"We at Democracy Defenders Fund, together with other wonderful colleagues, had one on file within hours." I must say my sincere respect to the leaders of Contrarians. They act what they write - a true fighter of democracy. Thank you.
I would really like to know what the hidden agenda is of the Supreme Court’s conservative six. I can’t imagine that legal professionals who have made it to the pinnacle of their profession would so blatantly seek to undermine the constitutional foundation of our rule of law without some, in their minds, a higher purpose. It would be nice to know where they think they are talking us.
It sure seems a toss up between them following some twisted, neo-nazi, purportedly "religious" goal or just marching over the bodies of our entire population (minus the hand that feeds them) towards more money and power.
They are made in a lab by the Federalist Society. The conservative majority sees a Christian nation run by white men. (Clarence Thomas is an honorary whitey). They have a plan and are probably aligned with Project 2025 because they are aiding and abetting its fulfillment before our very eyes. This was a well orchestrated plan that took decades to come to fruition. (Thanks Leonard Leo). And the Republican Congress is bat shit crazy and act as if they aren’t worried about re-election. Given that re-election seems to be all they have ever cared about, I think Trump made a deal with them and told them he’ll keep them in power if they just shut up and do his bidding. They have a highly coordinated team dedicated to rigging elections going forward. And of course the default is Trump will whine and sue until he gets his way. How did we get here?
I’m on your page. It’s clear from the horrors of this bill that Republicans in Congress no longer care about harming their voters, which strongly suggests they no longer fear losing elections. Why? We know they can count on tech fascist and other billionaire funding and a well oiled Big Lie machine, but is that all? I don’t want to go down conspiracy rabbit holes - just noting MAGA voters are losers in this Big Ugly Bill and that their representatives don’t care is concerning.
I don’t get it either, but I’m done wondering. Let’s focus on the transparent agenda first: slow, steady erosion of the constitution, so as to facilitate concentration of power and to impose minority religious positions on the rest of the country.
Thank you for boiling this case down to a manageable spoonful of information! And thanks for your upbeat attitudes and tenacious work on behalf of our democracy!
I know I speak for many when I say we can't thank you enough Norm, Jen, and Team Contrarian, for everything you are doing in holding up the rule of law, for fighting tirelessly for our democracy, and for keeping the hope alive that we will make it through this. I so look forward to hearing from you as you explain matters in a way that makes sense without the bs. Thank you all again - we are fortunate to have this platform instead of mainstream media!
"I know I speak for many when I say we can't thank you enough Norm, Jen, and Team Contrarian, for everything you are doing in holding up the rule of law, for fighting tirelessly for our democracy..."
They're not "fighting tirelessly for our democracy" so much as they're simply fighting against Trump, and they are not necessarily the same thing. Jen complains about Trump's use of force without Congressional approval, yet she and The Contrarian staff are silent about any Democrat who did the exact same thing. Norm "vehemently disagrees" with the CASA decision without saying why. The Trump administration has been subjected to a staggering amount of lawsuits and injunctions. This isn't about "lawlessness", "authoritarianism", or other such nonsense. This is just pure hatred. So one avenue is blocked and Norm goes after Trump via a different tactic. It's all about being anti-Trump, 24/7.
For a different view from Norm's and the Left in general:
"There were no nationwide injunctions for almost two centuries in the American legal system. Lawyers and judges on both sides of the aisle have been objecting to nationwide injunctions for years. True, only the conservative justices joined the majority opinion in CASA, but it was Justice Kagan who said in a 2022 interview, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.” And it was the Biden administration that in 2024 filed a Supreme Court brief opposing nationwide injunctions, criticizing them for allowing a “single district court” to make law for the rest of the country and calling them “inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief.”"
