Category Archives: Commentary

Words

Leave a reply

Call me a quibbler if you like. I don’t mind. I believe that how we use words is very important and can reveal hidden meanings of intention of which the writer may be unaware. I expect, however, that the Editorial Board of the New York Times would be particularly conscious of the meaning of their statements. Recent experience suggests I am wrong about that, and I suspect I know the reason.

Some background. The Times describes its editorial board as “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.” Fine as far as it goes although a bit vague on details.

On May 1 a digital version of the Editorial Board’s position titled There Is a Way Forward:  How to Defeat Trump’s Power Grab was published in the Times. On May 4, “A version” of the article appeared in print, Section SR, Page 2 of the New York edition with the headline: Fight Like Our Democracy Depends On It. Having not seen that version, I address here the digital version. The printed version at least has a title more accurately stating what the battle is really about.

Note first that the article is introduced by a probably-AI generated depiction of an American bald eagle, our national symbol, struggling to free itself from a green, goo-like substance adhering to its wings and claws. I read that image to mean that democracy is in serious trouble, an assertion that I and many others have made in multiple posts, and which I believe cannot rationally be denied.

I was intrigued to see the Times standing up for democracy this way. Then I read it.

The opening was very strong:

The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have done more damage to American democracy than anything else since the demise of Reconstruction. Mr. Trump is attempting to create a presidency unconstrained by Congress or the courts, in which he and his appointees can override written law when they want to. It is precisely the autocratic approach that this nation’s founders sought to prevent when writing the Constitution.

The opening was followed by recognition that the Trump challenge is not ephemeral:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

But wait. Let’s look more closely:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

The piece continues with “It pains us to write these words” …. The patriotic response to today’s threat is to oppose Mr. Trump. But it is to do so soberly and strategically, not reflexively or performatively.”

The strong opening has thus been diluted with reference to the “potential” for future harms that will occur “if he continues down this path,” suggesting there is a reasonable chance Trump will suddenly transform into a person different than he has been his entire life. And the article makes clear that the writers don’t like having to criticize Trump. The solution they propose is implicitly critical of what many people have been doing and thinking in response to Trump’s unhinged blast through the federal government. The authors slip-slide into a description of a “coalition” of damn near everyone who isn’t a committed Trump cultist. A coalition of the willing so broad and encompassing that it will seem, because it is, a bridge too far.

I am encouraged in my cynicism about the position being advocated by what comes next:

 The building of this coalition should start with an acknowledgment that Mr. Trump is the legitimate president and many of his actions are legal. Some may even prove effective. He won the presidency fairly last year, by a narrow margin in the popular vote and a comfortable margin in the Electoral College. On several key issues, his views were closer to public opinion than those of Democrats. Since taking office, he has largely closed the southern border, and many of his immigration policies are both legal and popular. He has reoriented federal programs to focus less on race, which many voters support. He has pressured Western Europe to stop billing American taxpayers for its defense.

The reference to the southern border and other Trump policies is apparently based on a poll of 2,128 Americans crafted by and analyzed by the crafters for another article in the Times.

In the interest of fairness, I note this closing of the paragraph arguing that Trump has been doing what the American public wants:

Among these policies are many that we strongly oppose — such as pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, cozying up to Vladimir Putin of Russia and undermining Ukraine

But even that qualification comes with a qualification: “but that a president has the authority to enact. Elections have consequences.”

Then:

Mr. Trump nonetheless deserves criticism on these issues, and Congress members and grass-roots organizers should look for legal ways to thwart him.

Just criticism? Is the Times Editorial Board unaware that the Republican Party has majorities in both Houses of Congress and that the Congress thus constituted is incapable of judgment independent of whatever madness Trump wants, including an astonishing array of unqualified and incompetent cabinet and agency appointments?

The equivocation continues throughout the article. Under “Pillars of democracy,” the writers felt it necessary to point out that Presidents Biden and Obama had “tested these boundaries [separation of powers] and at times overstepped them.” While the Editorial Board strongly criticizes Trump/Vance about their attitude toward the judiciary, in my view there is no question that the approach used undermines the full impact of the Trump story. They note, for example, that Trump/Vance “seem to have defied clear [court] orders.”

Regarding Congress, the Board says, “Mr. Trump’s steamrolling of Congress involves more legal complexity, many scholars believe.” The obvious implication is that “many scholars dispute the view being stated. More equivocation subtly inserted at every turn. Another example:

Other attempts to assert power over previously independent parts of the executive branch seem more defensible, however. The executive branch reports to the president, after all, and parts of it have suffered from too little accountability in recent decades.

It is true, I admit, that the Editorial Board’s article contains much damning information about Trump’s conduct of the presidency. It could not be otherwise.

Yet, again and again, the subtle equivocation creeps in:

It remains possible that our concerns will look overwrought a year or two from now. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s shambolic approach to governance will undermine his ambitions. Perhaps federal courts will continue to constrain him and he will ultimately accept their judgments.

Sure, it’s “possible” that a lot of unexpected things may happen, but why in an article ostensibly designed to expose the President’s violations of the Constitution and his oath of office, to name just a few, are these constant “on the other hands” inserted?

