#from the executive to the judicial and legislative branches

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Well maybe now congress will actually do its job and pass laws.

that's a HUGE maybe. congress is dysfunctional and inefficient and unwieldy. it is constantly mired in petty politics, mindless bickering, and perpetual gridlock. Really smart leaving the day-to-day regulations that govern the nation up to them! Then, when they eventually do get around to passing oppressively narrow regulations y'all will complain about how impossible it is to remove said regulations.

[wilwheaton]

The violent attack on Congress on 6 January 2021, and all the ancillary attempts to steal the 2020 election, were a coup attempt led from the executive branch of the federal government with support from Republicans in the legislative branch. 1 July 2024 – this Thursday – was a more successful coup attempt orchestrated by six judges of the judicial branch. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in an opinion joined by justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, after the US supreme court’s conservative majority ruled that Donald Trump holds “absolute immunity” for “official acts” done while president. Part of what’s shocking about the state of the union right now is that an entire party and the US supreme court’s conservative majority have abandoned almost everything – the truth, the rule of law, their own legitimacy, their place in history and the fate of the nation – to serve one man. They could not have picked a more outrageous man to throw their weight and reputations behind – a psychotic clown who’s also an indicted felon found liable in civil court for sexual assault, barred from doing business in New York, a stealer of state secrets, a would-be thief of an election and the instigator of a violent attack on the legislative branch of government and the constitutionally mandated transition of power after an election. A grifter who in 2016 won a minority victory in a corrupted election – his conviction earlier this year was on charges for one small part of that corruption. A man who has gloated about seizing dictatorial powers and never letting go and a worshiper of tyrants denounced by dozens of his former cabinet members and senior staffers. January 6 was an attack on the constitution and so was 1 July. That no one is above the law has been a pillar of this nation and a cherished value since the 18th century; to knock it down in the 21st destabilizes structures and values that have stood these two centuries and more. A president with total immunity poses obvious threats to the rule of law, the balance of powers and democracy itself, and if that president is the vindictive criminal on the Republican ticket the dangers are immediate and obvious.

The US supreme court just completed Trump’s January 6 coup attempt

[beauty-funny-trippy]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with the other two Democrat-appointed justices, powerfully said in the dissenting opinion: the Supreme Court has made “a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

"When [a president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,... In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," wrote Justice Sotomayor.

This corrupt, extreme far-right Supreme Court has just opened the gates and paved the road for a fascist America. It means politicians, judges, their families, etc., will be in fear if they speak out against the president, or don't do what he wants, they could be arrested or killed. If you protest, you and your family could be imprisoned or shot.

When the Executive branch of government has the power to threaten members of the Legislative and Judicial branches, all "checks and balances" preventing the abuse of power have been destroyed.

Why isn't anyone losing their minds that Biden could now become a dictator or order assassinations? Because everyone knows he is a decent man who would never do such a thing.

However, if Donald Trump wins this election, there is literally nothing to stop him from fulfilling his heart's desire and becoming America's first dictator. He, and any future president, can now, legally, stage a military coup and hold on to power for life and his vice president would be the next to reign for the rest of their life. No more real elections.

Now, more than ever, Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to America.

In this election, not voting, is a dangerous choice.

[saywhat-politics]

04/22/2025

by 

Peter Montgomery

Religious-right figure Rick Joyner warned in a Facebook post Tuesday that judges who “interfere” with President Donald Trump’s executive orders may be pushing the U.S. toward “another civil war.” It’s just the latest of many examples of right-wing Christian leaders and media amplifying Trump’s complaints about courts that are stepping in to slow and stop Trump administration actions that violate the Constitution or federal law. 

In his Facebook post, Joyner gave lip service to the importance of an independent judiciary but then suggested that judges’ actions to pause Trump’s orders are “an encroachment on the Legislative Branch” and “an end run around the democratic will of the people.” 

“SCOTUS can begin to reduce this and avoid a major Constitutional Crisis, or even another civil war, by how they decide some of the cases before them,” Joyner wrote. “They can begin to bring a desperately needed restraint on the Judicial Branch that has gotten very far outside of its lane.” 

Joyner has a habit of talking about civil war. During Trump’s first months in office in 2017, Joyner warned that if the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s efforts to ban immigrants and refugees from several predominantly Muslim nations, it could lead to civil war and martial law. In 2019, he said Christians should be establishing militias to prepare for civil war. A month before the 2020 election, he told viewers that they shouldn’t worry too much about the coming civil war because the violence and bloodshed would be mostly confined to the “inner cities.” 

[odinsblog]

The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.

Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.

Since 1984, federal courts have applied Chevron in about 18,000 decisions in every conceivable area of the law: energy policy, education, food and drug safety, labor, the environment, consumer protection, finance, health care, housing, law enforcement—the list is pretty much endless. It has become the background principle against which Congress enacts all legislation.

That all ends now.

(continue reading)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jay Kuo at The Big Picture:

There’s a common reaction to the headlines these days. Over the past 100 days, those of us who spent any time in law school (or paid attention in civics class) find ourselves recoiling, blinking, or shaking our heads in disbelief, thinking to ourselves, “He can’t do that.” “He” being Trump, and “that” being whatever latest affront to our Constitution and laws he has announced or his administration has done. Because these attacks are so rapid-fire in nature, it’s easy to get lost in the fog of his war on our founding principles. When this happens, it’s helpful to climb to a higher vantage point, reassert how things are supposed to be, and then understand more precisely how Trump has come for the constitutional, foundational values of our nation. These are not always so easy to parse or understand at first glance. Trump isn’t acting with pinpoint precision but rather with a heavy hammer. Moreover, he acts primarily in his own self-interest to accumulate power and money, while our Constitution suffers collateral damage. To complicate things further, some of his declarations and actions violate multiple parts of our Constitution, while others leverage one violation to create or amplify others. Today, I want to focus on five basic principles and rights contained within our founding documents, as envisioned by the founders:

The establishment of co-equal, separate branches of government

The prohibition on corruption within the Emoluments Clause

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and a free press

The Fourth Amendment’s right to due process under law

The Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection

For each of the above, I’ll lay out relevant language and principles before discussing a few key ways Trump has shredded them through his executive orders and actions. Note that this is not meant to be exhaustive; that would no doubt fill whole history books and legal treatises. Rather, through some better-known examples, I hope to provide a way to think rigorously and with discipline about how Trump threatens our constitutional foundations. Through a clearer understanding of the precise nature of his attacks and the core values he threatens, we can all feel less overwhelmed and helpless in the face of the flood while steeling and grounding ourselves more firmly in the defense of our constitutional Republic.

