The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Donald Trump, The Transformational President
The New York Times admits that Trump is going further than Buckley, Reagan, Goldwater, and Taft "might have imagined possible"
Today the New York Times published a "news analysis" titled "From Science to Diversity, Trump Hits the Reverse Button on Decades of Change." For those who do not read the Times--and I don't blame you--a "news analysis" is where a reporter writes an op-ed. It is not entirely objective, but instead allows a card-carrying journalist to tell us what he really thinks. Yet, if you read between the lines, you can actually see some admiration: Trump is doing what was once thought impossible. Consider this excerpt:
Mr. Trump's shift into reverse gear reflects the broader sentiments of many Americans eager for a change in course. The United States has cycled from progressive to conservative eras throughout its history. The liberal period ushered in by Franklin D. Roosevelt eventually led to a swing back to the right under Ronald Reagan, which led to a move toward the center under Bill Clinton.
But Mr. Trump has supercharged the current swing. The influential writer William F. Buckley Jr. once defined a conservative as someone standing athwart history and yelling, "Stop!" Mr. Trump seems to be standing athwart history yelling, "Go back!"
He has gone further than noted conservatives like Mr. Buckley, Mr. Reagan, Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft might have imagined possible. While they despised many of the New Deal and Great Society programs that liberal presidents introduced over the years, and sought to limit them, they recognized the futility of unraveling them altogether.
"They were living in an era dominated by liberals," said Sam Tanenhaus, author of "Buckley," a biography published last month. "The best they could hope for was to arrest, 'stop,' liberal progress. But what they dreamed of was a counterrevolution that would restore the country to an early time — the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries."
"Trump," he added, "has outdone them all, because he understands liberalism is in retreat. He has pushed beyond Buckley's 'stop,' and instead promises a full-throttle reversal."
Indeed, although Mr. Reagan vowed during his 1980 campaign to abolish the Department of Education, which had been created the year before over the objections of conservatives who considered it an intrusion on local control over schools, he never really tried to follow through as president, because Democrats controlled the House. The issue largely faded until Mr. Trump this year resurrected it and, unlike Mr. Reagan, simply ignored Congress to unilaterally order the department shuttered.
One of Trump's greatest strengths is his ability to not care what elites think. Usually, when the elites calls a conservative a racist or sexist or homophobe or something else, he wilts. When they accuse a conservative of trying to hurt poor people or roll back progress, he caves. When they charge a conservative with standing on the wrong side of the arc of history, he switches sides. Not Trump. He can almost single-handedly shift the Overton window on what topics are open for discussion. And Trump inspires other conservatives to likewise discount what elites think. That mantra has spread.
Things that have been accomplished would have been unfathomable a decade ago. Let's just rattle off a few high points. Roe v. Wade is gone. Humphrey's Executor is on life support. Even after Obergefell and Bostock, we got Skrmetti. Despite all the outrage, illegal immigration at the southern border has basically trickled to a halt. Blind deference to "experts" has been irreparably altered by the distrust occasioned by COVID and transgender medicine for children. The federal bureaucracy is being dismantled. Nationwide injunctions are no more. And so on.
A common refrain is that Trump is ignoring the Constitution. During the New Deal and the Great Society, FDR and LBJ did great violence to the Constitution and the separation of powers. They got away with it because they were trying to do the "right" thing. Yet critics expect Trump to behave nicely, and be a good conservative like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney. That's not what we have. And in Trump's defense, some (but not all) of his actions are seeking to restore the original meaning of the Constitution, whereas the same could not be said for FDR and LBJ.
Speaking of book projects, I am in the early stages of a three-volume set on the Trump presidency and the Constitution. I actually wrote most of the first installment by the end of 2020, but put it on hold after January 6. I had no idea what the future would bring, so I stood down. I think the first installment would track from the moment Trump came down the golden escalator to election day in 2020. The second installment would start with the 2020 election, cover January 6, and chronicle the three years of Lawfare (Jack Smith, Section 3, and everything else). The third installment would begin on inauguration day 2025, through… Well, I'm not really sure where this all ends. But it is clear enough to me that Trump has transformed the nation in ways that likely cannot just be forgotten come 2029.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I was bored with Trump and wanted to move on to younger people. Then the scumbag lawyer profession opened their campaign of lawfare against a political opponent. I was forced to go full MAGA. The lawyer profession got Trump elected, the dumbasses.