Maybe I am just quibbling, but, as the Editorial Board notes near the end of its article:

our constitutional order depends to a significant degree on the good faith of a president. If a president acts in bad faith, it requires a sophisticated, multifaceted campaign to restrain him. Other parts of the government, along with civil society and corporate America, must think carefully and rigorously about what to do. That’s especially true when the most powerful alternative — Congress — is prostrate.

Yet, while noting that Trump’s political support seems to be waning, the Board warns us to avoid:

“exaggeration about what qualifies as a violation. Liberals who conflate conservative policies with unconstitutional policies risk sending conservatives back into Mr. Trump’s camp.”

In the end, the Board gets one thing right:

The past 100 days have wounded this country, and there is no guarantee that we will fully recover. But nobody should give up. American democracy retreated before, during the post-Reconstruction era, Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Watergate and other times. It recovered from those periods not because its survival was inevitable but because Americans — including many who disagreed with one another on other subjects — fought bravely and smartly for this country’s ideals. That is our duty today.

Having beat this dead horse, I point the Times Editorial Board and my readers to a video that nails it. The woman in the video understands how language usage matters as she states ways to avoid equivocation and ambiguity. You can see the video here: https://www.threads.com/@debbieelledgeofficial/post/DJb2YEIN-pg?xmt=AQF0BLloj6EmrkRVS8pzJFTxn8QHvGWYkz2cHHWwynWmrA

A New York State of Mind

2 Replies

Hopefully you’re familiar with that title of an anthem song about New York City that was written and made famous by Billy Joel. We achieved this euphoric condition last week with four glorious days there.

We took Amtrak as usual on Wednesday, arriving in plenty of time to get squared away in the Luxury Collection Hotel (formerly the Conrad), one of our favorites well-located on West 54th Street. The weather was perfect. We dined at PJ Clarke’s across the street from Lincoln Center, and walked there to see New York City Ballet perform Apollo, Ballo della Regina, Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux, and, finally, Chaconne. The dancing was, as always, perfectly performed. We weren’t thrilled by Apollo, but the ballerinas were exceptional. Another night to remember.

The next night we traveled out Broadway to Smoke, the post-pandemic remodeled version, where Cyrus Chestnut was performing. We’ve seen Cyrus many times, perhaps too many, but his playing still resonates, and his trio is always “on.” One odd but serendipitous thing was that we chose our seats from the online seat map that showed we would be seated immediately behind Cyrus and could thus follow his hands on the keyboard. But it turned out that the map was inaccurate, and we were going to be jammed in the back corner in an uncomfortably tight space.

As it happened a couple seated a few tables forward of the bandstand overheard our exchange with the maître d’. They told her that the couple who were to join them had come down with COVID and would not be present, so would we like to join them? [Finally, COVID fortuitously did something good for us.] We moved to their table and discovered two delightful New Yorkers who loved jazz as much as we do and have seen pretty much everyone we have. The man was a retired professor; his wife was a neuro-psychologist. They were most interesting and engaging companions for the evening.

The Cyrus Chestnut trio performed as expected and were applauded by a packed house of jazz enthusiasts.

The third night we traveled to the Winter Garden Theater that sits in the center of Times Square. Winter Garden dates to 1911 (remodeled in 1922) and while it is well-worn, the seats were surprisingly roomy. We were there to see Good Night, and Good Luck, starring George Clooney. We snagged our tickets early and avoided paying the current extremely high prices. In the event, it would have been worth almost any amount. Clooney’s acting was what you would expect, such that you tended to forget he was not Edward R. Murrow reincarnated.

The show tracked the movie very closely … except for the ending. I will not spoil it by revealing the ending here. Suffice to say, I have seen many plays over my long years and never was I stunned and moved by an ending like this one. Hopefully, you will see this play and experience it for yourself.

Incidentally, because of the way the play is staged, with normal action and dialogue on stage combined with screens of Joe McCarthy and others, it doesn’t much matter where you sit. You can see and hear just fine. Just be ready for the ending. I am still reeling.

The final night of our New York experience arrived with a challenging weather forecast but the details said it would clear by the time to line up (seats at Birdland are first come-first seated; there is always a line outside well before the doors open). We were meeting a New York friend (and my wife’s fellow hula dancer from the local dance group) who also loves the music and joins us for these shows when she is not traveling the world.

As our Lyft crept down West 44th Street in the usual stop-and-stop traffic, and we were 100 feet from the club, the clouds suddenly dropped their water (all of it) in an overwhelming deluge, zero to a hundred in one second. When we finally reached the club, the rain had intensified; our driver offered to pull over and let us stay in his car until the rain let up (tell me again about those rude New Yorkers). Seeing our friend being drenched in the rear of the line, we declined the offer, departed the car, and were promptly soaked. My wife approached the club people managing the line, and we were immediately admitted to the club. This led to everyone being admitted well before the official “doors” time (see prior parentheses).

The trio this night was led by Emmet Cohen at the piano, with Phillip Norris on bass, and Joe Farnsworth on drums. We had seen a different group under Cohen’s leadership on the first post-pandemic night of jazz at Birdland, so we didn’t know what to expect. We had thought Cohen was great that night, but part of the vibe was excitement that “jazz was back!”

