" “President Trump thinks he can screw my wife?” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “Well . . . we’ll just see what John Roberts has to say about that.”"
So you're saying that the innocent father who is rotting in El Salvador would be better off right now if he had pulled out a gun and started shooting at the ICE agents when they came to take him?
Was he an American citizen? I'm not familiar with any citizens being deported. Are you talking about the illegal immigrant where the issue is that he was deported to El Salvador as opposed to literally anywhere else?
He's a human being. Some people believe that humans deserve respect (maybe you don't believe that). In fact, someone once said that "all men are created equal". It was in a document that you may want to peruse.
Also, congrats on missing the point of my comment.
Sure, everyone deserves respect. Criminal immigrants should be deported. Two true statements. Trump's deportation of this guy was a good thing done in a bad way, although I really have an issue with the rationale behind the original order that prevents him from being deported to El Salvadore.
It is disrespectful to legal citizens of a country to allow criminal immigrants to stay in that country. And yes, if someone tries to abduct you, as a citizen, then you should use a firearm to shoot them.
If you disagree with the law (i.e., that asylum seekers are allowed to stay here if they have a credible fear of violence in their home county), you should vote for people to change the law. You shouldn't support a president who just flagrantly violates that law. So no, a president violating the law that he swore to uphold is not a "good thing", no matter how you feel about the asylum system.
Being afraid of violence because you were in a gang is a bad reason to deserve asylum. And the courts aren't required (as far as I'm aware) to grant everyone who has credible fears of violence asylum. They have discretion.
It is disrespectful to citizens of s country to flout the rule of law.
A judge said he was to stay in the country. He was in the process of receiving a green card. It is unconstitutional to remove him at that point. I actually give more of a shit about the constitution than the presence of brown people in this country because of shitty laws being followed though so I have an issue with it.
I don’t know the answer to this specifically, but I do think there are circumstances where dying defending oneself is preferable to all the alternatives. If the only options are never seeing my family again and never seeing my family again plus torture, I’m going with option 1. (The problem is that in real life the options are not quite this clear-cut).
Well, here’s what you wrote that #2A will save you from.
“He orders 50 FBI agents to the woman’s house, and Pam Bondi sends them because she makes Waylon Smithers look like Rosa Parks. When armed agents begin rappelling down the sides of this woman’s house, does she say “Get out of here, this violates the 14th Amendment!”, or does she go with them, because the situation is confusing and scary?”
Yep, go out in a blaze of glory. I think the FBI is less likely to go after the woman who has a Colt 45 ready to throw down. Also, if they don't disarm you, then you have a very empathetic personal response to the President.
Sure it has. How often does this happen before it stops happening? The first 4 people die, and then tyranny is stopped. Glad I could help you understand how armed resistance works.
Yep, iirc, it was a Democratic house and a Republican Senate. The main problem is that the Republicans now have both houses and virtually every congressional Republican may not like Trump, they fear him and his base. So yeah, dickless pantywaists.
Thanks! I’m going to start pretending that my daily typo is a fun little thing that I put there intentionally for people to find, like Hitchcock’s cameo.
Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy. And as a left-leaning appellate lawyer who retains some degree of faith in the courts, I'm probably more worried about Trump's defiance of court orders than most.
But this post is like a month out of date. It's true that Trump defied a District Court order that amounted to "turn the planes around" with respect to one particular group of deportees to El Salvador. And Trump has done nothing to comply with an extremely vague SCOTUS order that requires him to "facilitate" Albrego Garcia's return, but that explicitly does not require him to "effectuate" that return.
However, there is no evidence Trump has since defied any other court orders in the immigration context. When a court enjoined him not to deport Venezuelans housed in NDTX to El Salvador, those flights actually were cancelled. Similarly, when a judge ordered the government to release one of the arrested green card-holding Columbia students, the government released him.
Trump has evidently decided to hold off on more extreme actions while using the Garcia case as a test case, both in actual court and in the court of popular opinion. It may work for him in the court of popular opinion (though I doubt it), but it is *extremely* unlikely to work in actual court. If Trump ultimately defies an unambiguous order of the Supreme Court, then it'll be time for this kind of rhetoric. But until then, we should maybe try to be a bit less histrionic. The left's tendency toward histrionics is part of why we got stuck with Trump in the first place.
Congress would need to find its spine. Then the president would write an executive order banning the use of spines or any body parts that could in any way restrict his madness.
I’m cautiously optimistic. A major driver of political extremism in the US has been gridlock. First, it’s very frustrating. But second, when nobody can do anything, there are no consequences for holding wrong beliefs.
Congress doesn’t stand up to Trump because he’s popular (not broadly, but deeply, and with voters who matter in primaries). He has remained popular in the past because his beliefs have had few real-world consequences for most voters personally. That’s about to change.