Stay in your lane, Donald: Disrespecting the separation of powers

Our Constitution begins with three distinct articles that establish a tripartite government: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches. We understand these to be both independent and co-equal, and that they are intended to place checks upon the power of the others. But where does that notion of separate, co-equal branches that check each other come from? It derives partly from the fact that we have three separate branches in the first place, each charged with different roles. The legislature makes laws and controls the public purse. The executive faithfully executes those laws. And the judiciary, at least since Marbury v. Madison, acts as the arbiter and interpreter of our laws and the Constitution. We often take this set-up for granted, but at one point in our history, before we became a sovereign nation, all these powers lay in one party’s hands. It was a major reason we rebelled against the British crown. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47,

[...]

One of the first things his administration did was freeze billions in funds that Congress had already appropriated. This is called “impoundment” and the Supreme Court ruled 50 years ago, when Nixon tried it, that it’s unconstitutional because it usurps the power of Congress over public funds. If our democracy were functioning in a healthy way, Congress would have impeached Trump over this power grab the moment it happened. We face a crisis today precisely because our GOP-controlled Congress is unwilling to stand up to him and reclaim its authority. That means we must fight in the courts until we have a chance to change the balance of power in the 2026 midterm elections. Beyond seizing critical control of the flow of funds, Trump has also unilaterally imposed the most massive tax hike in generations. He’s done this by raising import taxes, also known as tariffs. It’s important to understand that the President doesn’t actually have the power to impose tariffs on his own. Trump is arguing that Congress gave him that power, however, by allowing him to declare “national emergencies” and impose tariffs in response. But these “emergencies” are pretextual and non-existent, and rule by emergency decree is how authoritarians seize power within a democracy, whether it’s Germany in the 1930s or the U.S. today. Once again, it’s largely up to Congress to stop him, but even just yesterday Republicans in the Senate narrowly voted down an effort to repeal Trump’s tariff authority. The most critical test of our system of governance is now well underway. The judiciary is empowered with interpreting our Constitution, and in a 9-0 opinion has ordered the government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego García, a migrant wrongfully sent to a maximum security prison in El Salvador at the request of and with payment from the United States. To date, the White House has not done so, though there are reports that half-hearted efforts to request Abrego García’s return have finally begun. In an interview with ABC News, Trump startlingly admitted that he has the power to obey the Supreme Court but is declining to do so because “the lawyers” said the ruling said otherwise. (It did not.) If the White House can seize the power of the purse from Congress and can thumb its nose at judiciary orders, then it has seized for itself “all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands” as Madison warned. And that is in fact “the very definition of tyranny."

[...]

That pesky First Amendment: Trump tramples upon free speech and a free press

Of all of the amendments to our Constitution, we are likely most familiar with the First. On the subject of freedom of speech, it says this:

[Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble….]

Courts have interpreted this to include any state official action, including by the White House, that impinges on free speech. These protections importantly include not permitting government officials to favor one type of speech over another. Thus, content-based laws or restrictions are disfavored and presumptively unconstitutional, while content-neutral laws or regulations (which affect the time, place or manner of speech, without regard to content) can more readily pass muster. For example, in 1972 the Supreme Court held in Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley that the “government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial rules.” Further, it held in 1992 in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul that the “government may not regulate speech based on hostility—or favoritism—toward the underlying message expressed.” And in 1995, it held in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia that a public university couldn’t deny funding to a student publication because its statements were religiously themed, provided it was supplying funding to other groups. This was a form of “viewpoint” discrimination—a disallowed form of content-based regulation. You can probably see where I’m going with this. Over the past 100 days, the Trump White House has regularly engaged in content-based bias and viewpoint discrimination, particularly against the press and other institutions such as big law firms and universities. Take its actions toward the Associated Press. When that organization refused to start calling the Gulf of Mexico by Trump’s new name for it (the “Gulf of America”), Trump tried to ban it from the White House. A federal judge quickly ruled that this was improper viewpoint discrimination. “Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” wrote federal district court Judge Trevor McFadden. “The Constitution requires no less.” Trump has also come after major law firms and elite universities for their liberal politics and advocacy for his opponents. One executive order targeted the firm of Perkins Coie, which had done legal work for Hillary Clinton’s campaign as well as defended against election-related lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign, by stripping its lawyers of security clearances necessary to do a great deal of high-level government work.

The first 100 days of the Trump Regime reveal that he has systematically trashed our Constitution.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A judical tide overwhelms Trump.

April 25, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

The plague of fantasy orders signed by Trump in his first 100 days in office has collided with reality. Reality is winning—big time. On Thursday, Trump's executive orders were overwhelmed by a rising tide of judicial decisions.

Trump's executive orders should be viewed as a mixture of propaganda and photo opportunities. Although we should treat the orders as serious statements of Trump's intent, we must also recognize that they violate the Constitution and laws of the US at every level.

Executive orders CANNOT

-Amend, suspend, or ignore the Constitution; -Supersede statutes enacted by Congress; -Cancel or impound congressional appropriations; -Shutter agencies created by statute; -Use mass layoffs to incapacitate agencies established by Congress; or -Overrule judicial decisions.

Because every executive order signed by Trump violates (at least) one of the above prohibitions, federal judges have enjoined the implementation of Trump’s orders at a scalding pace. Bewildered Trump supporters complain that no president has ever encountered such widespread judicial constraint. Trump's supporters ignore the obvious explanation—that no other president has acted in such a lawless manner.

One hundred days into Trump's second term, the courts have emerged as an essential bulwark in the defense of democracy. It is, of course, their duty to do so, but it could have been otherwise. Even the Supreme Court has dipped its toe into the emerging tide of opposition to Trump. We can only hope that the justices will read the winds and tides to help navigate our nation back to the safe harbor of the rule of law.

Let’s take a look at some of the judicial decisions issued on Thursday that are slowing or reversing Trump's efforts to overturn the Constitution and circumvent the rule of law.

Multiple court decisions halt the implementation of Trump's executive orders.

Republicans are attempting to push the SAVE Act through the Senate. The SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship for newly registering or re-registering voters. Trump understands that the SAVE Act will be blocked in the Senate by the filibuster rule, so he issued an executive order attempting to implement the SAVE Act by presidential fiat.

On Thursday, a federal judge told Trump that the president has no role in federal elections. See Democracy Docket, Judge Halts Trump’s Anti-Voting Executive Order.

The case was brought by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) against the Trump administration. The Complaint is here: LULAC v. Executive Office of President.

On Wednesday, the US district judge overseeing the case, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, issued an order blocking implementation of Trump's executive order. In her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that the president has no constitutional or statutory role in the administration of elections:

Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections. Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order. See SAVE Act, H.R. 22, 119th Cong. (2025). And no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order is here: Memorandum Opinion | LULAC v. EOP | 4/24/25.