There was no reason for concern. The band was “on” from the first note. And Joe Farnsworth put on a class in drum technique accentuated by his constant change of facial expressions as he and Cohen communicated in that mysterious way that jazz musicians have. Over my life of 150 years, I have had the pleasure of seeing many great jazz drummers, including the magical Eric Harland and Billy Kilson. Farnsworth left no room between him and the best. I told him so after the performance and he seemed genuinely delighted at the praise. I also spoke briefly with Norris who was open and welcoming to my approach.

One thing about Cohen and his ensemble – they seemed always to be having fun, and that vibe translated through the music to the audience. It was an extraordinary performance that left us exhilarated and spent when it was over. They played for almost an hour and a half, long by jazz group standards, and left nothing on the table. Halfway through, my wife leaned over and whispered to me, “this is an amazing show.” Indeed, it was.

Thus, ended our New York State of Mind for this trip, memorable in every way. We still talk about the play, something I will never forget. There is no place on earth like New York City. We miss it every day. I suspect that once you achieve that New York State of Mind, it never leaves you. I hope not.

The Problem of Pledging Allegiance to a President Over the Constitution

Leave a reply

For those who don’t know ….

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No State shall … pass any ex post facto Law….

Pam Bondi (Attorney General) and Stephen Miller (White House Deputy Chief of Staff) maintain that since the gang to which Kilmar Abrego Garcia allegedly belonged to was declared a terrorist organization by President Trump, that since Mr. Garcia belonged to the gang back in 2019, he is now a terrorist and subject to immediate removal from the United States and return to his native land of El Salvador, at which point the United States is free to wash its hands of him and leave him to his fate at the hands of rival gangs in the CECOT Prison.

As Ms. Bondi, the US Attorney General robotically recited recently, “Mr. Garcia does not belong in this country.” Bondi and Miller must not have been paying attention during that part of constitutional law class. You can see where I’m going with this.

Even if it is absolutely true that Mr. Garcia is a bad guy, a gang member and all the rest of the allegations made against him by Bondi, Miller, and Trump, his kidnapping and removal from the United States after a federal judge ordered that he not to be removed cannot be justified because:

  • Garcia did not receive an indictment for a crime committed in the United States,
  • was not presented with the details of an alleged crimes,
  • received no Miranda warnings,
  • had no opportunity to retain and consult counsel and, therefore,
  • no opportunity to contest the “findings” on which the government purported to act in arresting and deporting him.

In short, whatever else Mr. Garcia may be, he is a “person”, and he received nothing resembling “due process of law” to which the Constitution entitles every “person.” He was secretly snatched from the street and forcibly removed from the country. Just like what the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes have done in the past. The faux anger displayed by AG Bondi and Stephen Miller in the White House video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv4HjZmiueo] are no excuse for this outrageous behavior. By comparison, the student who killed two people and wounded six others at Florida State University will receive the full panoply of opportunities guaranteed by the law and the Constitution.

What is the main difference between Mr. Garcia and the Florida State shooter? You know it without my spelling it out. The Trump regime is a foul collection of racist idol worshippers committing daily crimes against humanity, among other offenses to our Constitution, laws, and culture. Performative yelling at a White House press event that Mr. Garcia is bad person is no excuse for depriving him of the rights every other person in this country is entitled to receive.

Trump’s followers had better realize that if the government can do this to Mr. Garcia, it can do it to anyone. And it is.

NBC News reported on Senator Van Hollen’s visit to Mr. Garcia in El Salvador this way:

Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador on Wednesday to push for Abrego Garcia’s release after the Trump administration did not demonstrate any efforts to “facilitate” his return, despite a Supreme Court ruling last week requiring just that.

The legal battle continued Thursday, when a federal appeals court rejected an effort by the administration to put the requirement on hold. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said the administration was trying to assert “a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

In a statement Thursday night, the White House called Van Hollen’s efforts in support of Abrego Garcia “disgusting” and said Trump will “continue to stand on the side of law-abiding Americans.”

In addition to its other offenses against the Constitution and laws of this country, the Trump administration has decided it’s perfectly acceptable to try and convict individuals in the press without even a semblance of due process. We insist that murderers get full due process, but the President of the United States is allowed to assert the guilt of individuals without any process whatever? Trump has obviously learned nothing from his multiple court defeats in defamation cases. Read any history book about totalitarian regimes, and you can see where this is headed. Americans better wake up and put a stop to this.

We Have Reached the End of the Line

Leave a reply

OR: The Trump Noose Tightens on the National Neck

The Trump administration, laced through and through with unqualified and incompetent appointees to positions of great responsibility, mistakenly snatches a man (Kilmar Abrego Garcia) off the street and, in the face of a court order to stop, puts him on a plane for a hellhole prison in El Salvador. The court orders his return. Trump’s Department of “Justice” declines and appeals. The Supreme Court majority eventually votes unanimously to order the administration to “facilitate” the victim’s return. In doing so, however, the Court gratuitously and unnecessarily “advises” the District Court judge to act with due regard for the separation of powers and the President’s supreme authority over foreign affairs.

As was 100 percent predictable, the administration leaps upon that advice and says “no thanks, we’re not going to bring him back. Mr. Garcia, charged with no crime, can rot in El Salvador for all we care and there is nothing you can do about it because this decision is made under the President’s Article II power to control absolutely the foreign affairs of the country, just as the Court suggested.”