He has turned out to be the greatest President ever, greater than Washington, the founder of America. Washington refused to be named king and went home after 2 terms, starting America. Trump's achievements in 6 months have exceeded that of any President in any 4-year term. Thank you, lawyer dumbasses.
All the lawyer dumbasses should be arrested for honest services fraud and for being corrupt officials. That includes all the judges. They took tax money as salaries. They used their offices for partisan political attack. All have been reported to their oversight agencies. These agencies have refused to enforce their own Codes of Conduct. The oversight agency officials should also be arrested. All legal costs should come from their personal assets, not from the taxpayer. In lawfare, the masking charge is a perjured sworn statement to prevent the election of an opponent. Prison terms should be for criminal perjury to run consecutively with the honest services fraud beef. Put them all in gen pop.
As to the charges against Trump, all are pretextual. Lend me your laptop for an hour. I can get you decades in fed stir, and $millions in fines, down to all toddlers. There are millions of garbage rules and laws that everyone violates several times a day. Arrest the lawyers and judges. No one is above the law. To deter.
> Then the scumbag lawyer profession opened their campaign of lawfare against a political opponent
Is that what you call it when someone breaks the law?
Quick question for you: did Trump comply with the lawful subpoena to return government property stored at Mar-a-Lago? Yes or no?
Was the subpoena lawful?
Did Trump not have the right to challenge it?
Did the FBI not rush in before the courts had actually ruled on anything?
Federal district courts have made a lot of rulings this year that then got overturned on appeal because the ruling was judged incorrect (ie, the Trump administration actually had the legal authority) or - often - outside the judges authority.
> Was the subpoena lawful?
Yes, it was lawful. I have never seen any persuasive claim to the contrary. If Trump felt it wasn't lawful, he had the right to challenge it court. He did not have the right to ignore or to respond to it fraudulently.
> Did Trump not have the right to challenge it?
He did have the right to challenge it in court. He decided not to do that.
> Did the FBI not rush in before the courts had actually ruled on anything?
They did not rush. Trump had many opportunities to comply with the subpoena or to challenge, and he didn't do that. When a subpoena for stolen government material is ignored, you can expect that the government will enforce the subpoena. He was surprised by this response only because he thinks the law does not apply to him.
Trump did ultimately prevail in court. He did nothing wrong. He did not steal any documents. He merely retained some copies, as was his right.
> Trump did ultimately prevail in court.
Trump did not "prevail" in the matter of the theft of the government documents: he simply ordered the DOJ to drop the case when he was re-elected. That is not an effective administration of justice.
In other matters, such as the matter of his business records, he was convicted.
> He did nothing wrong. He did not steal any documents. He merely retained some copies, as was his right.
They weren't copies, they were the originals. Keeping them was not his right, as they belong to the United States, not to Donald Trump. And he flagrantly disobeyed a judge's subpoena to return them, which is punishable in its own right.
And we haven't even talked about the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
Oh no, that's not what happened, the case was already dead before the election.
The case was dismissed because the special prosecutor bringing the case was unlawfully appointed, and not confirmed by Congress.
Now to be sure it wasn't dead as a doornail dead, the 11th circuit might have revived it, and the Supreme Court may or may not have allowed that.
But he certainly never ordered the DOJ to just drop the case, it was actually Jack Smith that requested Trump be dropped from the case, from ABC:
"Trump's federal prosecution ends as appeals court drops him from classified documents case
The special counsel is still pursuing the case against Trump's co-defendants.
By Peter Charalambous and Katherine Faulders
November 26, 2024, 2:26 PM
One day after special counsel Jack Smith moved to dismiss both his cases against President-elect Donald Trump, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit complied by dropping Trump from Smith's appeal of his classified documents case, ending Trump's prosecution on federal charges.
"Appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal as to Donald J. Trump only is GRANTED," the Eleventh Circuit's clerk wrote in a one-sentence order Tuesday."
If you want to blame outside intervention, blame the voters.
You cannot plausibly argue that was dismissed because Smith thought Judge Cannon's take on the law was going to prevail.
If that were the case, the appeal would have been dismissed as to everyone and much earlier.
We all know why Trump was dropped; don't be disingenuous.
I repeat myself:
"If you want to blame outside intervention, blame the voters."
Which is not how 'prevail in court' works.
