The Judiciary Act of 1789, Meet 2026

 

On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of (of course) 1789. The act created the office of the Attorney General, laid out the structure of the federal judiciary system, and set the composition of the Supreme Court at six members: a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices ... who were - then as now - not bound by any of the ethical rules which bind other judges. The fact that there are now nine members on the court ought to be a reminder that the size of the court and the qualifications of its members are not mandated in the Constitution ... which gives that responsibility to Congress (see Article III, Section 1). Whether Congress is up to the task is subject to question.

The Supreme Court's hard right turn under Der Furor has reinvigorated the periodic calls for reform of the court. Conservatives, in the ascendency (for the moment), strongly oppose any changes to the makeup of the court and the laws under which it operates. "Liberals" (a term with little meaning at the moment), seeing the court's willingness to erode basic rights and empower a president with dictatorial dreams, are pushing for reforms.

The last meaningful attempt to look at Supreme Court reforms was carried out by the presidential commission established by then-President Joe Biden with Executive Order 14023*. The commission published its final report on December 8, 2021, laying out several categories of reform and analyzing specific measures to address each. The commission and its report generated much attention and no action, other than the publication (under duress) on November 13, 2023 of the 15-page "Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States," issued by Chief Justice Roberts ... probably in order to avoid having Congress actually draft a stronger one on its own.

The Roberts court has proven itself willing to ignore settled law in favor of conservative principles and wishes, and has shown a willingness to use the so-called "shadow docket" to issue decisions without needing to spell out the legal and historical rationales for them. This leaves the inferior courts without clear guidance to follow in order to decide other cases which may be affected by those decisions.

Concern over the direction and behavior of the Supreme Court led the Brennan Center for Justice to issue a detailed study in April of this year titled "Six Solutions to Fix the Supreme Court." The recommended solutions were:

Enact 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. Lifetime assignments to the court make it virtually impossible to remove corrupt or mentally declining justices, particularly when Congress is dominated by a single ideological bloc unwilling to impeach justices it favors. Hard term limits are a must.

Hold justices to the highest ethical standards. The fact that there is no formal, binding code of ethics for Supreme Court justices, as there is for every other judge and justice in the country, is ridiculous. This should be a no-brainer.

Curb abuses of the shadow docket. The court is, as its name suggests, "supreme," and the weight of its decisions requires it to provide sound legal reasoning to guide lower courts and give the public confidence that decisions have been clearly and rationally arrived at. 

Fast-track Congress’s response to rulings. It's not enough for the court to decide - Congress often needs to produce legislation to implement the rulings ... which, given the speed of Congressional action, can take far too long. Such action needs to take priority in Congress to ensure that the court's decisions are implemented in law as soon as possible.

Improve the confirmation process. As we saw with the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, the process is a laughable farce. 

Allow cameras in the courtroom. I'm okay with this one, but I don't think it would be as effective as its supporters think.

All of these are important and should be implemented, but I would add three other measures as well:

Expand the court to 13 members. A larger bench will allow the court to hear more cases and give the appropriate amount of time and deliberation to each;

Hear and decide cases using panels of seven or nine randomly-assigned justices. Randomly assigning justices to panels for each case will reduce the chance that an ideological bloc can impose a particular viewpoint on decisions; and,

Stagger the term limits of the justices to allow each president to nominate the same number of justices per term. I believe the math can work if the court is expanded and the term limits staggered. This would prevent problems such as we have now, where Der Furor was able - with blatant political chicanery and the support of a compliant Senate - to stack the court with ideologues.

The decline in respect for the Supreme Court as it seems willing to empower a dictatorial presidency should scare every thinking American. It is long past time for Congress to revisit the Judiciary Act of 1789 in light of the radically changed environment of 2026. Now would be a good time to write to your elected reprehensives and suggest they get on with it when they're not too busy raising money and running for reelection.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo 

* Good luck finding it, as the Federal Register is now protected by an impenetrable CAPTCHA wall. Chances are that it was rescinded by Der Furor, anyhow.

Lawfare

You've probably heard the term lawfare, defined as "(noun) 1. the strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent; 2. the use of the law by a country against its enemies, esp by challenging the legality of military or foreign policy." It is also the name of a popular website presenting essays on the use of law for political, military, and policy purposes. 

Lawfare is indeed a thing, and it's being used every day by a government weaponized against its citizens by a president and a party that used to complain bitterly about a government they believed was weaponized against them, simply because they chose to ignore inconvenient laws. 