Recall that in a prior decision this same Supreme Court held that the President could conspire with the Department of Justice to commit crimes, including the crime of trying to overturn an election he clearly lost, and could not be held accountable for his criminal conduct in office. Further, in carrying out his “executive powers,” the President’s motives could not be questioned.

So, here we are. A man properly in the United States, charged with no crimes, is ripped from his family and employment, hustled onto a plane full of others similarly situated for the most part, and imprisoned in a foreign country. With the apparent approval of the highest court in the land.

Trump then invites the dictator of El Salvador to the White House where that dictator labels as “preposterous” the question of his returning his prisoner to the United States. In a statement that is typical of people who consider themselves unbound by law, the Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele told Trump: “To liberate 350 million people, you have to imprison some. That’s the way it works.”

The power of courts to hold the federal government in contempt of court and sanction it or its attorneys is far from clear. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11271 That is perhaps why the District Court judge, in whose face the Department of Justice has metaphorically spit, has thus far fumed and fussed over the DOJ’s recalcitrance but has not issued any form of mandatory punishment for its resistance to the court’s mandates. Likely the judge realizes that the Supreme Court, having recently pronounced the unprecedented and astonishing doctrine of presidential immunity for crimes committed in office, will not support mandatory sanctions against DOJ for its disobedience.

And we now hear the President of the United States and people who work for him remarking that the power to snatch people off the streets and imprison them in foreign countries permits the federal government to do this to American citizens as well as people like Mr. Garcia who were properly here under work permits but were not citizens. Many of us have seen the videos of armed men in blackened vans visiting people in their homes for what are ludicrously labeled by the men as “wellness checks.” And some people are literally being assaulted on the streets, arrested and hauled away with no formal charges, no due process, and no opportunity to get counsel. These behaviors are blatant violations of our criminal laws and the Constitution.

We have reached the point of no return. The President has made clear he will stand for no resistance to his wishes. It seems virtually certain therefore that we will soon experience a declaration of martial law and a presidential directive to imprison here or abroad, without trial or other due process, anyone the President or his compliant appointees selects for removal. Or maybe he won’t even bother with a declaration that he likely regards as superfluous.

If allowed to get away with this, the President will have completed his subordination of the Constitution and brought about his dictatorship over the United States. As insane as that future seems, there is little happening now that suggests it is an overblown scenario. Trump has repeatedly made clear that he regards the Constitution as authorizing him to “do whatever I want.” We are there now. He is doing whatever he wants.

It is beyond dispute that if he can with impunity deport and imprison Mr. Garcia, he can do it to anyone, including American citizens who cross him or are merely suspected of being “disloyal.” Anyone who has studied the history of dictators surely knows that is how the process works.

The question then becomes: who will stop him and how? Certainly not the Republican cowards in Congress who value retaining what they fancifully believe is their “power” over their oaths to support the Constitution. It was once believed that the senior military leadership would handle the problem, but Trump has replaced most of those who might have acted decisively to restrain him. The courts lack both the will and the mechanisms for holding the President to account.

Trump’s abuse of power is plain and open. He believes the law does not apply to him and that the Constitution grants him powers that the Founders would never have imagined. Who then will stop him? And when?

Where is the Moral Outrage at Nazis Running the Federal Government?

1 Reply

OR: Trump Administration is Guilty of Kidnapping, Unlawful Transport & Crimes Against Humanity

The Washington Post reported on Saturday, April 5, that: 1) the Department of Justice that has admitted it mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego García to a prison in El Salvador, and (2) DOJ has argued to an appellate court that the U.S. government is helpless to secure his return. https://tinyurl.com/yzm27mjy

In effect, the U.S. Department of Justice, an element of the Executive Branch of what was, at least prior to Trump’s re-election, the most powerful and influential country in the world, says it has no means of compelling or negotiating for Mr. Garcia’s return. This, even though the United States is paying El Salvador about $6 million to hold the group of deportees of which Mr. Garcia is a member.

In effect, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department is arguing that it (1) deported Mr. Garcia by mistake, (2) violated Mr. Garcia’s civil rights, (3) violated Mr. Garcia’s rights under multiple amendments to the U.S. Constitution, not least of which was due process of law, (4) essentially kidnapped Mr. Garcia and unlawfully transported him to a foreign country where it relinquished control of him to a foreign government over which the United States has zero influence, (5) that the Judicial Branch of the U.S. government effectively has no remedial authority as against a decision of the Executive Branch regarding a foreign national “removal decision.”

In short, the US government is saying “who cares?”

These astonishing arguments reveal a fundamental error that the Trump administration continues to make. It appears to believe that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is the final word on legal decisions even where, as here, the Executive admits it make a mistake that, in effect, may destroy a man’s family and perhaps forfeit his life.

I cannot resolve the conflicting claims as to whether Mr. Garcia was a member of MS-13 that has now been declared a terrorist organization by the Trump administration. However, the admission by the administration that Mr. Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador was mistaken would seem, regardless of anything else, to compel the U.S. government to bend every effort to secure his return. AG Bondi says, “no, we may have erred in deporting him, but we owe him no duties now and are helpless to do anything to rectify our mistake. Let him rot in El Salvador.”