Thank you so much for your point of view. I kindly disagree. Fighting against trump is, in fact, fighting for our democracy given trump is doing everything in his power to become a dictator. He is undermining the rule of law, attempting to control a free press, ridding himself of any opposition, political or otherwise, attempting to restrict voting rights - to name a few. Next he wants to send our military into the streets to control the protesters - it doesn't get anymore authoritarian than that. Norm, Jen and the mass of legal experts are in fact, fighting to save our democracy, as are the millions who continue to take to the streets in protest of this administration's attempt at overthrowing our democracy. No worries Hal, we have your back...we'll save our democracy - you can sit this one out.
Thank you for the reply. Trump wasn't a dictator during his first term. He left, albeit as a very sore loser, in January 2021. He is certainly not a dictator now.
"...undermining the rule of law, attempting to control a free press, ridding himself of any opposition, political or otherwise, attempting to restrict voting rights - to name a few."
That is wonderful (and vague) rhetoric but you haven't listed one specific item to back up any of those claims. Would you mind giving some actual examples?
"Next he wants to send our military into the streets to control the protesters - it doesn't get anymore authoritarian than that."
Do you understand the "why" behind Trump federalizing National Guard troops in Los Angeles? Do you know where they were deployed and their specific mission? It seems as though you don't have details, just rhetoric.
"Norm, Jen and the mass of legal experts are in fact, fighting to save our democracy, as are the millions who continue to take to the streets in protest of this administration's attempt at overthrowing our democracy."
What did Trump do to quell the protests? Absolutely nothing. That's pretty pathetic for a wannabe dictator looking to undermine the rule of law, control a free press, or rid himself of opposition. All those protests across the nation went on pretty much as scheduled, covered by local and national media.
"No worries Hal, we have your back...we'll save our democracy - you can sit this one out."
I'm not worried, Maureen. I am worried about you, though. You are following a group who figuratively light their hair on fire every day telling us the latest "crisis du jour" with regards to Trump. A group of people who lost power in November and now act like a bunch of sore losers, just like Trump did in 2020.
I'm going on with my life, knowing that our system of government is not under threat of imminent collapse because of the current President of the United States. No one has been rounded up and "disappeared". The press operates as normal every single day. The Constitution hasn't been suspended. Congress and SCOTUS still work. The means of production have not been nationalized or seized. Martial law has not been declared. None of us have lost our rights. Have a good day.
We remain abused by this lawless administration and their goonish Brownshirts. Led by a psychopathic neo-fascist, they are in chaos. This weekend we face the Big Beautiful Bill in Congress. Right now, we must let each of our representatives and senators know we stand strongly opposed to a vote for this bill (in any of its forms with the 2017 tax cut). Call them now. Let them know that you will not ever get over it if they vote for the bill. Why? Because Mitch McConnell said “They will get over it.” The audacity. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/big-beautiful-bull?r=3m1bs
Thank you Norm. I watched the video with you, Jen, and Katie and you really explained everything! Thank you for your hard work! Happy to be a subscriber! 💙❤️
Birthright citizenship might not be the best issue to go to the mat over. No nation in Europe grants birthright citizenship simply by virtue of having been born within its borders, as the US does. Normally there is a requirement than at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of the country--although there are other conditions that might affect the right to birthright citizenship. If we based 'birthright' citizenship on a similar qualification, many who are against our current constitutional provision might accept an abridged right. Grant birthright citizenship to anyone born in the US who has (at least) one parent having a legal claim to legal permanent residency. Look into how other countries deal with the complications that could arise. We have bigger battles to wage: the deportation of naturalized US citizens and legal residents on spurious grounds by this cruel Administration.
I would add that there are people in the country legally, either on a tourist visa or a student visa, who expressly came to the country to give birth, in order to have a child with US citizenship, and then return to their own country. This is called "anchor baby", and I don't think it is acceptable. It's taking advantage of a liberal policy in a opportunistic way, and for no other reason.....
I agree that providing citizenship to children of those on temporary visas gives rise to abuse and motivates anti-immigrant bias. What is probably a bigger source of anti-immigration bias relates to those who enter illegally, i.e. without a visa, and have children who qualify for certain benefits and then seek permanent residence through those children. I might be all in favor of granting this group rights, IF we were taking care of citizens and legal residents as fully as they deserve. Our social safety net is stretched thin and is behind much anti-immigration sentiment. The Democrats have let these problems grow, which opened the way for this cruel president in 2016 and again in 2024. And yes, we could afford to give rights to many more migrants as well as to legal residents IF we were not funding an obscene military system. While we (the Democratic Party) are trying to fix immigration, let them also work on restriction the wasteful military budget.