The 119-page opinion rests on a simple but powerful point: The Constitution grants power to regulate to the states and to Congress. Trump's bloviating executive orders are propaganda, nothing more.

To a similar effect, a trio of decisions held that Trump's executive order prohibiting public schools from teaching or using “DEI” is unconstitutional. A “Dear Colleague” letter sent to schools across the nation threatened to cut off federal funding to schools that taught or utilized “DEI” in their curricula or operations. See CNN Politics, Department of Education policy targeting DEI and other race-related school programs is likely unconstitutional, judge rules.

Three US District Court judges, two of whom were appointed by Trump, wrote in three separate cases that the “Dear Colleagues” letter sent by the Department of Education to schools across the nation (a) constituted “viewpoint discrimination” under the First Amendment, (b) violated the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee, or (c) violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

The three orders are set forth below:

Order | NEA v. Department of Education (D. N.H.)

Oral Ruling | NAACP v. Department of Education (D. D.C.)

Memorandum Opinion | American Federation of Teachers v Department of Education | (D. MD).

The judges relied on three different judicial approaches in enjoining the implementation of the threats in the Dear Colleague letter. The various judicial approaches are explained by the legal theories asserted and remedies sought by the plaintiffs.

The fact that three jurists arrived at the same conclusion via three legal pathways underscores the breathtaking substantive illegality and procedural impropriety of the administration’s ham-fisted tactics. Trump's executive orders are performative in nature, unmoored from presidential authority and constraints set forth in the Constitution.

In another loss for Trump, a federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled that Trump's executive order that attempted to defund “sanctuary cities” is unconstitutional. See Order Granting Injunction | San Francisco v. Trump (N.D. Cal.).

US District Judge William H. Orrick issued an emergency order preventing implementation of an executive order that withheld federal funds from so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Judge Orrick issued an identical injunction against a similar order issued by Trump in 2017. Judge Orrick noted that his ruling in the 2017 case was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

There were other legal developments (all bad for Trump), but losing five cases in a day is likely a record for any president in US history. You have to work hard to be so wrong that you lose cases at their inception, when the burden of proof is stacked against the plaintiffs.

Pressure mounts for law firms to resist Trump's hostile takeover attempt

There were several significant developments in the efforts to oppose Trump's assault on the independence and integrity of the legal profession. First, Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), published a statement calling on lawyers at top law firms to end their silence in the face of Trump's hostile takeover attempt. See LDAD, Elite Lawyers Must End Their Silence and Unite to Protect the Justice System.

Although 21 major firms have chosen to take a public stand against the administration’s assault on the legal profession, 170 of the 200 largest firms have remained silent. LDAD has called upon those 170 law firms to speak out and declare their fealty to the rule of law.

LDAD published an open letter to those 170 firms, warning them of the consequences of capitulating to Trump.

LDAD writes,

Your firm will forever be redefined. Your rival firms will point to you as a portrait of cowardice and ask how any client could trust you after succumbing to powerful interests without a fight. You will forever be joined with a small group of the most privileged firms in this country who betrayed the principles that lawyers and clients must be free to choose one another; that all people appearing in our courts are entitled to the best advocacy their counsel can offer; and that the rule of law requires lawyers and their firms to stand up for it, even when it is not in their own personal or financial interest. Reputations take decades to build and only one fateful decision to destroy.

A coalition of law students has joined the effort to stiffen the backbones of leaders at elite law firms. The leaders of the effort are asking current law students to refrain from working for law firms that have capitulated to Trump. See Law Student Firm Pledge.

The Law Student Firm Pledge reads, in part,

Our democracy is under attack, and it is time for lawyers to choose sides. As the future of the legal profession, who have committed to defending the rule of law, we cannot stand for capitulation to tyranny. [¶] The response from too many firms has been either silence or collaboration, with some of the most powerful law firms in the world committing to the elimination of diversity programs and openly agreeing to set amounts of money in pro bono work to support Trump's lawless agenda.

We, the undersigned, refuse to work for any firm that gives in to Trump administration demands regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion or the types of cases handled by the firm.

In another courageous action, a law firm in Tennessee has served public notice of its withdrawal from the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) because of the TBA’s silence in the face of Trump's lawlessness. See Memphis Flyer, Memphis Law Firm Leaves Tennessee Bar Association for Its Silence on Trump.

The law firm, Donati Law, announced its resignation from the TBA in a letter that stated, in part, as follows:

It is with great sadness that we feel obligated to leave the TBA due to its refusal to take a stand consistent with the ideals of the Rule of Law and an independent judiciary in the face of extreme threats from the executive branch.

Kudos to Donati Law for serving as examples for other law firms.

Finally, fourteen Democratic representatives in the US House have sent letters to the Capitulating Law Firms asking for voluntary responses to pointed questions. See 4/24/25 Letters to Brad Karp (Paul Weiss) et al.

The letters make the point that the agreements may have violated multiple federal and state anti-bribery statutes as well as ethics rules of the New York and D.C. bar associations. Ouch, double ouch, and triple ouch!

Each of the firms that received the above letter must have notified its malpractice carrier of a potential claim, loss, or alleged illegal act. And insurers for large law firms are busily drafting exclusions from insurance coverage for future “deals” with the Trump administration.

It is truly breathtaking that a handful of the largest, most sophisticated firms in the nation have placed themselves in such jeopardy to protect marginal profitability. What were they thinking?

Trump's corruption on full display—and Republicans shrug their shoulders.

Republicans pursued the “Hunter Biden laptop” with unrelenting zeal because they believed that it might somehow show that Joe Biden attempted to profit from holding the office of the Vice President.

Donald Trump is openly auctioning off dinners with the President and VIP tours of the White House, and Republicans are nowhere to be found. To be clear, Trump is not selling access to the president for his campaign coffers or those of other Republicans. Trump is funneling the money into his personal bank account.

Here’s the scam: Trump has started a cryptocurrency. He owns the initial “coin” of the currency. Subsequent purchasers of the cryptocurrency are purchasing the coin directly from Trump. Trump is offering White House dinners and tours to those who make the largest purchases of Trump's cryptocurrency. See Mother Jones, Trump Crypto Coin Buyers Offered VIP Tour of White House.

At the very moment that Trump is selling access to the Office of the Presidency to the highest bidder, he has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to begin an investigation of ActBlue, the major Democratic fundraising arm. See Democracy Docket, Trump Orders Probe Against Democratic Fundraising Platform ActBlue.

