Trump's 2025 Plans For Immigration

 What to expect from a second Trump presidency was horrifyingly laid out by his principal henchman, Stephen Miller, as detailed in the NYTimes article. It will be nothing less than a re-enactment of the Third Reich, including mass roundups, conducted by the military, mass incarceration without benefit of due process and governance by handpicked sycophants who have no regard for the Constitution or rule of law.

The mass deportation of "undesirables“planned by the Trump team are reminiscent of Hitler’s initial policy which later devolved into “The Final Solution “.
Trump anticipates that his remaking of the judiciary will facilitate his assault on democracy and, in any event, expects that the sheer number of his victims will overwhelm and render ineffective those who would defend them.
In the chilling words of Mr. Miller, “Bottom line, President Trump will do whatever it takes.”

Supreme Court Seems Likely to Disarm Domestic Abusers

 

During the argument of a case raising the issue of whether a domestic abuser has a constitutional right to possess a gun, Justice Amy Coney Barrett is recorded as saying,“I’m so confused.“ No wonder. It’s because she and her conservative colleagues recently, in the Bruen case, created an absurd test for determining whether a law regulating the carrying of a gun violates the Second Amendment. Legislators and judges, in weighing whether such a law is constitutional, must now do historical research to  uncover similar laws adopted in the 1700s or 1800s. Should none be found, as is virtually true in every instance, the new law, however reasonable or necessary, must be struck down.
In the wake of continuous mass shootings the justices now seem to be searching for way out of the untenable situation they have created without abandoning the unworkable test they have adopted. Apparently, the Court is ready to carve out an exception for persons deemed to be “dangerous”. That is not a useful resolution and will only add to the confusion. The Court should acknowledge its error and formulate a rational test for implementing the Second Amendment.

Justices' Commitment To Gun Rights Faces A Challenging Test

 Ever since the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment, as granting virtually every person an almost unfettered right to possess an arsenal of automatic weaponry, this nation has suffered a bloodbath of mass murder on a daily basis.  Invoking the rubric of "strict construction", the conservative majority of the Court has fashioned a constitutional test which makes it almost impossible for legislatures to adopt sane laws protecting against gun violence or allowing lower courts to uphold such measures.

According to Justice Thomas and his cohorts, if there is no evidence that the founding generation adopted such regulations they cannot pass constitutional muster. The absurdity of that approach is self-evident. The founders were dealing with muskets, not machineguns and mass murder was limited to warfare; it was not a fact of daily existence.

Now the Court is about to make a new ruling that will either enable gun violence to spin further out of control or allow for some enforcement of sensible gun regulation. The issue: can a state prohibit a domestic abuser from possessing firearms? How do you think this Court is likely to decide?

Democrats Are Their Own Worst Enemies

 In her column Pamela Paul warns Democrats that they are losing support because the party has “disconnected from the priorities, needs and values of many Americans “. Ms. Paul appears to argue that the cultural values of an elite minority, on such issues as race, gender ideology, immigration and climate are too progressive for a majority of Americans who resent having such values imposed. If Democrats are to stop the bleeding, Ms. Paul counsels, they must focus on delivering what the people want.

That is the thinking that currently characterizes MAGA Republicans. Never mind what is right, just and equitable. Principles and constitutional respect be damned. What is important is the retention of political power even at the cost of environmental extinction or catering to residual bigotry.
Adherence to principle may be an electoral disability but true leaders take that risk. Surrendering to the baser instincts of the electorate, in pursuit of power, cannot be the template for a principled political party and is no way to govern a nation.

Seeking Lawyers to Bless Trump's Full Ambition

 

If ever there was a red flag warning against imminent disaster the article in the NYTimes tops the list. The Trump team is drawing up a list of candidates who will willingly do Trump’s bidding should he win a second term as president. Trump surrogates are looking for lawyers to serve in high office who will follow orders even if that means burning the Constitution. The next Trump White House and agency heads will be staffed by acolytes who have neither the fortitude nor inclination to preserve the rule of law or protect our democracy from Trump’s tyrannical designs.
If the American people fail to reject Trump’s attempt to regain and unlawfully retain presidential power, the great experiment that is American democracy will come to an inglorious end

Why Unions Are Good For America

 Nicholas Kristof makes a compelling case for the proposition that unions have been the driving force in lifting the economic standards of American workers, both union and nonunion. He acknowledges that unions helped to equalize somewhat the sharing of the national pie by those at the bottom of the economic ladder, including Black workers, and won benefits like health care and vacations, benefits essential to human contentment. Mr. Kristof rightly condemns union busting by courts and legislators which deprived workers of a path to the middle class and contributed to the decline in union membership. This has led to despair, addiction, and family crises.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kristof fails to mention the most egregious consequence of disappearing unions. When the working class feels unfairly treated and robbed of its dignity and has lost the power to redress its grievances by collective bargaining and striking, history teaches that the resort is to violent revolution or support for tyranny. We are currently witnessing just such a turn; the blue-collar class has been persuaded by a would-be tyrant that he alone can address its concerns and even the playing field. While other factors, including an underlying racism, contribute to this phenomenon, the decline of unions is a major cause.

Definition of Graft Is Key in Menendez Case

 

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously defined obscenity as follows; “I know it when I see it”. It is time for the Supreme Court to apply that same commonsensical approach to the definition of official corruption. Instead of excusing politicians who accept lavish gifts in exchange for favors, like arranging meetings, making appointments, and attempting to influence government decision making, as merely engaging in routine “constituent services“, the Court should take its cue from Justice Stewart. Justice Stewart used his eyes; the current Court should use its nose. When it comes to defining official corruption, the justices should “know it when they smell it”.