Thanks for shouting out my piece, Norman. As we work to shore up our democracy for the future, we need to determine which kinds of military action require congressional approval. Obama's own words show it's not clear. It's especially important when polls show Americans don't trust the president. https://contrarian.substack.com/p/military-powers-and-trumps-trust
Excellent review. Also, why not provide a way for "Contrarians" to make donations to Contrarian initiatives going forward, in addition to their regular subscription? The more resources the better. I suspect there are many who would be happy to do so in our increasingly perilous times. And maybe it's time for the Democratic Party to consider a formal change to its name - like the "Democracy Party?" Simple and straightforward and maybe cause a lot of constructive disruption the party sorely needs more than ever.
With respect to the phrase 'regime change,' for which The Contrarian has justifiable contempt in the case of U.S.' attempts to impose it on other nations, there is one worth fighting for: regime change, today, in the United States
"... there is one worth fighting for: regime change, today, in the United States"
That's why we have elections. Or, in the case of Democrats, never-ending calls for impeachment of President Trump. Let's be clear: should the Dems take the House in '26, it will be better than even odds that their first order of business will be to impeach Trump. And who will be helping write up the charges? Norm, of course.
"Although we certainly take the strongest exception to the majority’s decision in the nationwide injunction case, it denies the Trump administration the full extent of its lawless and authoritarian worldview. Many in the mainstream media failed to grasp that nuance, falling for the president’s false declaration of total victory."
This quote from Jen's article above is a fine example of the reason I chose to purchase a subscription to The Contrarian. When other publications provide news of trump that is dispiriting, I come here for the full (and brilliant) analysis of what actually occurred and where we stand in protecting our democracy. I can't afford much, but I'm very glad I'm supporting a much-needed source of hope and interesting detail that is well worth the money. I'm so thankful for Jennifer Rubin and her amazing crew for their dedication and hard work.
I'm currently reading David McCullough's bio of John Adams which contains a history of how our democracy and freedom originated, and also describes the suffering and innumerable lives lost in creating and maintaining it. This book, and The Contrarian, reinforces my own strong commitment to do what I can to help preserve and restore our freedom, even if only by voting and small contributions to democratic causes. As I age, I'm increasingly disabled so cannot join in marching campaigns such as No Kings, but I'm determined never to lose faith in the good fight.
1. From now on, I will call it the "infamously hyper-partisan Roberts court." There is nothing "supreme" about it. Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson must be the most frustrated people in the world.
2. In the video excerpt above, I LOVE the fan above Norm's head. It makes him look like one of those old-time toys where figures had rotors on top of their head and, when wound up, could fly around. Very fitting for Norm, The orange felon and the infamously hyper-partisan Roberts court wind him up and voila, another lawsuit is filed to right so many wrongs.
3. Generally, when you do a live video like the one excerpted above, it is later posted on this website. Why is that not the case for this one? It sounds pretty important and I'd like to hear Katie Phang's points.
Why are executive orders legal? Seems to me they are at the base of every Constitutional overstep of this administration. Can the courts make them illegal or would it have to come from Congress?
"Donald Trump is being sued in his official capacity..."
My favorite line.
"We at Democracy Defenders Fund, together with other wonderful colleagues, had one on file within hours." I must say my sincere respect to the leaders of Contrarians. They act what they write - a true fighter of democracy. Thank you.
In yet another "legal analysis":
"In Powerful Dissent, Ketanji Brown Jackson Simply Writes 'Wakanda Forever'"
https://babylonbee.com/news/in-powerful-dissent-ketanji-brown-jackson-simply-writes-wakanda-forever
""Donald Trump is being sued in his official capacity...""