This is a perfect illustration of why we insist on due process in this country. That process, which may be slow and even tedious, helps assure that grotesque mistakes like the Garcia case do not occur. The Trump administration has shown time and again that it has no regard for constitutional protections, and that it will arrogantly disregard any damage it may do in it rush to prove how tough it is on “crime.”

Now, after the government disregarded direct orders from a District Court judge to stop the deportation of Mr. Garcia and to provide him with the due process of law to which every resident is entitled under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has finally, days late, awakened to the inescapable realization that it can’t paper over this outrage. But in doing so, the “moral majority” on the Court seems singularly unmoved by the potential human catastrophe that the incompetent fools running the Trump administration have created.

We have grown accustomed, though hardly accepting, of Justices Alito and Thomas (that one, who takes hugely expensive favors from sponsors with business in the Court without a whimper from the Chief Justice) taking severe umbrage at decisions they consider insufficiently respective of Christian values. Now, when the government has monumentally screwed up a deportation case, putting at risk of death by gang execution, among other risks, a father never accused of a crime here or in El Salvador, all we get are lectures about the proper procedure for bringing the issue before the Court and about the lower court being more respectful of the President’s authority over foreign affairs.

How exactly the Garcia case implicates the President’s foreign affairs powers has not been fully explained. We know the obvious: El Salvador is a sovereign country and to retrieve Mr. Garcia from its clutches may require some negotiating. But it shouldn’t be that hard a problem. The US is paying El Salvador a lot of money to house the people it has snatched off the streets and out of homes — the way a good Gestapo does — and shuttled out of the country as fast as possible without even a nod to due process. It shouldn’t take a negotiating genius, as Trump claims to be, to figure out a way to induce the El Salvadoran establishment to release at least one man that our government admits should never have been sent there in the first place.

Yet our Supreme Court, while nodding to the continued need for due process of law and all the rest seems most concerned with lecturing the District Court judge, the main judicial authority standing up for Mr. Garcia, about not overreaching into the President’s foreign affairs prerogatives.  Is this a hint to Trump to slow-walk the entire business in the hope that Mr. Garcia will be murdered in the hellhole prison in El Salvador thereby solving the US government’s embarrassing problem? Is it a signal to Attorney General Bondi that her abject indifference to Mr. Garcia’s welfare is just fine if the US government just goes through the motions of seeking Mr. Garcia’s safe return?

Compare what has transpired. The District Court judge, closest to the evidence of what occurred here, found that Mr. Garcia’s removal, when the government knew an order was imminent to stop his removal, was a “grievous error” and that the risk to Mr. Garcia “shocks the conscience.” While DOJ claims Mr. Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, the District Court judge found that the government had not proved that claim:

That silence is telling…. As Defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador — let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere.

The judge’s ruling against the government was sustained by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, not exactly a liberal bastion of judicial decision-making.

DOJ, at the behest of the morally vacuous Attorney General appointed by Trump, claimed that the order to return Mr. Garcia was, despite conceded errors in deporting him to the El Salvadoran hellhole prison, “indefensible” because, golly, damn, it “commands Defendants to do something they have no independent authority to do: Make El Salvador release Abrego Garcia, and send him to America.”

“If this precedent stands, other district courts could order the United States to successfully negotiate the return of other removed aliens anywhere in the world by close of business,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. In simpler English, DOJ objects to being compelled to do its job because just imagine the horror of having to return “removed aliens” whose rights we have violated.

I haven’t read all the briefs, but reliable reports note that the “Government lawyers compared the administration’s power to bring Abrego Garcia back to a court ordering the administration to end Russia’s war in Ukraine or return Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.”

Arguments like that should have led the Supreme Court majority to, at a minimum, sanction government counsel for arguments lacking reason, precedent, and common sense. But no, the Court seemed more concerned with being sure no one stepped on the President’s authority in foreign affairs. No sense of moral outrage that the government conceded a terrible, potentially life-threatening and unconscionable error, then argued we should just ignore it and let the chips fall on Mr. Garcia who, after all, is, in the eyes of the Trump administration, a bad person, evil incarnate. The DOJ attitude recalled a segment from the Dragnet TV series of the 1950s. Detective Jack Webb captures a serial killer and asks him “what have you got against people?” The killer answers: “People? I got nothing against people. What do I care about people?”

The Americans arguing that the courts should butt out of this and leave Mr. Garcia to his fate apparently do not understand that if the government can do this to Mr. Garcia, it can do it to anyone. Indeed, there is talk of “removing” US citizens now.

In preparing this post for publication, I read that the government has balked at the timeline established by the District Court to explain what it’s going to do to comply with the court’s orders now reinforced by the Supreme Court. The judge, quite rightly, is having none of it. He should hold the government in contempt and, if necessary to get DOJ to comply, hold weekend hearings. This fiasco has gone on too long already and Mr. Garcia remains at risk.

New York Times Lines Up with Bezos

1 Reply

Yesterday was a great day in our country. Millions of Americans participated in peaceful protests all over the country, including cities in  Red States and even other countries. Millions. Hopefully, this signals the beginning of the early end of the Trump administration and the clowns he has appointed, with Republican Party complicity, to destroy the government and our international standing.

