I've just read an excellent biography of Einstein, and apart from the parts detailing his flight from Europe and acceptance by the USA a couple of snippets really stood out for me.
The first was that when Kurt Godel, he of the Incompleteness Theorem, decided to become an American citizen he studied the constitution and found a logical flaw which meant it could descend into authoritarianism and tyranny; luckily for him Einstein went with him to his meeting with the judge testing him, so when Godel began to explain his theory it was brushed aside. I don't know what the flaw was/is but Godel has perhaps been proven correct.
The second is perhaps more hopeful: during the McCarthy era Einstein firmly opposed the witch-hunts and advised people not to comply using the 1st amendment as their reason (rather than the 5th). Einstein viewed McCarthyism as a descent into fascism, but the book's author suggests that it was 'merely' one of the ebbs and flows of excess that happen in democracies, and that the US political system was self-righting and resilient; and of course McCarthyism didn't last for all that long.
I rather hope that both Godel and Einstein were wrong.
I too hope they are wrong, both for the people of the USA and for the rest of the world. However, while leaders of other countries are to be applauded for continuing to treat Mr Trump in a civilised fashion, their restraint/blindness in understanding that appeasement will only fuel the beast doesn't inspire confidence.
The reality is that Trump is waging economic war, with a side helping of assisting a third power to commit war crimes. While we may not be able to do much to counter the second, other than giving real assistance to Ukraine, we can and should accept that the view of the USA as any kind of ally is, at the moment, entirely misplaced.
The reality is that Trump is waging economic war, with a side helping of assisting a third power to commit war crimes. While we may not be able to do much to counter the second, other than giving real assistance to Ukraine, we can and should accept that the view of the USA as any kind of ally is, at the moment, entirely misplaced.
Economic sanctions and a cultural boycott of Israel would help a bit with one of the two main cases where Trump us supporting war crimes.
Gödel presumably thought that whatever the flaws in the US constitution it was considerably better than whatever passed for a constitution in Naxi controlled Austria.
One flaw the US constitution definitely does not have is that, unusually for a head of state, the President cannot dismiss Congress, nor disrupted the timing of elections. Obviously state legislatures and the courts can be helpful in subverting the democratic process, but as I understand it only a constitutional amendment can change the timings.
I'd always thought that having elections to the House every two years was a bizarre, but perhaps this isn't a flaw after all
I too hope they are wrong, both for the people of the USA and for the rest of the world. However, while leaders of other countries are to be applauded for continuing to treat Mr Trump in a civilised fashion, their restraint/blindness in understanding that appeasement will only fuel the beast doesn't inspire confidence.
The reality is that Trump is waging economic war, with a side helping of assisting a third power to commit war crimes. While we may not be able to do much to counter the second, other than giving real assistance to Ukraine, we can and should accept that the view of the USA as any kind of ally is, at the moment, entirely misplaced.
Yes. The American government is no longer our friend, and that fact is slowly beginning to gain some acceptance here.
I'd always thought that having elections to the House every two years was a bizarre, but perhaps this isn't a flaw after all
Yes, it means Reps are constantly running and constantly fundraising, but it also means we might be able to flip the House next year. Unless voter suppression gets the better of us.
In other news, Trump threatened to pull a couple of billion in federal grants from Harvard if they didn't agree to what would essentially be a takeover of the institution, and they said no. In response, he said their tax-exempt status should be revoked.
The IRS investigated All Saints Pasadena during the George W. Bush years for a sermon the rector gave in the lead-up to the 2004 election, an investigation that was clearly politically motivated given how many churches host political candidates during election campaigns and never get investigated. I suppose a weaponized IRS could investigate Harvard and revoke its tax-exempt status, since we're no longer operating under the rule of law here.
Do you suppose that any of the White House clowns have noticed that China has designated rare earth minerals (scandium, yytrium, terbium, etc) as subject to a new licensing system (effectively export control)?
Deliberately left off the tariff list, you can bet the new system is going to take a very long time to be put in place. And surely its just a coincidence that they just happen to be vital to the production of advanced defence equipment?
... leaders of other countries are to be applauded for continuing to treat Mr Trump in a civilised fashion ...
I'm not convinced it's a good idea for anyone to treat Trump in a civilized way. He's dismantling the rule of law in the US. We are well on our way to becoming an authoritarian state. He's sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a gulag in El Salvador with no due process, and he's talking about doing the same to citizens. He should be impeached in the House, convicted in the Senate, and then stand trial for all the other shit he's done.
