Illustration by Michael DiMilo
Featuring the Fabulous Dadbots: Mark M., Dave S., Mark O., Dennis C., and Geoff Carter
Bots,
Not a lot has been spewed on this thread regarding Trump’s power grab in Washington. So I’ll launch an opening shot.
As I write–and things are changing rapidly–several of Trump’s Executive Orders (EOs) have been stayed in court. These developments are really at the heart of our constitutional crisis.
Eventually, at least some of Trump’s actions will be held to be illegal by the lower courts (lower than the SCOTUS). The first question is, will Trump, Elon and the DOGEbags comply with those rulings? They don’t have to.The courts don’t have an enforcement mechanism. They can hold the Administration in contempt, which would basically be saying “Stop! Or I’ll holler ‘Stop!’ again!”
Trump opponents, of course, will continue up the ladder to the Supreme Court. It’s my belief that the SCOTUS would look very unkindly upon even the Trump Administration defying judicial rulings. Again, of course, who enforces? This is why we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. The courts have power only because we all agree they have power.
JD Vance is on record saying that Trump should act as Andrew Jackson did, when he ignored the Court’s rulings on Indian removal. “John Marshall has made his decision,” Vance quoted Jackson. “Let him enforce it!”
If Trump does NOT defy the lower courts, all of these disputes will eventually rise to the level of the Supremes. There, it does seem likely that the Court will recognize heretofore unseen Executive powers. So, Trump’s better course of action might be to allow these cases to elevate to the highest court, where Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas will go to bat for him no matter how crazy the case.
Right now, I read that Trump’s lawyers are arguing that any restriction of the DOGE special govt employees at Treasury is an unlawful, unconstitutional restriction on the Executive’s absolute authority over departments. The 19 state Attorney Generals, in opposition, are arguing that, by allowing non-governmental employees to have access to sensitive information, the President is not fulfilling his constitutional duty to see that “the laws are faithfully executed”. I’m with the AGs, of course, because common sense tells us that a nongov’t agent — especially one who does business with the gov’t — shouldn’t have access to all this private information. But is the law on my side? After all, as Charles Dickens wrote, “the law is an ass” at times.
-MM
Yeesh…you’re going to make me think about this? Track these daily downers? I keep coming to the same nihilistic conclusion you do, enforceability requires bull dogs not lap dogs and congress and SCOTUS are, so far, 100% the latter. Even dems are not making noise, (electability cower), only the moribund pledges and pleas of “keeping up the fight”. Churchill.
I have wondered about a military coup—he’s dissed some respected dudes w/ chevrons on their shoulders, (removed their security details). Though, I read that Biden removed Trump’s security detail, so apparently this is SOP. Granted, Biden had more basis—1/6/21.
Sidebar: Bret of Bret and Gail quipped this am that Musk will soon unveil DOPE: Department of Personal Efficiency. All of our decisions will be monitored and AI processed. D’bots may make the top of the first digital black list.
-D
This just in:
A federal judge recently said the White House has defied his order to release billions of dollars in federal grants, marking the first time a judge has expressly declared that the Trump White House was disobeying a judicial mandate.
The ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island federal court ordered Trump administration officials to comply with what he called “the plain text” of an edict he issued last month.
MM
Hello bots,
Welcome to the end of the world as we know it. Things do not look good, but—ever the optimist, I have some hope. In her daily email this morning, Heather Cox Richardson posted this:
“MAGA loyalists, particularly Vice President J.D. Vance, have begun to suggest they will not abide by the rule of law, but before Trump and Vance took office, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts called out Vance’s hints that he would be willing to defy the rulings of federal courts as “dangerous suggestions” that “must be soundly rejected.”
Maybe this is what hope looks like. SCOTUS (even this one) is unpredictable. In the last couple of decisions Amy Coney Barrett has swung to the left. If Roberts is going to stand firm on the rule of law, we might have a shot with the judiciary as our firewall.
The Congress—as usual—is being incredibly short-sighted. If Republicans are supporting Trump because they’re afraid of being primaried, what’s the point? If Trump and his minions are left unopposed, there will be no Congress to run for in two years. Maybe their demonstration chant should be “Four more years! This is my job!” God forbid they would take a stand to preserve the Constitution, or at the very least to stop Musk.
The states (the unheralded check and balance) are doing a good job fighting back. Did you see Governor Pritzker’s announcement he was going to rename Lake Michigan to Lake Illinois and annex Green Bay—for its own security.
I’m trying to get involved with an organization named Indivisible. It’s a grassroots organization designed to fight for blue candidates in elections and to organize resistance to the powers that be. You might have heard Kirk Bangstad of Minocqua Brewing Company mention them in a previous email.
I just watched Do the Right Thing last night in honor of Black History Month. “Fight the Power”.
G
The judiciary as a firewall? Who will enforce their rulings if Trump ignores the rulings? John Roberts and whose army.
That’s what you call a “constitutional crisis”.
MM
There’s the rub.
If Trump does ignore the SCOTUS (should they rule against him), then we will have a serious problem. This did happen once before. Andrew Jackson defied a court order about the conflict between native American autonomy and federal law on Cherokee land. Nixon tried it, too. I guess the question is will four Republicans stand up in the Senate? Will three stand up in the House?
It’s scary to think that our Constitution and the fate of our democracy rests on the morality of seven politicos.
One thought that did cross my mind was whether state officials have the right to enforce laws on federal property. Could the D.C. police arrest Musk and his little muskrats for trespassing and vandalism?
G
Update on March 6th, 2025
On the case of SCOTUS ruling of Trump withholding foreign aid from USAID:
“A divided U.S. Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to let President Donald Trump‘s administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government as the Republican president moves to pull the plug on American humanitarian projects around the world.” ( US Supreme Court won’t let Trump withhold payment to foreign aid groups | Reuters).
Now before we wet ourselves, this isn’t over. SCOTUS bumped this down to the lower court which will determine the ways and means of implementing this decision. And, of course, the biggest worry is whether Trump will honor the law. Should he refuse to obey, what will Congress or the Court do? Hold him in contempt? Arrest him?
The pressure is mounting on Republican legislators–let’s hope a few of them turn.
G
As of today, March 12th, the lower courts have ordered Trump to unfreeze funds and there are reportedly some signs this is happening. It looks as–at least for now–Trump may be doing what the courts say…
For now…
G
Comments