The very good news that the American people have spoken loudly enough--or at least, their dollars have--that ABC has reinstated Jimmy Kimmel as of tomorrow night, casts a little ray of light into the gathering darkness.
When the likes of Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson join thousands of liberal voices in denouncing Brendan Carr and the Trump administration's appalling, clumsy, blundering assault on the First Amendment and on fundamental principles of free speech, you kind of sense an opening (however fragile, however temporary) for the revival of a pro-democracy, pro-constitution reaction against Team Project 2025.
If only white shoe law firms, CEOs, university presidents and boards of trustees, and the corporate owners of news outlets were to learn something from all this--if only they were to experience, at the very least, some sense of shame and some understanding of the profound contempt in which a majority of the American people hold them--then we might be looking at a real lifeboat moment for US democracy.
Bre careful what you wish for. If the 25th is invoked, and if he is found to be incompetent - most likely - then we are stuck with Vance and the rest of the toadies. It will take several election cycles to get rid of them.
Good for the Republican-appointed Judge in Florida for dismissing Trump's frivolous 80-page complaint, sua sponte. Further kudos to him for warning Trump's lawyers to cease treating pleadings like a stump-speech list of allegedly perceived grievances. The Judge also put a 40-page limit on any amended complaint Trump's lawyers may decide to file. He has done what needed to be done to stop Trump's vexatious abuse of civil legal process. In essence he has dismissed the complaint and declared Trump to be a vexatious litigant.
Pam Bondi's definition of hate speech must be like what Justice Potter Stewart said regarding pornography ("I'll know it when I see it). It may be assumed to be anything that disagrees with Donald Trump. We have now seen the top of the "Justice Department" turn into the private revenge and retribution arm of the president. Talk about weaponization. There ought to be lawsuits a-flying over her decision, and she ought to resign in disgrace for the position that she's taken.
Dean Chemerinsky, nice essay Is the only action to stand up/counter sue when FFOTUS sues? Are there any other options, given the black-robbed fascists who dominate SCOTUS?
Thank you for highlighting tyranny's attacks on our freedoms. Now is an important time to recall the timeless writing of Justice Jackson (writing for SCOTUS) in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943 about that very subject.
“There are village tyrants as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution.” [The allusion to village tyrant and village Hampden seems to have been an allusion to Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. John Hampden was a very important and very powerful opponent of the tyranny of Charles I and proponent of the rule of law in England. The legal and physical fields of battle between parliamentarians and the king (who ultimately was beheaded by Parliament in 1649) and the subsequent Glorious Revolution of England (which culminated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689) were the legal and moral foundation for the American Revolution.]
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
The “freedoms of speech and of press” are “susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect.”
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
[Clearly,] the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."
As a result, it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
We've been going down this slippery slope for a very long time .... first by the suppression of congressional representatives in the GOP who didn't tow the ideological line, along with the narratives of conservative radio and cable "news" to indoctrinate their voters, and now the very institutions of the free world. And in all that time, we're still saying "it could be worse" or simply focusing on silver linings in order to pacify when the alarms bells should be screaming. Hard right authoritarian conservatism is "poisoning the blood" of our democracy like Lymphoma, which begins with a single cell and then works underneath the radar, silently spreading long before any symptoms. Unfortunately, we are far beyond the no-symptoms phase, and every minute of every day is a critical resource being squandered by silence.
The very good news that the American people have spoken loudly enough--or at least, their dollars have--that ABC has reinstated Jimmy Kimmel as of tomorrow night, casts a little ray of light into the gathering darkness.
When the likes of Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson join thousands of liberal voices in denouncing Brendan Carr and the Trump administration's appalling, clumsy, blundering assault on the First Amendment and on fundamental principles of free speech, you kind of sense an opening (however fragile, however temporary) for the revival of a pro-democracy, pro-constitution reaction against Team Project 2025.
If only white shoe law firms, CEOs, university presidents and boards of trustees, and the corporate owners of news outlets were to learn something from all this--if only they were to experience, at the very least, some sense of shame and some understanding of the profound contempt in which a majority of the American people hold them--then we might be looking at a real lifeboat moment for US democracy.
Judge Merrydale, who put Trump's $15 billion lawsuit against the NYT to the dustbin is also an indicator. Another brick in the wall gone.
Time to invoke the 25th amendment.
With that toady-lackey cabinet of misfits and incompetents, you expect them to invoke the 25th? Confidence is not high.
Bre careful what you wish for. If the 25th is invoked, and if he is found to be incompetent - most likely - then we are stuck with Vance and the rest of the toadies. It will take several election cycles to get rid of them.
Good for the Republican-appointed Judge in Florida for dismissing Trump's frivolous 80-page complaint, sua sponte. Further kudos to him for warning Trump's lawyers to cease treating pleadings like a stump-speech list of allegedly perceived grievances. The Judge also put a 40-page limit on any amended complaint Trump's lawyers may decide to file. He has done what needed to be done to stop Trump's vexatious abuse of civil legal process. In essence he has dismissed the complaint and declared Trump to be a vexatious litigant.
Trump Library: an oxymoron
Pam Bondi's definition of hate speech must be like what Justice Potter Stewart said regarding pornography ("I'll know it when I see it). It may be assumed to be anything that disagrees with Donald Trump. We have now seen the top of the "Justice Department" turn into the private revenge and retribution arm of the president. Talk about weaponization. There ought to be lawsuits a-flying over her decision, and she ought to resign in disgrace for the position that she's taken.
You covered every craven thing he is doing. It’s a long list.
Dean Chemerinsky, nice essay Is the only action to stand up/counter sue when FFOTUS sues? Are there any other options, given the black-robbed fascists who dominate SCOTUS?
Thank you for highlighting tyranny's attacks on our freedoms. Now is an important time to recall the timeless writing of Justice Jackson (writing for SCOTUS) in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943 about that very subject.
“There are village tyrants as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution.” [The allusion to village tyrant and village Hampden seems to have been an allusion to Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. John Hampden was a very important and very powerful opponent of the tyranny of Charles I and proponent of the rule of law in England. The legal and physical fields of battle between parliamentarians and the king (who ultimately was beheaded by Parliament in 1649) and the subsequent Glorious Revolution of England (which culminated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689) were the legal and moral foundation for the American Revolution.]
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
The “freedoms of speech and of press” are “susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect.”
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
[Clearly,] the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."
As a result, it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
We've been going down this slippery slope for a very long time .... first by the suppression of congressional representatives in the GOP who didn't tow the ideological line, along with the narratives of conservative radio and cable "news" to indoctrinate their voters, and now the very institutions of the free world. And in all that time, we're still saying "it could be worse" or simply focusing on silver linings in order to pacify when the alarms bells should be screaming. Hard right authoritarian conservatism is "poisoning the blood" of our democracy like Lymphoma, which begins with a single cell and then works underneath the radar, silently spreading long before any symptoms. Unfortunately, we are far beyond the no-symptoms phase, and every minute of every day is a critical resource being squandered by silence.
Dean Chemerinsky’s essays are always cogent and welcome. But where are the rest of the law school Deans?
We are already concerned. For those that are not, this is a good description of what to consider per the current despot run administration.