200 of the men he sent to CECOT, the El Salvadorian prison, did not have any criminal records in the United States or any other country. They were deported without due process. Now the man with the little hands wants to start sending native born Americans there. Every lawyer outside the Trump administration that have publicly spoke about this is saying that would be unconstitutional, but we know what Trump thinks of the constitution.
... leaders of other countries are to be applauded for continuing to treat Mr Trump in a civilised fashion ...
I'm not convinced it's a good idea for anyone to treat Trump in a civilized way. He's dismantling the rule of law in the US. We are well on our way to becoming an authoritarian state. He's sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a gulag in El Salvador with no due process, and he's talking about doing the same to citizens. He should be impeached in the House, convicted in the Senate, and then stand trial for all the other shit he's done.
The problem is that if leaders from other countries don’t treat him civilly he has an excuse to hit back harder. He can moan to his base about things not being fair again. Leaders are in a Catch 22 situation. I hope the second part of your paragraph comes true.
Well, they had a go at that in 2019/2020 and it didn't amount to anything. Unless the Republicans on the Hill can grow a pair, or have a conscience tranplant, he's just going to be allowed to carry on as now. You'd think that the unanimous vote by SCOTUS might give any sane person pause for thought but in the case of DJT ...
Unless the Republicans on the Hill can grow a pair, or have a conscience tranplant, he's just going to be allowed to carry on as now.
This is the point. It's not "just Trump", although I'm sure the prospect of his rich buddies and fanatical supporters threatening to run primaries against "disloyal" Republicans tends to quash dissent. All the Republicans share responsibility for the current administration and its actions. They should all pay the price for it.
Well, they had a go at that in 2019/2020 and it didn't amount to anything. Unless the Republicans on the Hill can grow a pair, or have a conscience tranplant, he's just going to be allowed to carry on as now.
Or unless the Republicans perceive that their own political futures are at real risk if they don’t do something. Self-interest and self-preservation are powerful political motivators.
Garcia was under a federal court protection order, similar to an asylum due to his proven fear if he had been returned to El Salvador he would likely be killed by gangs there.
Regards, the midterm election, I think Trump knows the Democrats will regain control of at least the House and he will be impeached once again. He hopes he will not be convicted by the Senate, though.
On the subject of Abrego Garcia, the order issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denying the administration’s motion for emergency stay of the trial court’s order requiring the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S.
The order, written by Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, begins:
Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature. While we fully respect the Executive’s
robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision.
It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.
This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.
The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garciawas wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?
While I was practicing, I appeared in front of Judge Wilkinson a number of times. He is definitely conservative (he was appointed to the court by Reagan), but he also has a strong sense of the role of the judiciary and he does not suffer fools lightly.
Consistent with some recent comments in this thread, the order included this toward the end:
The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.
The whole order is pretty scathing and is worth a read. I’m reluctant to expect too much of the current Supreme Court, but I suspect the administration’s approach to, and disrespect of, the federal judiciary isn’t working to Trump’s favor among those who’ll be deciding all the lawsuits challenging his actions.
We in Australia are appalled at what is happening in the USA and the alarming effects on the American people and the rest of the world. All of my neighbours, friends and family cringe at the thought of living in the USA and would certainly not travel there. In fact some Australians have faced unbelievable treatment at the border when trying to enter as tourists. I'm not sure what is down the road for all of us, but just feel glad that I am safely in my own home and far away from most of the worst areas of conflict. I grieve for the people in such area of tragedy conflict and danger.
ION Trump was pushing his Zelsnekyy is responsible for the war line again. And Rubio has just dropped a heavy hint that DJT is going to give-up on trying to force through a peace deal - at which point you can guarantee the line that it is Ukraine's fault it was invaded will be centre stage again.
What's the over/under on whether he defies a SCOTUS ruling against him? I mean, who's going to stop him?
He's already doing so, isn't he? The only question is what happens when a judge starts pushing contempt.
I don’t think he’s quite doing it yet. What I’m aware of that he’s done is more like hemming and hawing (through his lawyers) along the lines of “our hands are tied,” “you’re not giving us enough time,” etc. And that’s happening more with lower courts, not SCOTUS. It’s creeping up on defying a SCOTUS ruling, but not quite there.