Trump falsely claims that ActBlue has illegally accepted contributions from foreign donors. But as explained in Democracy Docket, ActBlue discovered attempted contributions by foreign donors and blocked them:

The president left out the fact that ActBlue took actions in response to those detections. It caught and rejected fraudulent donations . . . [and] banned contributions made from foreign IP addresses using domestic prepaid cards, according to House Republicans.

As noted above, Trump's executive orders are a mixture of propaganda and photo opportunities. The investigation ordered by Trump in Thursday’s executive order is duplicative of existing congressional investigations into fundraising by ActBlue—investigations that have yet to discover any illegal conduct by ActBlue.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[mariacallous]

Individuals associated with the federal government have, in defiance of a court order and without a trial or any form of due process, deported hundreds of people from the territory of the United States to El Salvador, where they will be held indefinitely in a concentration camp.

1. This violated fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution. Everyone in the United States has the right to a fair trial with due process of law. People who say things along the lines of "enemy combatants don't have the right to due process" are wrong. And it is important to understand the implications of that position. Anyone can be named an "enemy combatant." More fundamentally, once you accept any exception to the general rule, you are just inviting executive power to always use that exception, or make up another one. If you are a citizen and you are casting doubt on the importance of due process, remember this: you need due process in order to prove that you are a citizen.

2. The deportation was done in violation of a court order, according to a plan to undo the rule of law. This means that the action was not only specifically illegal, but designed as a challenge to the rule of law as such. Naturally, the individuals who chose to ignore a court order carefully selected the moment when they would do so. They chose a situation that they could characterize as us against them, the Americans against the foreigners, the regular people against the criminals. They are deliberately associating the law itself with people, the deportees, who they expect to be unpopular. This is a tactic, and historically speaking a very familiar one. In this way they hope to get popular opinion on their side as they ignore a court order. But if they succeed in making an exception once, it becomes the rule.

3. You do not know who was on those two planes to El Salvador. The individuals who arranged the deportation claim that the deportees were "foreign alien terrorists," but we have no way of knowing whether this is true. They also claim that they were “monsters,” which is not true. We do not know the names of the human beings who were deported. We cannot therefore know whether they were foreigners or American citizens. As to whether they were terrorists: they were not convicted of any crimes, and so it is hard to know whether or how this would be true. There is no doubt that their rights were violated. But your rights have been violated as well. If you do not know the details about operations that forcibly remove human beings from the territory of the United States, you do not have a responsive government. And you are therefore at risk.

4. Immigration and emigration are matters of legislation, the responsibility for which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress. In organizing a deportation outside the bounds of any particular law, and indeed outside the bounds of law in general, the executive is not only challenging Congress but disputing its purpose. The deportation action, in other words, is a direct blow not only to the judiciary but to the legislative branch of the federal government. It is an assertion of total executive authority that has no basis in law or tradition.

5. The individuals involved are declaring their power to define reality, independently not only of judicial but of all verification. There is no basis for this deportation beyond speech acts and keyboard acts. The words ("foreign alien terrorists," "monsters") are doing the work. There are no procedures between the movement of mouths and the movement of bodies. If members of the executive branch are allowed to issue truth claims that have the consequence that human beings leave the United States, we are in a dictatorship. If we accept that the executive branch can simply deport anyone they call a "foreign alien terrorist," then none of us has any rights.

6. The language that is being used has a specific resonance, which, historically, has been used to change regime type. It is important that the rights of human beings were violated. It is important that the rule of law was ignored. It is important that the executive is trying to define reality. But beyond even the issues of right and wrong and reality and unreality is the issue of language and behavior. We must consider just how the words are selected and what they are meant to do to us. "Foreign" means that they are not us. "Alien" means that we should hate them. "Terrorist" means that we should hate them enough to allow a state of exception, a suspension of normal practices, a change of regime. There is a long history of this, all around the world, including Hitler in 1933 and Stalin in 1934.

7. In an Orwellian reversal, defenders of the law are being associated with crime. The whole point of the rule of law is that everyone has a certain human dignity, which requires that they get their day in court, consistent with certain procedures. We do not know who is a criminal and who is not without these acknowledgements and these processes. The executive is claiming that it can simply name people "criminals" or “terrorists” or "monsters"-- and then contend that the defenders of law associates of criminals or monsters. In this way, the individuals who are carrying out this dictatorial action smear those who defend the Constitution by associating them with crimes, and of course with the most corporeal and unpleasant crimes. This is a logic entirely foreign to freedom, and destructive of it.

8. The smear campaign extends to political opponents. The executive branch is claiming that the people they call "terrorists" were in the United States thanks to the deliberate actions of the Biden administration, Democrats, and so on. "These are the monsters," says the chief executive, "sent into our Country by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats. How dare they!" Again, we do not know whether the deportees have committed any crimes, or indeed who they are. We are meant to accept the mouth and keyboard movements of individuals associated with the federal government as generative of dispositive truth on this matter. Pushing the blame for the existence of "foreign alien terrorists" onto political opponents is meant to delegitimate them, and to undermine their place in the political order. It is a strike, in other words, against democracy and basic political freedom.

9. Anyone can be dehumanized, portrayed as a "monster," and the dehumanization proceeds from the humiliation of the body. If you took one of these deportees, gave him a certain haircut, and put him in a suit, he would look like a cabinet member. If you take a cabinet member, shave off his hair, put him in a prison jumpsuit, chain his hands, and then put him between two masked men who frogwalk him to a deportation plane, he would like like a criminal. The photos and videos of humans beings to whom this is done are dehumanizing, and deliberately so. We are meant to conclude from the images that these men must be "monsters" or "foreign alien terrorists." The only thing we should be concluding is that individuals associated with the foreign government are behaving in a way that is totally inconsistent with liberty under law.

10. This deportation was planned as a political spectacle. The deportees were carefully chosen, as was the language used to describe them. The messaging was obviously coordinated in advance. And the entire humiliating procedure was carried out before cameras that were already in place. The videos that are being distributed are not some assemblage of footage caught haphazardly by cell phones. They are the result of fixed cameras, set in place in advance, with camera operators awaiting the action. The result is propaganda film worthy of the 1930s, in which the Leader determines what is true and what is false and who is human and who is not ("monsters") through a procedure of charismatic violence. If you watch these films, please consider that they are meant to draw you in to a politics of us and them, to a world of lying and hatred beyond law, to a new regime that can come to replace our republic -- but only with your assent.

[contemplatingoutlander]

"The gerrymandering alone undermines Wisconsin’s status as a democracy. If a majority of the people cannot, under any realistic circumstances, elect a legislative majority of their choosing, then it’s hard to say whether they actually govern themselves."

--Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times

Jamelle Bouie points out the disturbing way that Republicans in Wisconsin have basically destroyed democratic representative government on all levels by:

Creating an unbreakable gerrymander to ensure a Republican legislative majority, even if more people vote for Democrats.