For another view:
"Supreme Court Legalizes Trump Presidency"
https://babylonbee.com/news/supreme-court-legalizes-trump-presidency
I would really like to know what the hidden agenda is of the Supreme Court’s conservative six. I can’t imagine that legal professionals who have made it to the pinnacle of their profession would so blatantly seek to undermine the constitutional foundation of our rule of law without some, in their minds, a higher purpose. It would be nice to know where they think they are talking us.
The Chief Justice in particular. It gobsmscks me. He predates this Trumpian nonsense. He can't not see where all this going.
It's amazing to realize how evil and devious some people can be, even when they look like choir boys.
YES!
It sure seems a toss up between them following some twisted, neo-nazi, purportedly "religious" goal or just marching over the bodies of our entire population (minus the hand that feeds them) towards more money and power.
They are made in a lab by the Federalist Society. The conservative majority sees a Christian nation run by white men. (Clarence Thomas is an honorary whitey). They have a plan and are probably aligned with Project 2025 because they are aiding and abetting its fulfillment before our very eyes. This was a well orchestrated plan that took decades to come to fruition. (Thanks Leonard Leo). And the Republican Congress is bat shit crazy and act as if they aren’t worried about re-election. Given that re-election seems to be all they have ever cared about, I think Trump made a deal with them and told them he’ll keep them in power if they just shut up and do his bidding. They have a highly coordinated team dedicated to rigging elections going forward. And of course the default is Trump will whine and sue until he gets his way. How did we get here?
I’m on your page. It’s clear from the horrors of this bill that Republicans in Congress no longer care about harming their voters, which strongly suggests they no longer fear losing elections. Why? We know they can count on tech fascist and other billionaire funding and a well oiled Big Lie machine, but is that all? I don’t want to go down conspiracy rabbit holes - just noting MAGA voters are losers in this Big Ugly Bill and that their representatives don’t care is concerning.
I don’t get it either, but I’m done wondering. Let’s focus on the transparent agenda first: slow, steady erosion of the constitution, so as to facilitate concentration of power and to impose minority religious positions on the rest of the country.
Thank you for boiling this case down to a manageable spoonful of information! And thanks for your upbeat attitudes and tenacious work on behalf of our democracy!
Keep fighting for us, Norm! Although I am a subscriber, is there a way to donate additional funds to the legal side of things?
Many that I subscribe to offer a "founders" level that provides additional funding. Maybe the Contrarian should as well.
Because there is no founders level donate to Democracy Defenders.
ACLU
Donate to Democracy Defenders.
I know I speak for many when I say we can't thank you enough Norm, Jen, and Team Contrarian, for everything you are doing in holding up the rule of law, for fighting tirelessly for our democracy, and for keeping the hope alive that we will make it through this. I so look forward to hearing from you as you explain matters in a way that makes sense without the bs. Thank you all again - we are fortunate to have this platform instead of mainstream media!
"I know I speak for many when I say we can't thank you enough Norm, Jen, and Team Contrarian, for everything you are doing in holding up the rule of law, for fighting tirelessly for our democracy..."
They're not "fighting tirelessly for our democracy" so much as they're simply fighting against Trump, and they are not necessarily the same thing. Jen complains about Trump's use of force without Congressional approval, yet she and The Contrarian staff are silent about any Democrat who did the exact same thing. Norm "vehemently disagrees" with the CASA decision without saying why. The Trump administration has been subjected to a staggering amount of lawsuits and injunctions. This isn't about "lawlessness", "authoritarianism", or other such nonsense. This is just pure hatred. So one avenue is blocked and Norm goes after Trump via a different tactic. It's all about being anti-Trump, 24/7.