I think it’s quite possible that when push comes to shove, he will defy a SCOTUS ruling. The Fourth Circuit seemed to think it a real possibility, too, as their order concluded with this:
It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.” Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts.” Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words, “unless the President did so, anarchy would result.” Id.
Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.
It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.
So yeah, I think they see where this is headed unless something changes.
The real question for me is whether Trump explicitly defying a ruling of the Supreme Court will constitute a step too far for enough people on Capitol Hill; whether it does or not might turn on what the holding is about.
A scenario: say trump orders the military to deport x number of alleged gang members, could the military refuse the order since their primary duty is to uphold the constitution?
A scenario: say trump orders the military to deport x number of alleged gang members, could the military refuse the order since their primary duty is to uphold the constitution?
I may be wrong but I would have thought the Posse Comitatus Act would make that illegal, before even getting to constitutionality.
Which means all three of the Trump appointees ruled against him.
At 1 o'clock in the morning. The NY Times has a piece saying SCOTUS would normally have waited for the Fifth Circuit to rule and then invited the government to respond by a certain deadline.
Has trump ever seen anything as an 'inescapable' duty?
No. Trump does not recognize duty, or honesty, or honor. None of these things have any meaning for him. He is a creature of the deal, and will adopt whatever posture or position he thinks is likely to lead to a more favorable outcome for him.
@Nick Tamen, just out of curiosity: what normally happens to a lawyer who lies to a federal judge?
@Ruth, my apologies for not getting back to this sooner. We were traveling, and while traveling I could do some short posts, but I never really had time for the posts that required a little more thought.
There’s not a single answer here, though I think the general thrust of any answer is “it typically doesn’t go well.” There are various possibilities:
The judge could hold the lawyer in contempt. That’s more involved than simply banging the gavel and saying “you’re in contempt”; the lawyer is entitled to a hearing.
The judge can file a complaint with the relevant state licensing and disciplinary authority. Exactly what authority that is varies from state to state. In California, I think it would be the State Bar of California, just as it would be the North Carolina State Bar where I am. For lawyers appearing in federal court, particularly in the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, their place of licensure could potentially be anywhere in the US.
The judge can file a complaint or initiate disciplinary proceedings in the federal district court. Every federal district court has its own local rules, so the exact procedures can vary. And every federal district court requires that lawyers be admitted to the bar of that court. (There are provisions allowing for “special appearances,” sometimes called an appearance pro hoc vice, or simply pro hoc, for a single case.) So for example, when I was practicing, I had six licenses: North Carolina state courts (the NC State Bar), the federal districts courts for the Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS. Were I to violate the rules of one of those federal courts, proceedings could have begun to suspend or revoke my license in that court, or to impose some other sort of discipline.
In the case of government lawyers, I’ve also known of judges to report misconduct to the agency employing the lawyer or under whose auspices the lawyer appeared, such as USDOJ. Reports could similarly be make to law firms. There is an understanding that the credibility of the agency or firm as a whole is implicated by a lawyer’s misconduct. (Well, at least traditionally there is; who knows for USDOJ right now.)
Finally, a federal district judge does have inherent authority to maintain the dignity and decorum of his or her courtroom, and judges can use that authority to bar a lawyer from appearing in before them. It’s a bit of a last resort, but lawyers are officers of the court, and it does happen.
Deals are done between businessmen. Putin is not a bustnessman, nor is Zelelenskyy. The former is a despot, the latter a patriot. What is at stake here is not a real-estate deal, as Trump seems to think, but a decision afftecting the fate of a nnaion, a people, and the life of a man whom much of the world ousidethe Trumpsphere regard as a hero. Oh, and the peace of the world. And Trump is not, in fact, the supertycoon he makes himself out to be.
Has anyone else noticed how Trump uses the word VERY in almost every utterance, often multiple times? This is very odd, and once I noticed it I can't stop. Maybe this will annoy everyone else now just like it does for me.
I have a theory that his distinctive speaking style (which extends beyond the ubiquitous use of "very") is deliberately developed. He has no objective standing as a successful business person (quite the opposite), nor a deal-maker. All he has to position himself is theatrics, to project an image of himself that has little or no objective support. He's a showman. Before entering politics his only real success was fronting a reality TV show, a role where idiosyncratic mannerisms served him well (and, my guess would be was in part developed by the producers of the show with the assistance of acting coaches). That only real success is what he's based his political career on, and that includes maintaining those idiosyncrasies (I might add the odd hair, strange skin colours etc in that list). It's possible he's been playing that role for so long that it's become a natural part of his character.
