The bottom line is: If the economy and the government were working the way it should for most Americans, a guy like Donald Trump and a movement like Trumpism would not have been possible.
This week's featured posts are "What to Learn (and not Learn) from Trump’s Tariff Blunders" and "Reclaiming the Spirit of '75".
This week everybody was talking about tariffs
That's the subject of one featured post, in which I express the hope that we can have a debate more nuanced than just Trump's tariffs vs. free trade.
and Abrego Garcia
This much has been established in court: There was a court order that Kilmar Abrego Garcia not be sent back to El Salvador, his country of origin. The Trump administration violated that order due to an "administrative error", so he is currently in the harsh Cecot prison, which is widely acknowledged to be a hellhole.
In a sane judicial system dealing with a sane administration, the next step would be obvious: You violated a court order, so get back into compliance with it, i.e., bring Abrego Garcia back to the US.
What should happen to him then is a matter for other proceedings to establish. Whatever evidence DoJ may or may not have against him, whether he committed some crime or belongs to a foreign gang or whatever, is just not relevant at this point. Bring him back, and then we can talk about those other issues in a court where he can face his accusers and defend himself.
You know: human rights.
So a federal judge did the common-sense thing: issued an order demanding Abrego Garcia's return by a date that has already passed. Trump's lawyers appealed that order and the Supreme Court more-or-less upheld it: It did not demand that Abrego Garcia be returned by a particular date, but instructed the administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return. It sent the case back to the district court to work out the details.
Then the district judge did another common-sense thing: held a hearing where he asked the government how it planned to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. The government stonewalled the judge, and now says "facilitate" only means that it remove barriers to Abrego Garcia returning, should El Salvador decide (on its own) to release him.
Presumably, the district judge will have to issue another order, which the government will appeal to the Supreme Court. At that point, what should have been obvious the last time will be doubly obvious: the Trump administration is not dealing with the court in good faith. It should have no claim on the "deference" or "respect" a good-faith administration would receive from the Court. Whether this Supreme Court's partisan-hack majority will see it that way is an open question.
The significance of this case should be obvious to any thinking person: If Trump can send someone to El Salvadoran prison illegally, and then just say "oops" when the "mistake" is pointed out, then he can make anybody disappear.
I assume someone at my level -- a blogger with only a few thousand subscribers -- is beneath their notice. But I write things Trump wouldn't like if he bothered to read them. If he threw a tantrum and decided to order my removal to Cecot prison, what would stop him? How would anyone bring me back?
In thinking about Cecot, I encourage you to read the history of Hitler's first concentration camp: Dachau. Originally, it was a temporary place to put political dissidents. But once a black hole exists, it has many uses that an authoritarian regime can't help but notice. Why let anyone out, ever? Why not put Jews there, and homosexuals, and Gypsies? Once they are out of public view, why not turn them into slave labor or run medical experiments on them? Why not kill them?
Trump supporters accuse people like me of being hysterical when we make comparisons between Cecot and Dachau. Sure, Cecot is nothing like the final-solution death camp Dachau had become by the time American soldiers liberated it 80 years ago this month. But it bears a striking resemblance to the original Dachau of 1933.
In other legal news, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia student who participated in the protests against Israel's war in Gaza (and appears to have done nothing else "wrong"), can be deported on the say-so of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
There is no indication that Congress contemplated an immigration judge or even the attorney general overruling the secretary of state on matters of foreign policy.
An appeal is expected.
and the spirit of '75
250 years ago, Americans rebelled against one-man rule. Another featured post expresses the hope that we can do so again.
and Trump vs. the environment
I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn that Trump administration policy tends to be pro-pollution and anti-environment. This week, however, Trump signed executive orders that slap in the face anyone who cares about the future of the climate.
One order, which uses scare quotes whenever mentioning "climate change", orders the attorney general to identify and challenge in court
all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices (collectively, State laws) burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources that are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable. The Attorney General shall prioritize the identification of any such State laws purporting to address “climate change” or involving “environmental, social, and governance” initiatives, “environmental justice,” carbon or “greenhouse gas” emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.
Environmental groups report being "outraged", but the order strikes me as being more about putting on a show for Trump's fossil-fuel donors (as well as "owning the libs") than producing actual change. The order itself takes no action, but only instructs the Justice Department to take action, adding its weight to court challenges that fossil fuel companies have already launched. It will subsidize these lawsuits with tax dollars, but fossil fuel companies don't lack for money or lawyers.
Grist points to some of the targeted state laws, and provides links to longer explanations:
That directive almost certainly includes the climate superfund laws that New York and Vermont recently passed. The statutes require fossil fuel companies to pay damages for their emissions, a move the executive order deems “extortion.”
Separate executive orders announced at the same time
attempt to prevent some Biden-era policies from going into effect that would have caused the shuttering of dozens of American coal plants; support policies promoting the continued incorporation of coal and fossil-fuel forms of energy into the grid; and direct the Department of Justice to investigate state policies that may illegally or unconstitutionally “[discriminate] against coal” and “secure sources of energy.”
Again, such orders may win the votes of coal miners, troll environmentalists, and ensure that fossil-fuel money keeps rolling in to Republican coffers, but it should have little long-term effect on the coal industry. Coal isn't just a victim of government policy, it's being phased out by the market, because it has become more expensive than not only natural gas, but also sustainable energy sources.
Nearly all U.S. coal-fired power plants are more expensive to run than new, local wind, solar and energy storage resources, according to a January 2023 report from Energy Innovation. ... Capstone [a private energy consulting group] doubts any company will seek DOE loan guarantees for new coal-fired power projects. “We are skeptical the private sector will chase funding targeting coal assets beyond potential assistance for coal-to-gas switching,” said the research firm
and you also might be interested in ...
Trump calls on the FCC to revoke CBS' license to broadcast, because he doesn't think 60 Minutes treats him fairly.
If you're wondering what kind of mischief the Trump administration might do with the government databases, here's an example: The WaPo reports that
the Social Security Administration purposely and falsely labeled 6,100 living immigrants as dead ... eliminating their ability to legally earn wages and, officials hoped, spurring them to leave the country. ... Greg Pearre, who oversaw a staff of hundreds of technology experts ... told [Musk-appointed Chief Information Officer Scott] Coulter that the plan was illegal, cruel and risked declaring the wrong people dead.
Security guards came and escorted Pearre out of the building.
After his removal from his office this week, he was placed on paid leave, possibly severing his 25-year career.
Whoever has control of the SSA database can declare anyone dead.
The White House told The Post that the roughly 6,000 immigrants all have links to either terrorist activity or criminal records. The official did not provide evidence of the alleged crimes or terrorist ties but said some are included on an FBI terror watch list. The immigrants added to the death database include a 13-year-old, a 14-year-old and two 16-year-olds — as well as one person in their 80s and a handful in their 70s, according to records obtained by The Post.
As I pointed out above in the note on the Abrego Garcia case, if they can do this, they can do it to anybody. Social Security says you're dead, so no one can employ you.
and let's close with something adorable
The news has been rough this week. If you've made it this far, you deserve an otter video.
No comments:
Post a Comment