In reviewing the remarkably clever signs created by protesters around the country and marveling at the size of many of the crowds, I turned to the New York Times online, expecting to see the top headline and at least a photo from the huge turnout in New York City, despite bad weather. But, lo, what did my eyes behold but a photo of Donald Trump and, well, see for yourself:

If you skip the dog story and the “Analysis” whose title suggests everything is going to be ok, scroll down a screen, you see this:

A presidential seal and another photo of Trump dominate the page. In the lower left corner, you finally  reach the report about the nationwide protests over Trump’s attempt to destroy the federal government.

Do the editors of the New York Times now thing a story about dogs in the workplace and talking about women’s cleavage there is more important? This presentation reminded me of how CNN had promoted Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, showing constant pictures of podiums while waiting for Trump to appear. This is a Washington Post type presentation in the post-Bezos-ownership era.

The Times owes the world an explanation.

OR ….

2 Replies

It just hit me tonight … suppose the real reason Trump’s military “planners” for the attack on the Houthis did their talking in a Signal space that was vulnerable to spying by Russia was not a mistake. Suppose instead it was done that way at Trump’s direction because he made a deal with Putin that Putin and/or Putin’s people would be “in” on the conversation or at least be able to hear it. Maybe that’s why Trump didn’t fire Hegseth and Gabbard and the others who “should have known better.” It was because Trump had directed them to make the planning “visible to Russia and if Trump had then fired them when the disclosure was made public, they might have disclosed that Trump directed them to proceed that way. Maybe one or more of them have the receipts. Speculation, I admit, but ….

If You Want To Destroy A Country ….

2 Replies

Or … 2025 is our 1984

There are several ways to destroy a generally well-functioning country. One is invasion. Vladimir Putin is trying that in Ukraine, cheered on by Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and other Republican sycophants. Invasions are self-evidently messy. Lives are lost by the thousands, property is destroyed, and the psychological impact on all sides of the conflict can last for generations.

One can imagine that Trump’s stated desire to “own” Canada and Greenland (he would prefer the term “merge” no doubt, being a captain of industry and all) would, if anyone in his White House staff had the temerity to suggest this is a really bad idea, lead to Trump throwing himself on the floor, kicking his feet and screaming like the man-child he is: “I want it, I want it! I want it! Why can’t I have it?!! I’m now the king of the United States. Just ask the Supreme Court. I want it! Waaahhh!!”

But, of course, that’s not what’s happening. Despite being the largest collection of incompetents ever assembled, Trump’s “team” has discovered other ways to bring the country to its knees.

Most everyone has heard of, and many have read, the novel, 1984, by George Orwell. Wikipedia does a creditable job of summarizing the central idea:

The story takes place in an imagined future. The current year is uncertain, but believed to be 1984. Much of the world is in perpetual war. Great Britain, now known as Airstrip One, has become a province of the totalitarian superstate Oceania, which is led by Big Brother, a dictatorial leader supported by an intense cult of personality manufactured by the Party’s Thought Police. The Party engages in omnipresent government surveillance and, through the Ministry of Truth, historical negationism and constant propaganda to persecute individuality and independent thinking.

I don’t recall that the book explains how the world reached that state, but it’s not too hard to imagine when one recalls a little history. You know, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, to name a few.

We have Donald Trump. Many people thought Hitler was insane. Many people also think Trump is insane. He was elected to a second term in office despite grotesque failures of leadership in his first term, resulting in, among other things, the avoidable deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Trump revealed himself fully between 2016 and 2021. His opponent in 2024 was an intelligent, accomplished person who has served as Vice President of the United States for four years, so she was also experienced in the highest echelons of government. BUT she was a woman, and she was of Asian heritage, and she was Black. Case closed. The American electorate chose to put the loon back in power.

And what did we get? Exactly what could be, and was, expected. Examples will follow in roughly reverse chronological order in the next post.

As an aside, first, I note that I am no wide-eyed dreamer. I have been around a long time, started my career as a federal employee in fact. The government of the United States, like all governments, has many “issues.” There are inefficiencies. One of the core driving principles of the government is “don’t make obvious mistakes.” A prime example is the rulemaking process. This is what often happens.

Congress adopts legislation. Even the most detailed laws are often the products of compromises that create ambiguities or simply leave major implementation details to later-developed regulations. The country prefers that approach to simply saying, “let the bureaucrats figure it out as they wish from time to time.” We have developed an astonishingly complex process to govern “rulemaking,” with the result that regulations can take years, literally, to produce after the enabling legislation has passed.

The process involves examination of the relationship of the law in question to many other laws having to do with economic impact, environmental impact and many others. This approach, long and tedious as it may be, is preferred to subjecting ourselves to the random, arbitrary decisions of people who may or may not know what they are doing and don’t want to take the time and effort to learn. Slow and steady wins the race in our system.

However, this approach has several strong advantages:

    1. All interested parties get to express their views and offer their evidence to the decision-maker(s);
    2. The process is designed to assure that the decision-making agency has all relevant information before it when it decides what regulations, if any, should be adopted;
    3. The process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act is very demanding, taking much time and effort by many federal employees, many of whom are highly experienced experts in the subjects being regulated;
    4. Court review is available to assure agencies adhere to the governing legal principles, assuring fairness to affected parties and that the process is properly executed;
    5. All the foregoing takes much time and effort, especially given that most federal agencies are working multiple rulemakings simultaneously, in addition to enforcement actions and other statutory responsibilities.