You're bringing things into a legal discussion that don't belong. up the chain the question was: "Was the subpoena lawful?' Responding with 'well the voters...' is a level of misunderstanding I have a hard time processing.
Then you jump onto the opposite side of the discussion, somehow. The voters did it, but not the guy they voted for!
'Trump didn't drop the case' is a ridiculous statement to make. you're pissing on your own leg and telling everyone it's raining.
> The case was dismissed because the special prosecutor bringing the case was unlawfully appointed, and not confirmed by Congress.
That was the finding of one Aileen Canon, who is famously in the bag for Trump. That ruling was also in contravention of decades of solid case law and would have been overturned on appeal. No serious legal observer took her ruling seriously, and she has a history of making ridiculous pro-Trump rulings that get overturned on appeal.
Let's put it this way: if you're so sure that the case was dead, then why was Trump so adamant about immediately dropping the case and firing everyone involved in it? Why not let it play out in court?
> If you want to blame outside intervention, blame the voters.
No, I'll blame Trump and his AG. The cases should not have been dismissed. Trump bears responsibility for placing himself above the law. The voters are the victims, not the perpetrators, of this miscarriage.
Like I said, Trump was not the one who dropped the case, it was Jack Smith, 3 months before Trump came back into office, Merrick Garland was the AG, who declaimed any authority over Smiths decisions.
Do you think Trump should have opposed the motion?
Once the voters spoke, it was inevitable.
If you are upset, go out an howl at the waning moon, I'm sure your neighbors will understand.
> Like I said, Trump was not the one who dropped the case, it was Jack Smith, 3 months before Trump came back into office, Merrick Garland was the AG, who declaimed any authority over Smiths decisions.
You are arguing disingenuously. Jack Smith did not drop the case because in the interest of justice or because he thought he couldn't win: he was complying with DOJ policy. Here's a direct quote from Smith:
“The (Justice) Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”
Had Trump not won the election, the case would not have been dropped, and Trump likely would be in jail.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/politics/trump-special-counsel-jack-smith
I really have no patience for your dissimulation. Argue honestly. No one cares how many "internet points" you collect.
Well now you seem to understand:
"Had Trump not won the election, the case would not have been dropped, and Trump likely would be in jail."
That at least comports better with reality, but Smith waa still a long way from that result, in Florida at least, in DC he may had a surer thing with a judge and jury completely sympathetic to his case.
I note Cannon wasnt appealed.
No, Trump was not even charged with taking any original documents.
And his NY business records case was dismissed before sentencing, so no, he was not convicted.
> No, Trump was not even charged with taking any original documents.
Technically, the charge was violations of the Espionage Act, as well as making false statements and engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Which is worse than just taking documents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case)
> And his NY business records case was dismissed before sentencing, so no, he was not convicted.
Uh, no. Stop lying, please. https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0
I guess you are admitting that you were wrong about the charges. And that AP story was before the sentencing that might have formalized a conviction.
> I guess you are admitting that you were wrong about the charges.
I have no idea how you could possibly reach that conclusion. The Espionage Act charges stem from Trump having stolen documents.
> And that AP story was before the sentencing that might have formalized a conviction.
There was no sentencing because charges were dropped because Trump was elected president.
Are you really that confused by the sequence of events here? Do you need the matter presented to you in a book with very short words in very short sentences?
"And we haven't even talked about the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election."
What, where Biden admitted to stealing the election through fraud ?
Meh, I've seen better 2020 truthers.
Just to be clear, this is a red herring, because he was only being prosecuted for retaining national defense information, not the other items. Whether they were originals or copies is thus irrelevant. "No, no, I only mishandled copies of classified material" isn't a defense to violating the Espionage Act.
The key point is that he wasn't doing anything previous Presidents and members of Congress hadn't done. Pence had documents he shouldn't have had. Biden had documents he shouldn't have had, and shared them with his biographer. If you locked up everybody in Washington who was similarly guilty you'd shut the joint down!
I'll say this right out: It was remarkably stupid of Trump to think that they'd let him get away with the same violations that everybody else got away with. By the time he left office in his first term he should have already known that the knives were out for him, and that he wasn't going to get the usual 'important person' waiver when it came to enforcing laws everybody around him routinely violated.
So it really was on him, even if it was selective enforcement.
Yes.
One can always go to court to ask that a subpoena be quashed. Trump did not, however, do that. He just created a false affidavit saying that he had complied with it.
