outlet edit an interview to make a Republican better instead of worse?

Or downplay armed gangs of illegals taking over several entire apartment complexes and terrorizing Americans?

[LawTalkingGuy]

They let them get tons of free airtime to say stupid shit and then when people are like: “that was stupid” conservatives cry about editing and gotcha questions.

As for immigrant gangs, CBS has a very long story on this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/colorado/news/colorado-law-firm-report-claims-venezuelan-gang-stranglehold-apartments-takeover-began-2023/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Your claims are weird because when they prereleased that Kamala interview, everyone said "she was stupid" so they went and edited the interview cobbling together different questions and answers to make her look less stupid.

And just the other night during an interview with JD, the Killer, Vance Radditz dismissed the gang takeovers as to only a handful of apartment complexes.

Can you imagine? Armed gangs of illegals have taken over entire apartment complexes for over a year terrorizing.citizens and a news reporter finger wags a politician for bring it up?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Also according to the Pentagon and Federal government "white supremacists" are the greatest domestic terror threat.

How many apartment complexes have they taken over?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“How many apartment complexes have they taken over?”

Not sure. But they did:
Kill 165 in OKC
6 people at Oak Creek
9 people in Charleston
1 person in Charlottesville
11 people in Pittsburgh
1 at Poway
23 people at an El Paso Walmart
10 people in Buffalo.

And that’s before we get to attempts, foiled plots, or mixed motivations.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You're tallying up 30 years?

That's less people than vaccines over the same time period!
Less than Islamic terrorists in our military bases on US soil!
Or what Israel does in a week!
Or a hot summer weekend in Chicago by the blacks!
Or what illegals do each day as they rampage across the border!

wtf

[LawTalkingGuy]

So you imagining things makes the real-world examples less true?

[Brett Bellmore]

“They let them get tons of free airtime to say stupid shit and then when people are like: “that was stupid” conservatives cry about editing and gotcha questions.”

I think people are fairly pissed off when an interviewer asks them a question, and then in the final cut their answer is omitted, replaced by an unrelated moment of silence, to create the false impression they had no answer. And that sort of thing happens disturbingly often. Recently to Speaker Johnson, but back in 2016 Couric did it to some 2nd amendment activists, to the widespread dismay of journalists. Now, of course, it’s become just a standard practice.

It’s also pretty disturbing when the interviewer asks somebody a question, and their answer is so stunningly bad that, in the final cut, they substitute the answer to a different question, because it makes more sense. As recently was done for Harris. This is fairly new, but I expect it to be widely adopted in coming years.

This is what happens when journalists have been taught that their job is to make sure the audience arrives at the ‘right’ conclusions, by any means necessary, not that it’s to inform them and let them make up their own minds. And, sadly, that IS the trend of modern “journalism”.

It's been wisely advised that, any time you're interviewed, you should make your own recording, so that the interviewer will know that they'll be exposed if they try to pull that sort of shit. But these days?

They don't CARE if they're exposed, because they're proud to have done it.

[Roger S]

Limbaugh is dead. Drudge Report was sold and dismantled. WSJ is mostly anti-Trump. FoxNews fired Tucker Carlson. Don't forget PBS tv and NPR radio, as they are pro-Democrat all the time.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump supporters try too hard sometimes to refute the idea there is “any” evidence of unprincipled things that he supports or other such things seen as disreputable to neutral people.

When it suits, supporters are happy when Trump and Republicans have “courage” to play hardball. They are upset when “traitors” are not purely supportive of the rightwing path.

They ridicule criticism of that sort of behavior. Then, it’s all “how dare people suggest our side is unprincipled.” It would be more honest to just admit the choices being made. Don’t worry about “snowflakes” concerned about the rules too much.

As noted, the word “loyalty” for Trump means providing the results that benefit him personally. If the sides were turned, we would hear about how “Kamala” etc. would try to do that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>Don’t worry about “snowflakes” concerned about the rules too much.