Weakening the power of a Democratic governor,.

Targeting a liberal Wisconsin supreme court justice for removal or suspension so that the state SC won't have the power to rule against gerrymandered districting maps, and won't be able to prevent a 19th century ban on abortion from becoming law.

This is chilling. Below are some excerpts from the column:

For more than a decade, dating back to the Republican triumph in the 2010 midterm elections, Wisconsin Republicans have held their State Legislature in an iron lock, forged by a gerrymander so stark that nothing short of a supermajority of the voting public could break it. [...] In 2018, this gerrymander proved strong enough to allow Wisconsin Republicans to win a supermajority of seats in the Assembly despite losing the vote for every statewide office and the statewide legislative vote by 8 percentage points, 54 to 46. No matter how much Wisconsin voters might want to elect a Democratic Legislature, the Republican gerrymander won’t allow them to. [...] Using their gerrymandered majority, Wisconsin Republicans have done everything in their power to undermine, subvert or even nullify the public’s attempt to chart a course away from the Republican Party. In 2018, for example, Wisconsin voters put Tony Evers, a Democrat, in the governor’s mansion, sweeping the incumbent, Scott Walker, out of office. immediately, Wisconsin Republicans introduced legislation to weaken the state’s executive branch, curbing the authority that Walker had exercised as governor. Earlier this year, Wisconsin voters took another step toward ending a decade of Republican minority rule in the Legislature by electing Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee county judge, to the State Supreme Court, in one of the most high-profile and expensive judicial elections in American history. [...] “Republicans in Wisconsin are coalescing around the prospect of impeaching a newly seated liberal justice on the state’s Supreme Court,” my newsroom colleague Reid J. Epstein reports. “The push, just five weeks after Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the court and before she has heard a single case, serves as a last-ditch effort to stop the new 4-to-3 liberal majority from throwing out Republican-drawn state legislative maps and legalizing abortion in Wisconsin.” Republicans have more than enough votes in the Wisconsin State Assembly to impeach Justice Protasiewicz and just enough votes in the State Senate — a two-thirds majority — to remove her. But removal would allow Governor Evers to appoint another liberal jurist, which is why Republicans don’t plan to convict and remove Protasiewicz. If, instead, the Republican-led State Senate chooses not to act on impeachment, Justice Protasiewicz is suspended but not removed. The court would then revert to a 3-3 deadlock, very likely preserving the Republican gerrymander and keeping a 19th-century abortion law, which bans the procedure, on the books. If successful, Wisconsin Republicans will have created, in effect, an unbreakable hold on state government. With their gerrymander in place, they have an almost permanent grip on the State Legislature, with supermajorities in both chambers. With these majorities, they can limit the reach and power of any Democrat elected to statewide office and remove — or neutralize — any justice who might rule against the gerrymander. [color/emphasis added[

"It’s that breathtaking contempt for the people of Wisconsin — who have voted, since 2018, for a more liberal State Legislature and a more liberal State Supreme Court and a more liberal governor, with the full powers of his office available to him — that makes the Wisconsin Republican Party the most openly authoritarian in the country."

--Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times

[edited]

[wishmaker-astra]

Unitary means there isn't anything like a judiciary, legislative, or executive branch separate from it.

Superior means it can override/direct other branches of government like the legislature and judiciary in an overriding fashion in the vast majority of cases.

Balance of powers means there's a complex web of checks and balances it in theory is equal to other branches such as executive and legislature.

Inferior means it's an independent branch but subject to override of other branches.

Department/agency means it's a subsection of the executive branch carrying out executive directives as authorized, empowered, and constrained by the legislative and judicial branches (if extant) within it's system.

[tomorrowusa]

From Day One, Donald Trump would not have been able to usurp power without the grinning assistance of Capitol Hill Republicans. They share the blame for the destruction and chaos of the last few months.

The fundamental story of Trump’s second term has been his usurpation of powers traditionally granted to the legislative branch. Congress created the networks of federal agencies and programs that help govern the country; Trump has asserted the power to shut them down at will. Congress has the constitutional power to set tariffs and other taxes; Trump has unilaterally imposed them on most of the world in ways that are not only economically ruinous but likely illegal as well. [ ... ] Over the last three months, we’ve seen something even more ominous: Republican senators and representatives acting as willing partners in the destruction of their own branch of government’s power, all on Trump’s behalf. The Constitution is designed for tension between the three branches of government; it cannot function if one branch proclaims its supremacy and the other two give up without a fight.

Even the judicial branch has had more cojones about curbing executive branch power.

The Supreme Court, to its partial credit, took steps to preserve its own authority in recent weeks. (I only give them partial credit because they created this monster in the first place.) Their order last month to immediately halt Alien Enemies Act deportations came from an unmistakable concern that the Trump administration was trying to evade judicial review. The same thing can’t be said for Congress. Republican lawmakers may think that they are following their constituents’ wishes by reflexively obeying Trump’s whims. Allowing a president to usurp the powers of one branch and ignore the orders of another one is not in anyone’s long-term interest—and especially not theirs.

If you want to stop Trump, you have to do it via Congress. That means putting pressure on Capitol Hill Republicans that goes beyond the ineffectual mantra of "call or email your representative or senator".

I've said this before and I'll say it again...

All of our US reps and senators have one or more offices back in their home districts and states. If your GOP senator is up for re-election next year or if your GOP rep won by a relatively narrow margin in 2024, pay a visit to that office during business hours. Post about your visit online. If the visit is unsatisfactory, return with a few dozen like-minded voters from the same district or state and conduct some sort of legal protest; informational picketing, street theater, or prayer vigils can work well. Tailor your protest to the local community.

Only pressure on individual Capitol Hill Republicans can do anything at this point. That means: 1] calling them out very publicly for colluding with Trump's gutting of our American system AND 2] doing precinct work to pave the way for their electoral defeat in 2026. The era of slacktivism and fundraging is over. It's time to become more directly involved in the political process.

People who live in US House districts won by Republicans with margins of 9% or under in 2024 have more influence than most of us. If you live in one of these districts then you have a great amount of leverage over your rep.

If just five of those reps stood up to Trump then the entire Trump autocracy project would get derailed.

[findme-at1am]

DONT LET THE ABOVE FOOL YOU INTO THINKING ITS JUST ONE ACT, THEY'VE ENACTED PROJECT 2025 BY ROLLING BACK MANY ENVIRONMENT PROTECTIONS AND FEDERAL MINING REGULATIONS.