No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions. The FBI waited a very long time, the opposite of "rushing in," and did so pursuant to a search warrant, not a subpoena.
Hi, Bob. You are a nitpicker. You are dirty. Nitpicking by the scumbag lawyer or scumbag judge should be punished like criminal perjury, with prison sentences, heavy fines, and all costs to personal assets.
The question is, would this legal procedure have taken place if Trump were not running for office? If not, the procedure is perjury in the sworn statement to the court.
The judge's statements are also sworn. One judge valued Mar a Lago at $18 million. A small empty lot nearby was valued at $250 million. This judge needed to be evaluated for mental illness, not just perjury.
Showing that legal acumen that got you that unaccredited mail order law degree!
Procedures can't be perjury, and also, what sworn statement to the court? And also, "Wouldn't have happened if something else were true" isn't perjury.
They are not.
He did not.
Will they come with the crayons, or will people have to purchase those separately?
the law is.
It's funny, because when I read Josh's post, my mind immediately went to (a) pop-up books, and (b) scratch-n-sniff books.
[To be honest; your crayons comment was more clever and more trenchant than either of my initial reactions.]
David, you color with your crayons. Stop trying to smoke them!
Hi, David. Try to be funny. You sound stupid and frustrated.
Despite all the outrage, illegal immigration at the southern border has basically trickled to a halt.
Nobody is outraged about stopping illegal immigration. In fact it was Biden's (probably illegal) executive order that got the ball rolling!
You seem to have forgotten that Republicans consistently thwarted Biden's efforts at border control because they wanted to preserve the issue.
Biden's EO that didn't actually stop the several 10's of thousands of illegal crossings every month all the way to the end of his administration somehow brought it all to a screeching halt at the end of January?
Also, Democrats have been and are outraged at stopping illegal immigration. Their standard rallying cry for several years now is that we need a permanent underclass that can be exploited for their labor in order to maintain the average American's living standard. Oh, and also that those illegal immigrants get some extra numbers on the census to help get a few more Democrat seats in the House.
Their standard rallying cry for several years now is that we need a permanent underclass...
What are you talking about? The only one pushing a permanent underclass is Trump. That's what you end up with if you don't have birthright citizenship. Generation after generation of non-citizens. I don't think you lot can imagine it since it's so un-American. You seem to think they'll just somehow disappear.
Anyway, a permanent underclass is exactly what the 14th Amendment was designed to prevent. Get on board already! You're over 150 years behind the times.
No, Pres. Trump is the one trying to send those people home. The Democrats have imported an underclass.
> No, Pres. Trump is the one trying to send those people home.
Or really, to any non-home country, such as Libya, El Salvador, or South Sudan. I'm sure they'd much rather be tortured to death in a foreign country than remain an "underclass."
There's no other "home" for kids who were born here dum dum.
Otherwise, instead of the 14th Amendment, we've just sent all the slaves "home" to Africa.
The Democrats imported 30 million cheater voters to make the nation a permanent one-party state, and to shithole our nation like Cuba, Venezuela and Cali. These are unlivable and governed by the shithole people. These were invited in without due process. Now they want 30 million trials and appeals to deport them and to deshithole the nation. These shithole people will spawn 5 shithole children per shithole family, spreading shitholing in a viral manner.
Note how the same people who supported the importation of slaves use the term "imported" for voluntary migration.
"Nobody is outraged about stopping illegal immigration. In fact it was Biden's (probably illegal) executive order that got the ball rolling!
You seem to have forgotten that Republicans consistently thwarted Biden's efforts at border control because they wanted to preserve the issue."
So, the big lie technique, eh?
Brett, it's true.
And here you are doing it again - the very thing you claim to despise - attributing bad motives to someone disagreeing with you.
Randal clearly believes, as do I, that the GOP killed a popular bipartisan immigration reform bill at Trump's behest because he wanted to retain immigration as a campaign issue. (It happens to be true, BTW, but that's irrelevant to my point.)
Instead of accepting that at face value you immediately accuse him of lying, and not just lying but deliberately propagating a Big Lie to advance Democratic causes.
It's scummy, and you know it.
Reagan said that bipartisan bill was the biggest mistake he made.
As anyone familiar with Dr. Ed could probably guess, this is just a fabrication.
This is libel.
No, no one believes that the GOP killed a popular bipartisan immigration reform bill. They killed a Democrat bill that would have let in 5000 illegals a day.