The fellow who ghost-wrote, 'The art of the Deal', had to work very hard to make Trump's 'blunt, staccato, no-apologies delvery coherent and his voice palatable. The book of course enabled Trump to peddle his myths about himself and enabled him first to be a media presence and then president. Now, decades later, the writer, journalist Mark Schwartz, is full of remorse and fears he may be (at least in part) responsible for the end of civilisation.
I think some of his speech habits are very New York. My mother-in-law was from there; she would use some of the same expressions. Things were either very good or awful. She used awful a lot.
Chinese producers of plastic Christmas trees and other festive decorations say orders from U.S. clients, which are crucial for their business, should have started to come in by now. But because of surging import tariffs, they haven't.
U.S. President Donald Trump has raised tariffs on Chinese imports by 104% so far this year in an escalating trade war that threatens great pain for the world's largest exporter of manufactured goods.
U.S. retailers are almost completely reliant on China for Christmas decorations, where they source 87% of such goods - worth roughly $4 billion. Chinese factories are also heavily dependent on the U.S. market, where they sell half of what they make.
If Americans want new Christmas decorations this year, they will have to pay a lot more for them - if they can find them on the shelves at all.
"So far this year, none of my American customers have placed any orders," said Qun Ying, who runs an artificial Christmas tree factory in the eastern city of Jinhua.
"Of course it's about the tariffs. By mid-April all the orders are normally finalised, but right now ... it's hard to know if any orders are coming. Maybe American customers won't buy anything this year."
<snip>
Jessica Guo, who also manages a Christmas tree factory in Jinhua, said she was just notified by an important U.S. customer that it is pausing a 3 million yuan ($408,191) order for which she had already spent 400,000 yuan on materials.
She expects that order will soon be cancelled and worries about her business.
"My peers and I rely on U.S. orders to survive," Guo said. "This will inevitably affect a lot of people. No one can escape."
Of course, one of the issues here is that you can't just turn a global supply chain on and off like a light switch. Recall the inflation following the restart of the economy after most COVID restrictions were lifted. There was a sharp surge of demand after the disruption was lifted.
Good for him, jumping on the bandwagon three weeks after the other 500+ law firms signed the amicus brief. Business Insider (via Yahoo) says Trump's DOJ is "getting hammered in court" on this issue.
Editing to add: Though maybe he signed three weeks ago and is only now making the video about it.
Nearly four weeks into a costly global trade war with no end in sight, Mr. Trump is facing a barrage of lawsuits from state officials, small businesses and even once-allied political groups, all contending that the president cannot sidestep Congress and tax virtually any import at levels to his liking.
The lawsuits carry great significance, not just because the tariffs have roiled financial markets and threatened to plunge the United States into a recession. The legal challenges also stand to test Mr. Trump’s claims of expansive presidential power, while illustrating the difficult calculation that his opponents face in deciding whether to fight back and risk retribution.
Ruth, I just want to say how much I appreciate the gift links from the NY Times you provide. I sometimes found it challenging to find reputable sources for overseas news, (though I'm going to have to come back to this one when I'm less sleepy).
Comments
The first was that when Kurt Godel, he of the Incompleteness Theorem, decided to become an American citizen he studied the constitution and found a logical flaw which meant it could descend into authoritarianism and tyranny; luckily for him Einstein went with him to his meeting with the judge testing him, so when Godel began to explain his theory it was brushed aside. I don't know what the flaw was/is but Godel has perhaps been proven correct.
The second is perhaps more hopeful: during the McCarthy era Einstein firmly opposed the witch-hunts and advised people not to comply using the 1st amendment as their reason (rather than the 5th). Einstein viewed McCarthyism as a descent into fascism, but the book's author suggests that it was 'merely' one of the ebbs and flows of excess that happen in democracies, and that the US political system was self-righting and resilient; and of course McCarthyism didn't last for all that long.
I rather hope that both Godel and Einstein were wrong.
The reality is that Trump is waging economic war, with a side helping of assisting a third power to commit war crimes. While we may not be able to do much to counter the second, other than giving real assistance to Ukraine, we can and should accept that the view of the USA as any kind of ally is, at the moment, entirely misplaced.
Economic sanctions and a cultural boycott of Israel would help a bit with one of the two main cases where Trump us supporting war crimes.