The way forward seems to be to grit our teeth for 20 more months and hope we can flip both houses of Congress blue in the midterms. Normally I'd be bearish on the prospects that Democrats could ever get out of their own way, but Trump seeming intent on destroying the economy might be enough.
(Don't mind me saying "we" like I'm not Canadian. But hey, this has a pretty large ripple effect on us. In the meantime, I'll go back to my boring banker prime minister.)
In partial defense of the dickless pantywaists in Congress:
These pantywaists are dickless not because they suffer from some acquired form of hypogonadism, but because of our Primary System. Many of them are where they are because they themselves got into Congress by "primarying" some other pol who had, in a moment of reckless abandon, the gonad-driven (?) temerity to challenge, even in an eviscerated and anodyne fashion, something the God-King uttered. They know that if they utter a word even of incredulity they risk the same political death.
Yes, the Founding Fathers failed to forsee the degree to which faction would come to dominate the political scene in the far future. But we can hardly blame these men from the 1780's who failed to account for the possibility that an eccentric structural feature of politics (the Primary System), 200 years on, would allow an extreme and cultish minority (?) "base" to completely enforce partisan orthodoxy at the party level.
It actually isn't necessary to already be harmed to claim standing. Plenty of laws / regulations / EOs have been successfully challenged based upon the claim of potential harm were they enacted. But the question remains - what if Trump just ignores the Court? Overall, this is an excellent exercise in reductio ad absurdum!
Hey, man, maybe *Prima Nocta* isn't the BEST thing in the world, but at least he's TRYING SOMETHING!
Radley Balko beat you to it:
https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/trumps-modest-proposal
Very worth checking out. Sample:
" “President Trump thinks he can screw my wife?” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “Well . . . we’ll just see what John Roberts has to say about that.”"
Your 2nd amendment stops it. That's the quickest and easiest check on anyone's power.
So you're saying that the innocent father who is rotting in El Salvador would be better off right now if he had pulled out a gun and started shooting at the ICE agents when they came to take him?
Was he an American citizen? I'm not familiar with any citizens being deported. Are you talking about the illegal immigrant where the issue is that he was deported to El Salvador as opposed to literally anywhere else?
He's a human being. Some people believe that humans deserve respect (maybe you don't believe that). In fact, someone once said that "all men are created equal". It was in a document that you may want to peruse.
Also, congrats on missing the point of my comment.
Sure, everyone deserves respect. Criminal immigrants should be deported. Two true statements. Trump's deportation of this guy was a good thing done in a bad way, although I really have an issue with the rationale behind the original order that prevents him from being deported to El Salvadore.
It is disrespectful to legal citizens of a country to allow criminal immigrants to stay in that country. And yes, if someone tries to abduct you, as a citizen, then you should use a firearm to shoot them.
If you disagree with the law (i.e., that asylum seekers are allowed to stay here if they have a credible fear of violence in their home county), you should vote for people to change the law. You shouldn't support a president who just flagrantly violates that law. So no, a president violating the law that he swore to uphold is not a "good thing", no matter how you feel about the asylum system.
Being afraid of violence because you were in a gang is a bad reason to deserve asylum. And the courts aren't required (as far as I'm aware) to grant everyone who has credible fears of violence asylum. They have discretion.
It is disrespectful to citizens of s country to flout the rule of law.
A judge said he was to stay in the country. He was in the process of receiving a green card. It is unconstitutional to remove him at that point. I actually give more of a shit about the constitution than the presence of brown people in this country because of shitty laws being followed though so I have an issue with it.
A judge said he wasnt allowed to be deported to El Salvadore. That's not the same as being allowed in the country.
I don’t know the answer to this specifically, but I do think there are circumstances where dying defending oneself is preferable to all the alternatives. If the only options are never seeing my family again and never seeing my family again plus torture, I’m going with option 1. (The problem is that in real life the options are not quite this clear-cut).
Lmao good luck with your Glock against the SWAT team, pal.
So now there's a prima nocta SWAT team?
Well, here’s what you wrote that #2A will save you from.
“He orders 50 FBI agents to the woman’s house, and Pam Bondi sends them because she makes Waylon Smithers look like Rosa Parks. When armed agents begin rappelling down the sides of this woman’s house, does she say “Get out of here, this violates the 14th Amendment!”, or does she go with them, because the situation is confusing and scary?”
Yep, go out in a blaze of glory. I think the FBI is less likely to go after the woman who has a Colt 45 ready to throw down. Also, if they don't disarm you, then you have a very empathetic personal response to the President.
Great. So in this scenario you are dead and the second amendment has not stopped government tyranny. Glad we cleared that up.
Sure it has. How often does this happen before it stops happening? The first 4 people die, and then tyranny is stopped. Glad I could help you understand how armed resistance works.