A lot of us believe that Trump killed a popular bipartisan immigration reform bill, because we saw it happen.
Are you suggesting we not believe our lying eyes?
Yes, you are lying. The bill was not popular, it was not bipartisan, and Trump did not kill it.
I'll just leave this here: https://apnews.com/article/congress-ukraine-aid-border-security-386dcc54b29a5491f8bd87b727a284f8
You said the bill was "popular bipartisan", but the AP story says that only four Republican senators supported it. The bill was extremely unpopular.
> You said the bill
I said no such thing. I know that you are easily confused by people and things, so sorry if this is hard for you to grasp. I bet you confuse your family members with strangers a lot.
> "popular bipartisan"
The word "popular" comes from Latin popularis, meaning "belonging to the people." In English, it means well-liked by many people. That's true in this case: a majority of voters supported the bill.
I should also point out that many more Republican Senators supported it before Trump decided to kill it.
So then you agree that Randal was lying about the bill. The bill would have let in 5000 illegal migrants a day, any very few Republicans were likely to support it, no matter what Trump said.
Many more Republican Senators supported it before the details leaked and supporting it became politically suicidal.
We've seen this stupid ploy multiple times; McCain, and Bob Dole before him, used to specialize in it. Today that would be idiots like Lindsey Graham.
A few Republicans with outlier views on some topic like immigration or gun control, or SOME hot button issue, get together with the Democrats to negotiate in secret a grand 'compromise' bill. Everything looks good at first, because so many Republican Senators WANT to compromise on the issues their constituents care about.
Then the negotiations end, and the details inevitably leak before they can hold a rush vote on it, and the bill dies an ignominious death as soon as the public knows what's in it. Because what's in it is so politically toxic that the only hope it had of passage was to be voted on before the details could be leaked.
Maybe you should just stop pretending that bills secretly negotiated between a few Republicans and the Democrats are in any meaningful way "bipartisan". You'd never call a bill "bipartisan" if it had most Republicans and a couple Democrats supporting it.
The bill would not have let in a single illegal immigrant.
I mean, this is Brett's usual fake narrative, but the last sentence is also telling: he insinuates that legislative compromise is inherently illegitimate.
" he insinuates that legislative compromise is inherently illegitimate."
Compromises aren't necessarily illegitimate. Compromises that can only pass if they get voted on before the public knows what is in them? Yeah, THOSE are inherently illegitimate.
I repeat, we've seen this before, multiple times, it's gotten old by now. Nobody is really falling for it at this point, the moment we hear that a few Republicans are negotiating with Democrats we know what is coming.
Four RINO senators.
That act fast tracked the shithole people to citizenship and to voting Democrat all over the country to shithole our nation.
"Brett, it's true."
Bernard...it's not.
Here's a fun chart from Axios. The truth. The "law" really hasn't changed over those years from 2020 to 2025. It's simply the choices made about enforcement and interpretation of the law that have changed.
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/04/illegal-border-crossings-february-decline-trump
That and situational factors like economies, pandemics, and rhetoric.
Biden finally stopped the bleeding with his (again probably illegal) EO like bernard and I have been saying.
"Biden finally stopped the bleeding with his (again probably illegal) EO like bernard and I have been saying."
Which magically only started working when Trump took office?
It's really hard to attribute good motives to a lie that big.
"Randal clearly believes, as do I, that the GOP killed a popular bipartisan immigration reform bill at Trump's behest because he wanted to retain immigration as a campaign issue."
Ok, that's a stupid belief, and inaccurate, but I was actually talking about this: "In fact it was Biden's (probably illegal) executive order that got the ball rolling!"
"You seem to have forgotten that Republicans consistently thwarted Biden's efforts at border control because they wanted to preserve the issue."
Yes, I think you have it Biden was the victim in all of this.
Of course even a Joe Biden of 10 or 15 years ago would have known what to do to get out of the Republican trap: enforce the laws on the books.
But confused old man Biden did himself no favors and fell into the evil Republican trap, then they pounced.
> One of Trump's greatest strengths is his ability to not care what elites think.
Is that a strength, or is it just being reckless and ignorant?
Typically, presidents have strategies that consider the consequences of their actions. Trump doesn't have an attention span, so he just rules by vibe. Annoyed with the EU today? Let's increase their tariffs! One week later let's decrease them! What was accomplished? "I don't care what elites think."
