• 1 Post
  • 72 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 14th, 2023

help-circle



  • I didn’t think I’d ever agree with Hawley

    Hawley represents the future of the Republican party, in my opinion: populist conservatism that is willing to bend on party orthodoxy on how taxes and regulations shouldn’t be captured by big corporate interests, but is just completely abhorrent on cultural issues (and whether the government should be involved in those issues).

    In an earlier political era, there would be opportunities for cross-party dialogue on the issues that the parties have deemed non-partisan (where divisions don’t fall within party lines and party leadership doesn’t care that their members hold a diversity of views on), but the number of issues that fall within that category have plummeted in the last 20 years.


  • Republicans killed a COVID era $3600/year child tax credit, letting it lapse in 2023 back to the 2018 amount of $2000, which was increased from $1000 as a replacement for the $5050 tax exemption parents used to be able to get before the 2017 Trump tax reforms. For a married couple whose combined income was between $75k and $150k, that $5k tax exemption was worth about $1250, so it was a bad trade for them (or anyone making more).

    If Republicans were serious about financially incentivizing having children, they’ll need to support the kids throughout the entire life cycle: healthcare for pregnant women, including through labor and deliver and post partum, support for families with young children (including parental leave mandates), subsidized daycare, good schools, parks and libraries, and economic stability (including in housing costs).

    But they’re not, so here we are.










  • He’s fired a bunch of lower level officials.

    His pick for acting US Attorney for SDNY (basically Manhattan) was fired a few weeks later for refusing to drop charges against Eric Adams.

    The acting IRS commissioner has changed over 5 times in the 90 days of this current presidency, including the most recent firing of a guy that was too close to Elon (in some kind of Bessent-Musk feud), just a few days after his appointment. The previous acting commissioner was fired for refusing to illegally share IRS data with DHS to help with immigration enforcement.

    And the current turmoil in the Pentagon is the firings of people he appointed to these positions. It’s a mess.







  • shows how you know this,

    Ok, where to begin. I’m a lawyer with decades of experience, including with the occasional case that involves the government. I know how to read a case and follow the news from an informed perspective, and I recognize the individual traits/characteristics/background of the judges involved. There’s not one place to read it, but let’s try.

    Here’s a litigation tracker that updates on all the big lawsuits trying to rein in Trump’s lawlessness:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

    CTRL+F “Abrego Garcia” for the rundown of Kilmar’s case. “Update 5” describes the appellate court’s decision not to stay the district court’s order to “facilitate and effectuate,” and contains a link to the opinion, which includes Judge Wilkinson’s concurrence that “facilitate” is a legal order but “effectuate” might exceed the court’s power to order the government to do specific things in foreign policy matters. The Supreme Court agreed that “facilitate” was a lawful order, but told the district court to make sure it doesn’t overstep by ordering “effectuation” in a way that infringes on the President’s constitutional powers.

    Judge Wilkinson is a Reagan appointee who is widely regarded as a superstar in the Republican party, in Federalist Society circles. He was an influential thinker and jurist on conservative causes, and clerking for him as a first job out of law school is a marker of an up and coming conservative lawyer superstar. Many of those clerks went on to clerk for Scalia, Roberts, etc. Clerking for him remains a fairly prominent part of the pipeline for future Republican judges and politicians.

    Yesterday, he wrote the majority opinion for the Fourth Circuit that makes very clear that the government’s position is “shocking” and a threat to “the foundation of our constitutional order.”

    The work continues. This is just one case. All the other cases will have different results, but Trump isn’t going to win all of them, and each Trump loss draws blood, while his lack of focus means that he’ll continue to make unforced errors while opening new fronts to fight on: Gulf of Mexico, Greenland, Tariffs, picking a fight with the chair of the Federal Reserve, flip flopping on which federal programs or contracts to cut, all the different mistakes in administration, etc.

    I’m not on board with doomerism or even accelerationism. I think there’s still a fight to be had in the legal arena, and I still think our side can win there. Watching how the cases are playing out confirms that the other side believes it, too. Otherwise, why would they be fighting this hard?


  • Alaska is just weird, and I wouldn’t attribute too much in national electoral trends to that specific state. It now has an instant runoff general election after a top-4 jungle primary, which makes the craziest candidates less viable. Sarah Palin is very much a Trumpist, but couldn’t win a statewide election in 2022 (enough Republicans in the state hate her that they voted for Begich first, then flipped to the Democrat or didn’t vote once Begich dropped out in the instant runoff).

    It’d be hard to properly analyze a hypothetical about Murkowski running for reelection amidst a Trump attack campaign and an endorsement of a more Trumpist opponent, but I wouldn’t discount her chances even in that environment. Especially if she does succeed in forming a mini caucus with other Republican Senators that fight to preserve legislative power to check the Presidency.