For a different view from Norm's and the Left in general:
"There were no nationwide injunctions for almost two centuries in the American legal system. Lawyers and judges on both sides of the aisle have been objecting to nationwide injunctions for years. True, only the conservative justices joined the majority opinion in CASA, but it was Justice Kagan who said in a 2022 interview, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.” And it was the Biden administration that in 2024 filed a Supreme Court brief opposing nationwide injunctions, criticizing them for allowing a “single district court” to make law for the rest of the country and calling them “inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief.”"
https://www.thefp.com/p/did-the-supreme-court-just-clear
Thank you so much for your point of view. I kindly disagree. Fighting against trump is, in fact, fighting for our democracy given trump is doing everything in his power to become a dictator. He is undermining the rule of law, attempting to control a free press, ridding himself of any opposition, political or otherwise, attempting to restrict voting rights - to name a few. Next he wants to send our military into the streets to control the protesters - it doesn't get anymore authoritarian than that. Norm, Jen and the mass of legal experts are in fact, fighting to save our democracy, as are the millions who continue to take to the streets in protest of this administration's attempt at overthrowing our democracy. No worries Hal, we have your back...we'll save our democracy - you can sit this one out.
Thank you for the reply. Trump wasn't a dictator during his first term. He left, albeit as a very sore loser, in January 2021. He is certainly not a dictator now.
"...undermining the rule of law, attempting to control a free press, ridding himself of any opposition, political or otherwise, attempting to restrict voting rights - to name a few."
That is wonderful (and vague) rhetoric but you haven't listed one specific item to back up any of those claims. Would you mind giving some actual examples?
"Next he wants to send our military into the streets to control the protesters - it doesn't get anymore authoritarian than that."
Do you understand the "why" behind Trump federalizing National Guard troops in Los Angeles? Do you know where they were deployed and their specific mission? It seems as though you don't have details, just rhetoric.
"Norm, Jen and the mass of legal experts are in fact, fighting to save our democracy, as are the millions who continue to take to the streets in protest of this administration's attempt at overthrowing our democracy."
What did Trump do to quell the protests? Absolutely nothing. That's pretty pathetic for a wannabe dictator looking to undermine the rule of law, control a free press, or rid himself of opposition. All those protests across the nation went on pretty much as scheduled, covered by local and national media.
"No worries Hal, we have your back...we'll save our democracy - you can sit this one out."
I'm not worried, Maureen. I am worried about you, though. You are following a group who figuratively light their hair on fire every day telling us the latest "crisis du jour" with regards to Trump. A group of people who lost power in November and now act like a bunch of sore losers, just like Trump did in 2020.
I'm going on with my life, knowing that our system of government is not under threat of imminent collapse because of the current President of the United States. No one has been rounded up and "disappeared". The press operates as normal every single day. The Constitution hasn't been suspended. Congress and SCOTUS still work. The means of production have not been nationalized or seized. Martial law has not been declared. None of us have lost our rights. Have a good day.
We remain abused by this lawless administration and their goonish Brownshirts. Led by a psychopathic neo-fascist, they are in chaos. This weekend we face the Big Beautiful Bill in Congress. Right now, we must let each of our representatives and senators know we stand strongly opposed to a vote for this bill (in any of its forms with the 2017 tax cut). Call them now. Let them know that you will not ever get over it if they vote for the bill. Why? Because Mitch McConnell said “They will get over it.” The audacity. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/big-beautiful-bull?r=3m1bs
Thank you Norm. I watched the video with you, Jen, and Katie and you really explained everything! Thank you for your hard work! Happy to be a subscriber! 💙❤️
Birthright citizenship might not be the best issue to go to the mat over. No nation in Europe grants birthright citizenship simply by virtue of having been born within its borders, as the US does. Normally there is a requirement than at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of the country--although there are other conditions that might affect the right to birthright citizenship. If we based 'birthright' citizenship on a similar qualification, many who are against our current constitutional provision might accept an abridged right. Grant birthright citizenship to anyone born in the US who has (at least) one parent having a legal claim to legal permanent residency. Look into how other countries deal with the complications that could arise. We have bigger battles to wage: the deportation of naturalized US citizens and legal residents on spurious grounds by this cruel Administration.
I would add that there are people in the country legally, either on a tourist visa or a student visa, who expressly came to the country to give birth, in order to have a child with US citizenship, and then return to their own country. This is called "anchor baby", and I don't think it is acceptable. It's taking advantage of a liberal policy in a opportunistic way, and for no other reason.....