Of course the above article catches me making a masterpost for KY TODAY and I gotta redo the beginning. This is just the start but better late than never. Link for article published MARCH 3RD:

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article301177474.html

The bill above is House Bill 6, dubbed the "REINS Act"for "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny," from Rep. Wade Williams, R-Earlington, disallows state agencies (judicial branch I believe) from taking action that isn't explicitly authorized by the Kentucky General Assembly if it costs more than $500,000 over two years.

Link for the bill:

Gov. Beshear's veto/280 page response:

A nice highlight: (from the effects of Legislator's REIN Act on Beshear's powers as Gov.)

"Had the General Assembly chosen to adopt a "disaster fund" as most states have, and as I have proposed in the past, there would be a separate mechanism to provide financing to address exigent circumstances without requiring a delay to seek additional funding."

For a Gov. Abusing his power it's amazing the 280 page veto where he had very informed information for his appeals to each clause: Just some below.

Gov. Andy Beshear has passed bills assisting the Energy and Environment Cabinet, he's been a dem "on the fence" (he so badly wants to be energy efficient if everyone here didn't prioritize coal or hate change (ahem with no programs I've seen to streamline coal miners to other energy efficient jobs)) over the balance of the environment and oil like any average Kentuckian is. But he's made comments congratulating Biden on his administrations efforts of balancing a new age of electric and energy efficiency with oils/"natural energy" and he's definitely fell to Biden's side.

Donald Trash of course doesn't like any pushback to his Project 2025 plans and his oil companies backing him definitely helped buy out Republicans as seen below @ the bottom of the article:

Delaying our AG's response time to bring relief to kentuckians and needing disaster relief authorized by the General Assembly for floods that usually overtake most of the water state is so much bigger than being "unelected" when Beshear has for the general part, done right by Kentuckians in terms of flood relief and responding to disasters and have exceptional bills passed.

TELL YOUR SENATOR TO REJECT SENATE BILL 257 AGAINST "K.O.G.E" AND YOUR REPS/LEGISLATORS TO SPEAK UP!!

KY WRITE YOUR REPS TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE AND WRITE YOUR SENATORS TO APPEAL HOUSE BILL 6 THEY PLAN ON USING TO DAMPEN THE GOVERNOR'S/AG/CABINETS POWERS.

APPEAL HOUSE BILL 6 TO ALLOW THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET TO DO THEIR JOBS WITHOUT DELAYED APPROVAL!!

Below are more topics to bring up to KY representatives:

More Topics To Send To Representatives

Link for DOGE Cuts To Federal Offices, Many Relating to Safety Standards to our main production value as a water state; coal.

Right After Pushing Back Protections for the state MOSTLY AFFECT BY RAIN WATER AND FLOODS SO WHY NOT DIG INTO THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND TAKE A CHANCE NEXT RAIN SHOWER!!! AFTER ADDING EXTRA DELAYS TO DISASTER RELIEF!!! SMART!!!! ESPECIALLY WITH RECORD HIGH WATER LEVELS THIS YEAR WHILE DEPRIORITISING ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET AND THE REGULATIONS THAT WATCH SAID WATER LEVEL!! WOOOHWEE!

This last one's my favorite.

(Btw they're clinging to that unelected argument as if AG's/Governor doesn't go through the process, and not just labelled "the president's specialest person" like their leader Musky that's paying them through other contracted billionaires.)

And here's a copy paste to the main sponsor of the last article, Senate Bill 89:

(Context:"Sen. Scott Madon, R-Pineville, the bill’s primary sponsor, reiterated his criticism of “government overreach” by the state’s environmental protection cabinet in its decisions about coal-industry permits."

“God put coal under our feet so that we can use it. It’s one of the greatest natural resources, and it’s our job to push back on unelected bureaucrats,” Madon said on the Senate floor.)

Start Script:

“God put coal under our feet so that we can use it. It’s one of the greatest natural resources, and it’s our job to push back on unelected bureaucrats,” you said on the Senate floor.

So suddenly we're standing up to the unelected? Is this why there's a personal attack on the Democratic governor by suppressing his legal powers with extra and unexplained checks and balances that have yet to be justified in 2024? More delays to disaster relief isn't what Kentuckians voted you in for. Allowing an unelected and unqualified individual to run a recently presented branch of government called DOGE is the epitome of humiliating for ALL Americans who live to see this administration just for a good Governor to be attacked. But we're yet to see anyone call Elon Musk or any overseer of DOGE out.

A threat to democracy means a threat to the bureaucracy that defends us from hostile contracts and allows safety training and stricter regulations for coal mining in a state with literal "Rocky Mountains." That's been dealt with tremendous floods not seen in decades in some areas and polluted drinking water in some counties relying on a boil water advisory because no one came forth with an apology for rolling back environment protections in a state that needed it most during the Biden administration.

"The bill changes the definition of regulated state waters by removing “all rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, marshes, and all other bodies of surface or underground water, natural or artificial.” The definition would be changed to directly refer to the federal definition of “navigable waters.” The bill also designates bonding requirements for coal companies seeking permits for long-term treatment of water leaving mine sites."

Kentucky specifically needs to regulate its own waters as we, and only ourselves, know the true expanse of dangers civilians have to deal with when the drainage from other states target specific counties. We are known for water, despite no great lakes for a reason. Waiting for a general assembly is one of the worst possible outcomes from all of the registration passed this year when Kentucky's latest flooding was horrific but thankfully due to our Governor foresight, we were still struggling in terms of relief response and a measly 500,000 won't cut it for immediate help like calling the national guard for areas unreachable by regular vehicles. We had 24 people die, I've never heard of such a high number of deaths in floods but I'm lucky to be 24 and not know of Pineville's 80's flood personally. I had the benefit of the doubt thinking you did. I was wrong.

The second being "-impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, marshes, and all other bodies of surface or underground water, natural or artificial."

Those "marshes" include the yards of houses and homes that aren't covered for flooding from insurance companies because "they're in an area known for flooding". Not enforcing insurance for home's yards and then retracting back environmental protections is intentionally in bad faith to those who will be affected, those being homeowners, landlords and those looking to build anything energy efficient in the long run. You being a main sponsor in this bill is a disgrace to anyone who knows the Bell County area.

Rolling over and allowing cuts to our water protection agencies and people still on waiting lists for SS just for a whole office to be closed by DOGE? It only further threatens the state's and cabinets approach to relief when our state has yet to make an Emergency Fund. We 100% rely on the fast acting of our most crucial employees and Gov. if we want to react and prevent and future deaths. Your complacent role in all of this will be seen under God.

End Script.

Pls add whatever you want or feel compelled to speak about, I take important sentences in articles I find important and love contributions. (Edit: I detailed up the script a bit.)