One flaw the US constitution definitely does not have is that, unusually for a head of state, the President cannot dismiss Congress, nor disrupted the timing of elections. Obviously state legislatures and the courts can be helpful in subverting the democratic process, but as I understand it only a constitutional amendment can change the timings.
I'd always thought that having elections to the House every two years was a bizarre, but perhaps this isn't a flaw after all
Yes. The American government is no longer our friend, and that fact is slowly beginning to gain some acceptance here.
Yes, it means Reps are constantly running and constantly fundraising, but it also means we might be able to flip the House next year. Unless voter suppression gets the better of us.
In other news, Trump threatened to pull a couple of billion in federal grants from Harvard if they didn't agree to what would essentially be a takeover of the institution, and they said no. In response, he said their tax-exempt status should be revoked.
The IRS investigated All Saints Pasadena during the George W. Bush years for a sermon the rector gave in the lead-up to the 2004 election, an investigation that was clearly politically motivated given how many churches host political candidates during election campaigns and never get investigated. I suppose a weaponized IRS could investigate Harvard and revoke its tax-exempt status, since we're no longer operating under the rule of law here.
Deliberately left off the tariff list, you can bet the new system is going to take a very long time to be put in place. And surely its just a coincidence that they just happen to be vital to the production of advanced defence equipment?
I'm not convinced it's a good idea for anyone to treat Trump in a civilized way. He's dismantling the rule of law in the US. We are well on our way to becoming an authoritarian state. He's sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a gulag in El Salvador with no due process, and he's talking about doing the same to citizens. He should be impeached in the House, convicted in the Senate, and then stand trial for all the other shit he's done.
The problem is that if leaders from other countries don’t treat him civilly he has an excuse to hit back harder. He can moan to his base about things not being fair again. Leaders are in a Catch 22 situation. I hope the second part of your paragraph comes true.
This is the point. It's not "just Trump", although I'm sure the prospect of his rich buddies and fanatical supporters threatening to run primaries against "disloyal" Republicans tends to quash dissent. All the Republicans share responsibility for the current administration and its actions. They should all pay the price for it.
Not that I’m holding my breath.
He was in the US legally (because it was unsafe to return him to El Salvador...) but he is not a citizen (though his wife and child are).
Regards, the midterm election, I think Trump knows the Democrats will regain control of at least the House and he will be impeached once again. He hopes he will not be convicted by the Senate, though.
The order, written by Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, begins: The full order can be read here.
While I was practicing, I appeared in front of Judge Wilkinson a number of times. He is definitely conservative (he was appointed to the court by Reagan), but he also has a strong sense of the role of the judiciary and he does not suffer fools lightly.
Consistent with some recent comments in this thread, the order included this toward the end:
The whole order is pretty scathing and is worth a read. I’m reluctant to expect too much of the current Supreme Court, but I suspect the administration’s approach to, and disrespect of, the federal judiciary isn’t working to Trump’s favor among those who’ll be deciding all the lawsuits challenging his actions.
He's already doing so, isn't he? The only question is what happens when a judge starts pushing contempt.
I think it’s quite possible that when push comes to shove, he will defy a SCOTUS ruling. The Fourth Circuit seemed to think it a real possibility, too, as their order concluded with this:
So yeah, I think they see where this is headed unless something changes.
The real question for me is whether Trump explicitly defying a ruling of the Supreme Court will constitute a step too far for enough people on Capitol Hill; whether it does or not might turn on what the holding is about.
We may soon find out. The US Supreme Court has ordered a pause to the deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador. Only Thomas and Alito dissented.
I may be wrong but I would have thought the Posse Comitatus Act would make that illegal, before even getting to constitutionality.
At 1 o'clock in the morning. The NY Times has a piece saying SCOTUS would normally have waited for the Fifth Circuit to rule and then invited the government to respond by a certain deadline.
No. Trump does not recognize duty, or honesty, or honor. None of these things have any meaning for him. He is a creature of the deal, and will adopt whatever posture or position he thinks is likely to lead to a more favorable outcome for him.
There’s not a single answer here, though I think the general thrust of any answer is “it typically doesn’t go well.” There are various possibilities:
So, that’s what I can think of.
Of course, one of the issues here is that you can't just turn a global supply chain on and off like a light switch. Recall the inflation following the restart of the economy after most COVID restrictions were lifted. There was a sharp surge of demand after the disruption was lifted.
Editing to add: Though maybe he signed three weeks ago and is only now making the video about it.
Yes I saw this. I have been following his stuff on Trump’s actions.