I agree that providing citizenship to children of those on temporary visas gives rise to abuse and motivates anti-immigrant bias. What is probably a bigger source of anti-immigration bias relates to those who enter illegally, i.e. without a visa, and have children who qualify for certain benefits and then seek permanent residence through those children. I might be all in favor of granting this group rights, IF we were taking care of citizens and legal residents as fully as they deserve. Our social safety net is stretched thin and is behind much anti-immigration sentiment. The Democrats have let these problems grow, which opened the way for this cruel president in 2016 and again in 2024. And yes, we could afford to give rights to many more migrants as well as to legal residents IF we were not funding an obscene military system. While we (the Democratic Party) are trying to fix immigration, let them also work on restriction the wasteful military budget.
Thanks for shouting out my piece, Norman. As we work to shore up our democracy for the future, we need to determine which kinds of military action require congressional approval. Obama's own words show it's not clear. It's especially important when polls show Americans don't trust the president. https://contrarian.substack.com/p/military-powers-and-trumps-trust
Excellent review. Also, why not provide a way for "Contrarians" to make donations to Contrarian initiatives going forward, in addition to their regular subscription? The more resources the better. I suspect there are many who would be happy to do so in our increasingly perilous times. And maybe it's time for the Democratic Party to consider a formal change to its name - like the "Democracy Party?" Simple and straightforward and maybe cause a lot of constructive disruption the party sorely needs more than ever.
With respect to the phrase 'regime change,' for which The Contrarian has justifiable contempt in the case of U.S.' attempts to impose it on other nations, there is one worth fighting for: regime change, today, in the United States
"... there is one worth fighting for: regime change, today, in the United States"
That's why we have elections. Or, in the case of Democrats, never-ending calls for impeachment of President Trump. Let's be clear: should the Dems take the House in '26, it will be better than even odds that their first order of business will be to impeach Trump. And who will be helping write up the charges? Norm, of course.
"Although we certainly take the strongest exception to the majority’s decision in the nationwide injunction case, it denies the Trump administration the full extent of its lawless and authoritarian worldview. Many in the mainstream media failed to grasp that nuance, falling for the president’s false declaration of total victory."
This quote from Jen's article above is a fine example of the reason I chose to purchase a subscription to The Contrarian. When other publications provide news of trump that is dispiriting, I come here for the full (and brilliant) analysis of what actually occurred and where we stand in protecting our democracy. I can't afford much, but I'm very glad I'm supporting a much-needed source of hope and interesting detail that is well worth the money. I'm so thankful for Jennifer Rubin and her amazing crew for their dedication and hard work.
I'm currently reading David McCullough's bio of John Adams which contains a history of how our democracy and freedom originated, and also describes the suffering and innumerable lives lost in creating and maintaining it. This book, and The Contrarian, reinforces my own strong commitment to do what I can to help preserve and restore our freedom, even if only by voting and small contributions to democratic causes. As I age, I'm increasingly disabled so cannot join in marching campaigns such as No Kings, but I'm determined never to lose faith in the good fight.
Two points I'd like to make:
1. From now on, I will call it the "infamously hyper-partisan Roberts court." There is nothing "supreme" about it. Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson must be the most frustrated people in the world.
2. In the video excerpt above, I LOVE the fan above Norm's head. It makes him look like one of those old-time toys where figures had rotors on top of their head and, when wound up, could fly around. Very fitting for Norm, The orange felon and the infamously hyper-partisan Roberts court wind him up and voila, another lawsuit is filed to right so many wrongs.
Just thought of another point:
3. Generally, when you do a live video like the one excerpted above, it is later posted on this website. Why is that not the case for this one? It sounds pretty important and I'd like to hear Katie Phang's points.
I love y’all. ALL y’all! 💙
Why are executive orders legal? Seems to me they are at the base of every Constitutional overstep of this administration. Can the courts make them illegal or would it have to come from Congress?
The work you is amazing.