Yep, that’s exactly what it’s there for.
So does that mean JD Vance gets the sloppy “seconda nocta?”
Didn't Madison address the problem ("On Dicke Lesse Pantie Waystes") in Federalist 10?
(Oh, and to be that guy, Trump was impeached over January 6; the dickless pantywaists in the Senate failed to convict him.)
Yep, iirc, it was a Democratic house and a Republican Senate. The main problem is that the Republicans now have both houses and virtually every congressional Republican may not like Trump, they fear him and his base. So yeah, dickless pantywaists.
I think you meant tries, not tires in the last sentence. And since I am doing this, “you *and* I are done”.
I hate being that guy, but you claim it helps.
Thanks! I’m going to start pretending that my daily typo is a fun little thing that I put there intentionally for people to find, like Hitchcock’s cameo.
Chad: "Babe, how awesome is it that your first railing as a married woman will be by DONALD FUCKING TRUMP!!?"
Tragedeigh: "Oh,Honey, it's a dream come true!"
Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy. And as a left-leaning appellate lawyer who retains some degree of faith in the courts, I'm probably more worried about Trump's defiance of court orders than most.
But this post is like a month out of date. It's true that Trump defied a District Court order that amounted to "turn the planes around" with respect to one particular group of deportees to El Salvador. And Trump has done nothing to comply with an extremely vague SCOTUS order that requires him to "facilitate" Albrego Garcia's return, but that explicitly does not require him to "effectuate" that return.
However, there is no evidence Trump has since defied any other court orders in the immigration context. When a court enjoined him not to deport Venezuelans housed in NDTX to El Salvador, those flights actually were cancelled. Similarly, when a judge ordered the government to release one of the arrested green card-holding Columbia students, the government released him.
Trump has evidently decided to hold off on more extreme actions while using the Garcia case as a test case, both in actual court and in the court of popular opinion. It may work for him in the court of popular opinion (though I doubt it), but it is *extremely* unlikely to work in actual court. If Trump ultimately defies an unambiguous order of the Supreme Court, then it'll be time for this kind of rhetoric. But until then, we should maybe try to be a bit less histrionic. The left's tendency toward histrionics is part of why we got stuck with Trump in the first place.
Pretty sure Jerry Falwell Jr would be very into this writ of prima nocta as long as there's a writ of him getting to watch.
Congress would need to find its spine. Then the president would write an executive order banning the use of spines or any body parts that could in any way restrict his madness.
I’m cautiously optimistic. A major driver of political extremism in the US has been gridlock. First, it’s very frustrating. But second, when nobody can do anything, there are no consequences for holding wrong beliefs.
Congress doesn’t stand up to Trump because he’s popular (not broadly, but deeply, and with voters who matter in primaries). He has remained popular in the past because his beliefs have had few real-world consequences for most voters personally. That’s about to change.
The way forward seems to be to grit our teeth for 20 more months and hope we can flip both houses of Congress blue in the midterms. Normally I'd be bearish on the prospects that Democrats could ever get out of their own way, but Trump seeming intent on destroying the economy might be enough.
(Don't mind me saying "we" like I'm not Canadian. But hey, this has a pretty large ripple effect on us. In the meantime, I'll go back to my boring banker prime minister.)
Watching the Marriage of Figaro this weekend at the Met I had a scarily similar thought.
I came for the funny anti-woke stuff; I stay for fire-breathing anti-Trump stuff.
Someone is suing Trump over the tariffs:
https://www.cato.org/blog/i-sat-down-small-business-owner-understand-how-trumps-tariffs-are-destroying-business-why-hes
How Trump’s Tariffs Are Destroying One US Business and Why Its CEO Is Suing to Stop Them
In partial defense of the dickless pantywaists in Congress:
These pantywaists are dickless not because they suffer from some acquired form of hypogonadism, but because of our Primary System. Many of them are where they are because they themselves got into Congress by "primarying" some other pol who had, in a moment of reckless abandon, the gonad-driven (?) temerity to challenge, even in an eviscerated and anodyne fashion, something the God-King uttered. They know that if they utter a word even of incredulity they risk the same political death.
Yes, the Founding Fathers failed to forsee the degree to which faction would come to dominate the political scene in the far future. But we can hardly blame these men from the 1780's who failed to account for the possibility that an eccentric structural feature of politics (the Primary System), 200 years on, would allow an extreme and cultish minority (?) "base" to completely enforce partisan orthodoxy at the party level.
It actually isn't necessary to already be harmed to claim standing. Plenty of laws / regulations / EOs have been successfully challenged based upon the claim of potential harm were they enacted. But the question remains - what if Trump just ignores the Court? Overall, this is an excellent exercise in reductio ad absurdum!