Is there value in having three independent branches of government that apply checks on each others' power? "Sounds like some elite liberal nonsense. The Constitution says the president can do anything he wants!"
> They got away with it because they were trying to do the "right" thing.
So you concede that Trump is using his unchecked executive power to do "wrong" things, but you still defend him, because you're willing to sacrifice the Constitution in order to "own the libs."
What was accomplished? The EU 'elites' are discombobulated and more likely to negotiate because the disruption makes their populace rowdy and threatens their hold on domestic power.
> What was accomplished? The EU 'elites' are discombobulated and more likely to negotiate because the disruption makes their populace rowdy and threatens their hold on domestic power.
Negotiate what? Trump hasn't made any coherent demands. EU tariffs on non-agricultural US goods are about 1%. Trump could have asked for negotiation at any time, but he hasn't; the EU has not refused negotiation. The EU isn't North Korea: it's not hard to get them to the negotiating table. But what's the negotiation if Trump can't even express what he wants?
Instead, Trump is just swinging tariffs around like a blunt instrument and without a plan.
The only one "discombobulated" is the senior citizen in the Oval Office.
More likely to negotiate? We haven't seen a lot of that.
What happened to Trump's 90 deals in 90 days?
And who wants to negotiate anything with a habitual liar who can't be trusted to live up to his side of a deal for 48 hours?
But that’s the purpose. Trump wants to disconnect the United States from Europe, and indeed from the kind of European thinking that led to the very idea of constitutional government with a limited national executive. He doesn’t want any of that, and disconnecting Americans from Europe and European thought is an effective way to that.
Persuading Europeans that the United States is totally unreliable as a trading partner is an extremely effective way of starting the disconnction process. He’s accomplished that quite effectively. Like it or not it’s a feature, not a bug.
Its an end to reconstruction. We want to go back to 1965 when this was America. Nixon won 49 states in 1972 with a mandate to do that, something the nyt neglects to mention.
Nixon, like Trump, was also a criminal.
The phrase "dog whistle" is way overused, but this isn't a dog whistle so much as a foghorn. "Go back to 1965" means that they want to erase the Voting Rights Act and Hart Cellar, meaning they want a time back when black people didn't get to be so uppity and we didn't let non-Europeans immigrate.
"Trump doesn't have an attention span, so he just rules by vibe. "
I've remarked on this sort of trash talk before, and how self-owning it is. The worse you claim Trump is, the worse the Democrats must be, because they got beat by that.
So, go ahead and claim Trump is a hot mess, you're confessing to be a hotter mess.
> Despite all the outrage, illegal immigration at the southern border has basically trickled to a halt.
Is there outrage about that? I would say not. The outrage is about *how* illegal immigration has been reduced. If you have to discard the basic civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution in order to protect the border, you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. "We had to destroy the country in order to save it."
What base civil liberties have been discarded here? 'Due process'? Most of these people already had deportation orders and those that don't are going to get a hearing before an immigration judge.
Keep in mind that Trump effectively stopped illegal immigration *before* the current immigration raids. No new illegals are coming in and the raids are to get those still here out.
What base civil liberties have been discarded here? 'Due process'?
Yes.
Do you think arresting asylum seekers on their way to their hearings is due process? Do you think Abrego Garcia got due process? Or the he is the only one who was denied it?
Due process is them not being shot.
> Due process is them not being shot.
Brilliant response. Tell me again how Republicans really aren't modern-day Nazis, for realsies.
The nazis went after LAW ABIDING people.
> The nazis went after LAW ABIDING people.
Wrong. The Nazis changed the law to make being a Socialist, a Jew, or a homosexual punishable.
Citation?
A serious question: Are you so mentally crippled that you somehow both missed a basic education on twentieth century history AND are unable to google for an answer to your reductive and asinine question? Here, I'll save you the apparently exhausting labor, but there are plenty of similar sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/anti-jewish-legislation-in-prewar-germany
Some key excerpts:
> These "Nuremberg Laws" excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or German-related blood."
In other words, a Jew married to a German was living legally one day, and the next day they were a criminal.
The Nazis were literally the government. They passed laws that supported their agenda. Their awful acts were fully consistent with German law. Keep that in mind next time you lock a good person in a cage and say "Sorry, but you broke the law." The law should reflect justice, not give evil men permission to violate justice.
They’re not Socialists to start with, Stew-pid
Oh fuck you.