I will now describe in horrifying detail an actual rulemaking of the Department of Transportation. I participated in on behalf of my then-employer, the American Society of Travel Advisors. Try your best to get through it. The “FR” references are to the Federal Register which is a triple-column “book” published every workday in 7-point type (a bit over half the size of the print in this blog) and including proposed and final regulations by all federal agencies. You can get a feel for its scale from the page numbers. I included them in case you want to see the actual documents.

On May 23, 2014, DOT published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to “enhance protections for air travelers and to improve the air travel environment, including a proposal to clarify and codify the Department’s interpretation of the statutory definition of ‘‘ticket agent.’’” [79 FR 29970] The NPRM also proposed, among other things, “to require airlines and ticket agents to disclose at all points of sale the fees for certain basic ancillary services associated with the air transportation consumers are buying or considering buying.”

The NPRM consumed 32 pages of the Federal Register.  Comments were due by August 21, 2014.

Comments by interested parties were plentiful. And typically, they ran the gamut: the proposal is too broad, too expensive, not broad enough; you got this wrong, you got this right; the proposals are impractical and unnecessary; the proposals don’t go far enough … and many, many more.

On January 19, 2017, DOT issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to expand the scope of the original proposal:

In light of the comments on this issue, the Department is issuing this SNPRM, which focuses solely on the issue of transparency of certain ancillary service fees. The other issues in the 2014 NPRM are being addressed separately. [82 FR 7536]

The SNPRM consumed 24 Federal Register pages. Comments were due by March 20, 2017.

The Department withdrew the SNPRM on December 14, 2017:

In the notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking, 82 FR 58778 (Dec. 14, 2017), the Department stated that its existing requirements provide consumers information regarding fees for ancillary services and noted that the withdrawal was consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ [issued by Donald Trump] which has since been revoked.

But,

On July 9, 2021, the President [now Joe Biden] issued E.O. 14036, ‘‘Promoting Competition in the American Economy,’’ which launched a whole-of-government approach to strengthen competition.

… section 5, paragraph(m)(i)(F) of E.O. 14036 states that ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation shall: . . . not later than 90 days after the date of this order, consider initiating a rulemaking to ensure that consumers have ancillary fee information, including ‘‘baggage fees,’’ ‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation fees,’’ at the time of ticket purchase.’’

Thus, the changes of presidential administrations first killed, then revived the proposed rules that occupied most of 20 Federal Register pages, seven years into the mission. DOT published the new NPRM on October 20, 2022, more than eight years into the mission. Comments were now due by December 19, 2022.

But, alas, parties on both sides of the issues sought more time. DOT granted those requests, extending the comment deadline to January 23, 2023 [87 FR 77765]. Another request for extension was denied on January 26, 2023, although, typically, “late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.”

On March 3, 2023, DOT took the extraordinary step of announcing a virtual public hearing on certain issues in the rulemaking, the hearing to be held on March 16, 2023, with further comments due by March 23, 2023. [88 FR 13389]

Finally, on April 30, 2024, DOT published the final regulations in 89 FR 34620, consuming 57 Federal Register pages.

The rulemaking process had taken more than 10 years. In truth much more, because before the first publication in 2014, much legal, economic and other work had been put into creating the first set of proposed rules.

But, alas, it’s not over until it’s over. At the behest of the airlines, the regulation was “stayed” in 2024 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and on January 28, 2025, the court remanded the rules to DOT for further proceedings. The decision was based on what the court held was a fatal mistake that violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the law whose requirements ultimately lead to all the process surrounding federal rulemaking: the court found, DOT had “justified the Rule using cost-benefit data … that was not available during the notice-and-comment period.”

Whether these rules will ever be finalized is an open question, given the Trump administration’s hostility to consumer interests and regulation of business in general.

To repeat: the alternatives to this long and often painful process would allow members of government to make arbitrary and capricious decisions driven by conflicts of interest, personal bias, and other inappropriate considerations. THAT is why the government seems “inefficient.” It is inefficient by design so that other critical values are protected.

Could the process be made more efficient? Perhaps. But opening the government process to oversight and interference by people who know nothing about the governing law and little or nothing about the underlying issues and problems being addressed every day is not better government. It is tyranny.

For better or worse, for richer or poorer, we are married to this process. The courts get very upset, and rightly so, when an agency fails to follow the process correctly. That results in “remands for further proceedings,” which can mean more years of delay in reaching final rules.

Government under a system of “laws not men” is probably one of the most complex and difficult endeavors that mankind has ever undertaken. Add to that the fact that the continental United States occupies roughly 3,706,269 square miles with 161,000 square miles of that being water. The contiguous United States has an area of about 3,119,884 square miles and the State of Alaska alone embraces 586,412square miles. There are 50 states, the District of Columbia, plus more than a dozen territories under US ownership, management or sovereignty.” 

The land mass is astonishingly diverse. Some bodies of water (Lake Superior) are larger than some states (South Carolina thus also Rhode Island, etc.). Together the Great Lakes occupy more than 94,000 square miles and collectively are larger than the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. The State of Hawaii is about 2,400 miles from the US west coast and consists of 137 islands! We have mountains, deserts, forests, plains … everything.

Add to that the fact that the population of the United States numbers some 340 million people.