[darkmaga-returns]

On March 18, another D.C. Circuit judge seized executive branch powers, enjoining the commander-in-chief from disqualifying military recruits with gender dysphoria. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, who identifies as some variety of LGBT, is a longtime Democrat Party donor and, as a lawyer, litigated against the first Trump administration. We knew she’d rule this way, not only because of her bio, but also because in oral arguments she insisted forcing soldiers to lie about reality couldn’t possibly affect military readiness.

In a memorandum accompanying her injunction, the so-called judge writes an opinion screed citing recent court opinions, the Broadway hip-hop play Hamilton, the Supreme Court legislation Bostock v. Clayton County, and corporate news articles. It would be impossible for this theater kid in robes to write a constitutional legal analysis instead, for the Constitution expressly provides in Article II, Section 2, that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

Commanders in chief get to set the criteria, expectations, goals, and just about everything else for soldiers. Accordingly, Trump implemented this same policy in his first term. It was 100 percent constitutional then, and it’s 100 percent constitutional now. If Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden get to allow queer soldiers, and all the presidents before to discharge them, clearly it is fully within the president’s power to make this decision.

Ignoring this basic aspect of U.S. law and jurisprudence takes Reyes 79 pages, in Cluster B, valley-girl prose. That’s because Reyes is not a judge, she’s an activist who doesn’t deserve a place on any judicial bench — or in any courtroom at all (except as a defendant). That much is obvious from her opinion, as well as from her background.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark:

1. There Is Only War

There is a way in which you can view Trump’s first term as a mostly intramural kampf. Trump took office in 2017 without the support of much of the institutional Republican party,1 but came to Washington hoping to become the same lovable host he’d been on TV. Instead, his most substantial opposition came from inside the GOP—people like Jeff Flake, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. (And also Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson.)

Over the course of his administration, Trump discovered that this faction might superficially support him, but was fundamentally opposed to him. So he engaged in a power struggle with them for control of the party. Trump ultimately triumphed, but the energy required for this fight precluded him from doing much governing. There simply wasn’t time to both purge the GOP and pass legislation. Also, Trump discovered that there were two other spheres in which structures prevented a president from acting as emperor. The first was the federal government, in which conscientious political appointees could thwart his will and civil service bureaucrats held their own power. The second was the broader culture, in which business leaders, internet platforms, and media organizations held some sway over public opinion. [...]

For a moment, put aside Elon Musk’s Nazi salute, the removal of Mark Milley’s portrait from the Pentagon, and the “Gulf of America.” Look at where the power is. The Courts. For the next two years, the judicial branch is the only institution with the power to check Trump. That’s why he issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship. There is no question that this order is unconstitutional. The only issue is whether or not there will be five votes on the Supreme Court to risk a showdown with Trump over enforcement of a verdict. Trump understands that at some point he is likely to come into open conflict with the Supreme Court. Ending birthright citizenship is a probing action designed to test the Court’s nerve. Will five justices be willing to rule against him on an open-and-shut case? Or will John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett be worried that Trump might defy a contrary ruling, exposing the Court as toothless—and so decide to go along with him now in order to reserve the right to oppose him later?

[...]

Blue States. We have reports that Trump’s deportation raids are slated to target Chicago, Boston, and New York—Democratic cities in Democratic states. The inherent tension in Trump’s deportation regime is that if he followed through on his promises and deported several million immigrants, he would hobble the national economy. To take just one example: A red state like Texas would experience huge problems in the construction industry, which relies heavily on immigrant labor. Either housing construction in Texas would slow—raising housing prices. Or construction wages would climb—also raising housing prices. But there is a way for Trump to have his cake and eat it too: If he targets immigrants in blue states, he can create a drag on local, blue-state economies while satisfying the anti-immigrant desires of red-state voters. It’s a twofer. Trump can hurt businesses and make life more expensive for consumers in New York and Illinois—and then attack blue state mayors and governors for these problems and maybe even help Republican candidates win in those states. Meanwhile, Fox will run B-roll from the raids on a loop, satisfying Trump voters in Texas and Arizona—whose economies will continue to benefit from immigrant workers. Trump understands that blue states are the last bastions of meaningful popular opposition to his rule, so he will use the federal government to subdue them.

Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark doing excellent journalism once again.

[wahoo-stomp]

I'm so frustrated with Congress' inactivity in light of all that Trump is doing and trying to do that I wrote this letter to each of my reps. I live in a blue state, so it may not be perfectly appropriate for everyone, but I've posted it here, in case you wish to contact your reps and are looking for some kind of spine you can use to express the urgency of the situation and your frustration.

You can also find a letter here (and a handy guide to finding your reps, as needed!)

You don't have to use my letter as a base at all, but it's below a read more in case you want it.

Let's make them do their jobs.

Dear [Elected Federal Representative],

I write you as a deeply concerned American. Since the taking of office, the current president of the United States has taken extensive actions to defy the rule of law, try to control economic policies over which he has no control, threaten states and jurisdictions that have political disagreements with his administration, badger our global allies, and that's merely the tip of the iceberg. With his crony Elon Musk and many other complacent or complicit individuals with no respect for the American public or our standing abroad, he has cut services to millions of people all over the world in ways that will have catastrophic impacts for potential generations. There are legitimate concerns from independent watch dogs that we will not have another chance at a presidential election. He has publicly discussed and advocated sending American citizens to international prisons, and has not only defied the judicial branch but repeatedly indicated he believes it should not constrain him.

We are dealing with a man who firmly believes he has all the powers of a dictator, and it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to stop him, not merely that of the judicial branch.

I understand that on the federal level Democrats lack a meaningful majority, but I believe that what representation exists can and should take actions for immediate harm reduction, reaffirming to the global community and to the American public at large that the US government is still interested in free trade, freedom, and the right to be yourself in a nation of increasingly diverse makeup.

There may not be votes to impeach him - but if the Republican establishment has by and large decided to be the party of neo-fascism, than I plead with you and any sympathetic colleagues to treat this as a serious threat to our nation, to our citizens, to the global order as it stands, and most immediately, to your neighbors. If Trump is allowed to run roughshod over a certain subgroups rights and no one speaks up, there will eventually be no one to speak up when he comes for Congress, when he continues to stoke political violence, and when he begins to deport American citizens for thought crimes.

We are living through a constitutional crisis. I love my country and what it stands for and it saddens me deeply that we have reached this point, by popular vote or otherwise. I am tired of the pundits discussing what Democrats could have done better. It is time to tie our shoes and stand up and tell this narcissist with dictatorial fantasies not here, not now, not ever.

I voted for you because I believe you represent Washington state well. Now please, represent us, and represent those who would also have elected you if they didn't live in gerrymandered districts or fight with voter suppression or face socioeconomic realities that prevent them from effectively participating in our government.