You are a blight on the VC, and the country.
> What base civil liberties have been discarded here? 'Due process'?
Well, yes, that's one of them. Also equal protection. Also freedom from unlawful searches and seizures. Also freedom of speech, since evidently Republicans are cool with people getting visas revoked for writing op-ed pieces in the colleges newspaper. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments.
> Most of these people already had deportation orders and those that don't are going to get a hearing before an immigration judge.
We've already seen many people deported without a hearing, to countries where they are likely to be killed or tortured. People who have never been convicted of a crime. People who are in the country *legally* but get their visa revoked for taking to criticize Dear Leader.
Mr. Trump seems to be standing athwart history yelling, "Go back!"
To what? A pre-vaccine era? A time of trade wars? A time of general ignorance, as he tries to gut American universities?
When they accuse a conservative of trying to hurt poor people or roll back progress, he caves. When they charge a conservative with standing on the wrong side of the arc of history, he switches sides. Not Trump.
All the worse. Is hurting poor people desirable? Something Josh approves of?
And in Trump's defense, some (but not all) of his actions are seeking to restore the original meaning of the Constitution, wheres the same could not be said for FDR and LBJ.
Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution, and has not thought for two seconds about restoring the "original meaning," which would be a terrible idea, especially if by "original meaning" we mean Josh's interpretation.
Is Blackman in some sort of toadying contest?
> Is Blackman in some sort of toadying contest?
Yes. He's way behind Tucker Carlson, but I'd say he's in the lead among the Reason crowd. The winner gets a brown nose!
I've read many of Blackman's pieces and I always wonder how could someone so intellectually inept graduate law school.
I don’t know how Kagrungy Jackson Brown graduated either
I don't know how you managed to graduate kindergarten.
I didn’t
GO BACK TO 1965 WHEN THIS WAS AMERICA!
He wants to go back to "Morning in America".
Rrreeeeeeee!!!
-the regulars around here…
Why do you post outside of 4chan if you're just going to post 4chan slop?
Yup. I was right…
Just wait until his 3rd term
So Josh Blackman is in the process of committing a fantasy trilogy.
Trump very much cares what the "elites" think.
It depends on the elite. He cares what Putin thinks, for instance.
Some conservatives care about not being racist. Trump doesn't. This is seen as a good thing by Josh Blackman and some other people.
I don't think the New Deal as a whole is unconstitutional. I think Japanese internment was. FDR getting away with it apparently requires Trump to have the power to do something comparable.
We should be on constant guard. Josh Blackmans (or people he respects) have a lot of power these days.
The last 113 years have been unConstitutional.
It doesn't, really. Trump is what Ayn Rand called a second-hander: he derives his entire sense of self-worth from what others think of him. He is desperate to be respected by the NYT. That's why he invented fake publicists to praise himself to them, all those years ago. It's why he's always falsely bragging about how respected the U.S. is in the world when he's president; he's desperate to think that's true.
This piece seems intent on asserting that the ends justify the means while ignoring the steep rise in executive power and the corresponding reducuons in the power of the other branches of government.
There are many of Trump's stated aims that I could support if he actually did them. Still more that I'd be pleased with if he only did them competently or within the limts of the executive power.
What Trump's show us is how easily and how easily the Constitution can be bent even if it isn't quite broken.
Don't you want progress ?
Obama built on Bush jr.'s Imperial presidency, and so too we now have the progressive embodiment of our system's value.
I have always considered myself a Reagan* Republican since the 80's, I especially admired his ability to focus on issues rather than making things personal, hardly on of Trump's attributes.
But I don't think Reagan would have caviled at a rather modest decimation of the federal workforce especially at a time where they are often in open opposition not only to the Administration, but the voters. After all he didn't hesitate when the Air Traffic Controllers decided on a test of wills between their interest and the nations.
*I still remember first hearing about Ronald Reagan (although I might have watched death valley days reruns), my mother was reading the Sunday Chronicle while I and my brothers were scrapping on the carpet for the best Sunday comics, when she said "Hah, Ronald Reagan is running for Governor", I asked her who Reagan was, little knowing that 18 years later he'd be the first Republican I'd ever vote for. My mother never understood, but I don't think she's held it against me.
President Trump is simply the vehicle that most Americans used to reclaim their vision of democracy from the conceited, narcissistic, unelected bureaucrats and institutionalists that feel it is their right to rule over the ignorant masses.