Legislating for this diverse aggregation of people, land, water and much else is complicated. It may be a general principle of the universe that a large, diverse country requires a large, complex government, especially if that government is to have a major role in promoting the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of the population.

The lesson is ended. I may have bored you beyond repair. Sorry, not sorry. I will return to the headline topic, If You Want To Destroy A Country …., in another post shortly. Rest up. It’s going to get worse, much worse. Donald Trump means to have his revenge on the country he believes treated him badly. And the Republican Party is happy to go along to get along. The fate of our democracy, our economy, and our very lives is on the line. Trump’s goons, dressed in black, masked, with no visible identification, are snatching people off the streets and disappearing them. The United States is now the new Russia.

Worst Case Scenarios & Warning to MAGAs

Leave a reply

Think of this as a kind of law school exam.

  • Assume Donald Trump is still alive as the 2028 presidential election process begins in 2027;
  • Assume further that Trump during his second presidency has subverted the military, civilian law enforcement and the courts. In short, he and Elon Musk are in complete charge of the federal government without meaningful legal restraint.

Assume further that either:

  • civil war broke out but was brutally and quickly suppressed by the combined forces mentioned in Assumption (2) above, OR
  •  the people of the United States succumbed without a meaningful fight to the fascist regime established by the Trump/Musk/Vance administration.

Assume further that either:

  •  Russia has decided to work through Trump & team rather than physically occupying the United States, OR
  • Russia has defeated the NATO alliance (or what remained of it after the US withdrew), and has occupied the US without meaningful resistance,

AND in any case, assume that

  • The United States, or whatever it is called by then, has no meaningful international relationships or allies.

Before addressing the questions below, state any additional assumptions necessary to explain the probable relationships between the federal government, state governments and other countries after the presidency of Donald Trump is substantially completed in 2027. Include in those additional assumptions any relevant information about the degree of freedom exercised by the people of the United States (referencing, in particular, women (females), Black people, non-citizen residents (if any), the condition of the economy, employment and any other facts you consider significant to what the United States will look like in late 2027.

Exam Questions:

  • Is it plausible to believe that Trump will simply step down voluntarily and allow someone else (Vance? Someone not Vance?) to seek the presidency — explain; OR
  • Is it more likely that Trump will declare the term limits in the Constitution invalid and seek a third term? — explain, AND
  • If Trump seeks a third term, is it plausible to believe that he will allow a free and fair election to occur or is it more plausible to believe that he will simply declare himself the popular choice and remain in office for a third term? Explain

Open your red books and discuss. Take your time but bear in mind that time is rapidly running out.

For extra credit for MAGAs only, Google this question: “how many jews were killed in the holocaust?” You will see estimates of 6 million plus another 5 million non-Jews, including prisoners of war) in the various reports there.

Then Google: “how many Russians were murdered by Stalin’s regime?” Mussolini?

Then, answer the question: WHO were the people killed by the Germans and by Stalin and by Mussolini?

Finally, for double extra credit, MAGAs only: how likely is it that a dictator Donald Trump will behave differently than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and all the other dictators through the vastness of time that have wantonly and randomly slaughtered “enemies” and “friends” and “supporters” who were merely suspected of becoming possible enemies or resisters even as they professed their undying loyalty to the regime? How many were murdered after being reported by neighbors? By friends? By family members?

Do you understand that a major part of the dictator’s view of the world is that everyone is a potential enemy, that spreading distrust throughout the population is essential to protecting the dictator, and that random killing ensures fear and compliance in advance from those still alive? How sure are you that an American dictator will not follow in the footsteps of all the other dictators through history?

You may leave when you turn in your red book. We assure you that your answers will be kept confidential ….

We assure you.

Is Trump Setting the United States Up for Surrender?

Leave a reply

A report in the New York Times today indicates that Trump is threatening to force Canada out of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement that also includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand AND that he is reviewing military cooperation between the two countries, particularly the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

For anyone not familiar with NORAD:

North American Aerospace Defense Command

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a United States and Canada bi-national organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning for North America. Aerospace warning includes the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands.

Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States. The renewal of the NORAD Agreement in May 2006 added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and internal waterways. [https://www.norad.mil/About-NORAD/]

NORAD has been an essential element of joint US-Canadian defense against Russian (and other) aggression for decades.

Trump has no strategic military experience or expertise. Steadfastly refusing to read or be briefed about complex intelligence developments, normally a daily function of the presidency, Trump’s ignorance threatens the safety of both countries. While he claims to think that Canada should be merged into the United States as the 51st state, he just as likely has other motives in relation to his lunatic claims about the U.S.-Canada relationship.

My suspicion is that Trump wants to weaken the northern defense perimeter that has existed with Canada’s involvement for decades to help prepare the United States for surrender to Russia without a fight.

I know that may sound crazy but in the context of Trump’s cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin and his appointment of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, it seems not beyond the pale that Trump’s long-term goal is to so weaken U.S. defenses that we can no longer stand up to Russian domination.

I leave it to others more versed in this to evaluate the risks, but Trump’s smash-the-dishes approach to international relations should give every loyal American pause to consider what is really going on here. Trump clearly wants to abandon Ukraine to Russian aggression and possibly withdraw from NATO as well. America First then becomes America Alone, a position of weakness we have not experienced in many decades.