This is not what Americans want. We want our government to work for us, and the Executive branch treating all of us like subjects is no reason for the rest of the branches to roll over and do whatever it says. Stand up, for all of us, please, urgently and without pause, until he's either voted out or impeached for his many crimes.

Yours with regard,

[Name]

[mariacallous]

Early in Donald Trump’s first term, Steve Bannon met with some House Republicans who were wavering on whether to vote for a Trump-backed bill that would have slashed Medicaid, the federal-state program that today pays medical bills for about 72 million low-income Americans.

Bannon, who at the time was a senior White House adviser, read them the riot act: “This is not a debate,” he said, as Axios reported at the time. “You have no choice but to vote for this bill.”

Eight years later, Trump and the Republicans are back in power ― and maybe laying the groundwork for a similar vote. The budget proposal House Republicans voted out of committee on Thursday night envisions massive spending reductions virtually certain to include Medicaid, in part to finance the tax cuts Trump has said are his top legislative priority.

But this time around, Bannon has some different advice for the Republicans ― and the Trump White House, too.

“A lot of MAGA is on Medicaid,” Bannon said on Thursday, during an interview on Fox. “If you don’t think so, you are dead wrong. Medicaid is going to be a complicated one. You just can’t take a meat ax to it, although I would love to.”

Bannon probably understands this better than most high-profile figures in American politics. The proposed Medicaid cuts during Trump’s first term were part of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. That bill proved spectacularly unpopular ― and ultimately failed to pass ― in part because even many diehard Trump supporters would’ve stood to lose health coverage had it succeeded. Which is exactly what could happen now, as Bannon knows.

But these days, it’s not just cuts to Medicaid threatening Trump supporters.

Since reassuming the presidency, Trump has issued a torrent of executive orders that seek to limit, downsize or even eliminate key federal programs and agencies. To implement all of this, Trump has deputized adviser and billionaire tech tycoon Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has been laying off federal workers by the thousands and blocking federal spending by the billions.

Trump says the purpose of these orders and Musk’s demolition tour of the executive branch is to eliminate wasteful spending ― and, no less important, to clean out the left-wing, “woke” politics that he says have infected these federal initiatives. Which may or may not be worthwhile on the merits, depending on your perspective.

But whatever the rationale, the effect is likely to be especially strong in communities where Trump is popular. Some have already taken a hit. The question now is how quickly that realization sets in, and whether anything changes as a result.

What DOGE Looks Like In Rural America

One Republican who seems to understand is Katie Britt, the senator from Alabama. Last weekend, a reporter from AL.com asked her to react to news that the National Institutes of Health was sharply reducing its research grants. The University of Alabama-Birmingham is a top recipient of NIH grants, and also Alabama’s largest employer.

Britt said she was all for cutting waste, to make sure taxpayer dollars are “spent efficiently, judiciously and accountably.” But she added that she wanted to work with the administration on “a smart, targeted approach … in order to not hinder lifesaving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama.”

It sounded a lot like a warning, or at least an objection, especially from a staunch Trump supporter. And it wasn’t the only one out there. Bill Cassidy, the Republican senator from Louisiana who also happens to be a physician, told STAT News: “One thing I’ve heard loud and clear from my people in Louisiana is that Louisiana will suffer from these cuts. And research that benefits people in Louisiana may not be done.”

Louisiana, like Alabama, is a strongly pro-Trump state. It also gets about $300 million a year in NIH research funding, according to an analysis of public data by the Louisiana Illuminator. Other solidly red states with big NIH-backed institutions include Texas and Tennessee. The rural sections of these states ― or any state, really ― can be especially dependent on NIH money, because universities, teaching hospitals and affiliated clinics may be the only large employers there, and the sole providers of major medical care, as well.

As of Friday, a judge has temporarily blocked the NIH funding reduction, citing federal law that would seem to prohibit the Trump administration from making those cuts unilaterally. The same goes for orders that have effectively shut down most foreign aid through the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Cuts at USAID might seem less likely to have a perceptible effect stateside, because American jobs don’t generally depend on foreign assistance. But in farm country, they do, because that’s where USAID gets food: Farmers, who voted overwhelmingly for Trump, could lose as much as $2 billion if food aid goes away.

“You’re talking about a direct impact on American products and American jobs,” George Ingram, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the Washington Post.

Republican lawmakers from Kansas, Arkansas and other rural states are rallying behind legislation to save the primary food aid program by moving it out of the State Department and over to the Department of Agriculture.

And they aren’t the only GOP lawmakers making the case to protect programs on the Trump target list. Nearly two dozen House Republicans have been lobbying their leadership to spare federal subsidies for electric vehicles that Trump has said he is determined to eliminate.

It’s not the potential of backsliding on climate progress that worries these Republicans. It’s the potential of losing jobs in their districts, which are home to new, sprawling EV factories in what’s become known as the “battery belt” stretching across the South. And what’s true for EVs is true for the clean energy push more generally: The money that President Joe Biden and the Democrats invested in projects like solar and wind power has gone disproportionately to Republican districts.

Take the money away, and it’s those districts that could suffer disproportionately.

How Republican Leaders Might React

Just what that suffering would look like in practice is hard to say. Cuts may not turn out to be as devastating as critics fear or say — and, in the case of the executive actions Trump and Musk have been carrying out, it’s always possible the courts will block these cuts, as they have with DOGE’s attempted NIH funding reduction.

But Trump is already well on his way to making some long-term changes — by, among other things, getting his appointees confirmed. That includes Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services once seemed to be in doubt because even some Republicans seemed queasy about his repeated, dishonest attacks on vaccines.

Among those voting yes were Sen. Cassidy, a vocal Kennedy critic, which is a reminder that even Republicans raising concerns about elements of the Trump agenda may vote to support them anyway. As for Sen. Britt, 24 hours after expressing concern about those NIH cuts, she was hanging out with Trump at the Super Bowl in New Orleans.

Kennedy’s confirmation wasn’t the only vaccine-related news this week. The other piece was word of a measles outbreak that has already infected two dozen people in Gaines County, Texas, where the vaccination rate is among the lowest in the state — and where more than nine out of ten voters picked Trump in 2024.

That’s not surprising. Republican-leaning voters are less likely to trust or get vaccines, studies and polls have shown. And Trump has made plenty of vaccine-skeptical statements of his own.

Installing Kennedy at HHS at the very least reinforces that message. At worst, it turns U.S. vaccination policy over to somebody who has spent a career making false and misleading statements on vaccine safety. In either case, Trump’s own supporters could feel the effects most directly — though perhaps only when it’s too late to stop them.