Says the By Any Means Necessary crowd...

You people are something else.

[SimonP]

Given your other comment, plainly supporting fascism in order to "break the fever of global communism that's destroying Western Civilization," this is a bit laughable.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I don’t accept your premises about Trump. You guys call anything counter to your ideology fascism and authoritarianism out of one side of your mouth, while you're demanding to dictate how much water I shit in out of the other.

They’re commie propaganda and lies. Democrats are the clear authoritarians. It’s obvious to everyone whose head isn’t up their own ass.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What’s the argument that Trumpism isn’t a populist ultranationalist movement promising palingenesis?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is that how you think this is supposed to work? Some angsty liberal makes an accusation and we gotta jump to prove him wrong?

Too bad you ain’t LawThinkingGuy.

Dunking on you aside, I will address two items:

Populism is just looking after the common man who feels his concerns are being ignored. I guess you’re concerned about the elites. Don’t worry the Democrat Party isn’t going away, neither is the Federal Reserve nor those independent Federal agencies with what is in essence law-making power. The elites will still get taken care of.

Nationalism. This criticism of Trump just gobsmacks me everytime. Why on Earth shouldn’t the government prioritize its own citizens and society over foreign nations and foreign citizens? How is that so immoral? Who else should a government serve if not it’s citizenry?

It’s like you people just bought into the slogans and didn’t really thinking about what they meant.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s like you people just bought into the slogans and didn’t really thinking about what they meant.

Sort of like MAGA? Or Mass Deportation? Or Lock her Up? Or Build the Wall? Or Stop the Steal? always projection with you people.

And you didn’t refute the point. You just explained why two of the key elements of true fascism are good actually. So what about the third? Palingenesis? Are you telling me that Trumpism isn’t promising a social revolution for so the country can experience a rebirth and reclaim a mythic and more heroic past?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What part of these words do you not understand?
"Is that how you think this is supposed to work? Some angsty liberal makes an accusation and we gotta jump to prove him wrong?"

Taking care of the common man is "true fascism"?
Prioritizing citizens over foreign nations is "true fascism"?

What's everything else? "Stupid Retardism"? How insane are you people to think our government exists to serve elites and foreign countries? What type of first-class idiot thinks that's what a government should do?

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s less of an accusation and more of a description. You think it’s an accusation because you (correctly) recognize that the label of fascism is “bad.” But that doesn’t change the fascist paradigm as a useful analytic framework for the movement. And not for nothing, but conservatives, reactionaries, traditionalists, etc aligning themselves or grudgingly supporting fascist movements is pretty typical.

[SimonP]

Martinned led you down a very clear roadmap of what fascism looks like. He was laying a trap for passing fools to walk into. You said, "yep, that's what's needed."

Had nothing to do with Trump.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Martinned is not even in this thread. wtf, are you retarded? Ooops am I being a fashy fash now?

P.S. From the Fascists themselves:

"WE WANT:

A strong extraordinary tax on capital of a progressive nature, having the form of true PARTIAL EXPROPRIATION of all wealth. The seizure of all property of religious congregations and the abolition of all Bishop's canteens, which constitute a huge liability for the nation and a privilege of the few.

The revision of all war supply contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of war profits.”

Who does that sound like? People like me? Or people like you?

"The prompt enactment of a state law enshrining the legal eight-hour workday for all jobs. Minimum wages. The participation of workers' representatives in the technical operation of industry. The entrusting to the proletarian organizations themselves (who are morally and technically worthy) of the management of public industries or services. The speedy and complete settlement of the railroad workers and all transportation industries. A necessary amendment of the Disability and Old Age Insurance Bill by lowering the age limit, currently proposed at 65, to 55"

MAGA? Or Progressive? Me? or You?

[SimonP]

Martinned is not even in this thread. wtf, are you retarded? Ooops am I being a fashy fash now?

You could spend a minute reviewing the page before you mock me for being retarded.

Retard.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wrong