In a representative democracy, the sort that we used to have, laws exist to protect the rights of the citizens and provide a stable legal environment in which business can flourish. But the law by itself is the proverbial double-edged sword: it tells us what we are allowed to do, but it does not tell us what we should do.

Consider the rush in Texas to conduct an out-of-constitutional-cycle gerrymander of congressional districts to favor Republican candidates. This blatant attempt to cement a congressional Republican majority had a predictable tit-for-tat result, with populous (and solidly blue) California threatening to gerrymander its own districts if Texas does so, in order to ensure perpetual Democratic seats and cancel out the Republican advantage. 

The Supreme Court has ruled (Rucho v Common Cause, 18-422, June 27, 2019) that gerrymandering for political advantage is legal ... odious and undemocratic, perhaps, but nevertheless legal. Considered in light of the actions of Texas and California, it demonstrates lawfare at both the state and the federal level. And I would argue that lawfare is what is replacing the rule of law that once made America unique.

The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are engraved over the entrance to the Supreme Court ...

... and yet we see that justice is hardly equal. As an example, look at the case of the man recently arrested and charged with felony assault for throwing a sandwich* at a Customs and Border Patrol agent last week. A federal judge permitted assault charges to be filed after a local judge declined to press charges; the man is currently free on bail and faces up to eight years in prison. You may recall that Der Furor has pardoned and lionized dozens of individuals who vandalized the Capitol, savagely beat police officers (with an American flag on a pole, no less), and attempted to overthrow the results of the 2024 election in the January 6th riot.

Who's weaponizing the government against whom?

Der Furor is the most litigious president in our history. He has spent his entire career using the law as a weapon, deploying battalions of lawyers to tie up his opponents in costly and time-consuming litigation, the goal of which is often less to win than to financially ruin his targets. He recently sued the Wall Street Journal for a staggering $10 billion dollars over the newspaper's report that his name was on a 2003 birthday greeting for Jeffrey Epstein that included a sexually suggestive drawing and a reference to secrets they shared. He has sued individuals and businesses relentlessly for decades, never admitting guilt or fault even when judgements go against him. His immediate reaction to any loss is to appeal, and to carry those appeals to the highest possible court, using his time-honored strategy of Deny, Deflect, and Delay. His strategy of endless delays and appeals is intended to wear down his opponents, and proves the truth of the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. And you can only imagine how much good could be done with the time, money, and energy expended on his frivolous lawfare.

It's no secret that I detest Der Furor and despise the class of lawyers willing to enable him and his like. If Der Furor is lawfare's commanding general, the divisions of amoral lawyers who conduct lawfare on his behalf are its foot soldiers.

And we are its collateral damage.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Some commentators suggested that the man be charged with "assault with a deli weapon."

P.S. - in case you're interested, the illustration I used in today's post was generated by my request to Chat GPT to draw me a picture of a weapon made out of the Constitution. I thought it was appropriate to the topic.

"Bonanza" Meets Der Furor

It's no secret that Der Furor and his advisors have a hugely expansive view of presidential power and authority, centered in their theory of the Unitary Executive*. But perhaps recognizing that kingly powers rooted in a "because I said so" theory of governance might not fare well in courts which rely on precedent and actual evidence, administration lawyers have been seeking out laws still on the books** which were enacted for particular times and sets of conditions, but could be repurposed to meet the political needs of the present. New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote about this in a recent article in which he quoted associate professor of law at the Northern Illinois University College of Law Evan Bernick, who wrote, 

“This administration is excavating statutes that have no business being on the books in their current form at all. It’s abusing them, sure, but they should not exist to be abused.”

When I read Mr Bouie's article, I was reminded of a funny episode of the old TV series Bonanza, about the adventures of the Cartwright family on Nevada's Ponderosa Ranch in the late 1800s. In the 1969 episode titled "Another Windmill to Go," an eccentric Englishman named Don Q. Hought was found rowing a horse-drawn rowboat across the Ponderosa ... 

Everyone thought he was crazy until he filed a lawsuit claiming ownership of the ranch, based on an old grazing law - still on the books - which allowed a man to claim ownership of as much land as he could row across in a given period of time. Of course, he never got the Ponderosa, but his point was not to actually get the ranch, but to expose the potential for abuse of a silly, obscure, outdated law.  

I don't know how far we have to row to expose the abuse of outdated laws, but I hope we find out and do it quickly. 

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow, when we crown the Right-Cheek Ass Clown for the month. See you then.

Bilbo

* What we used to call a "king" in more thoughtful times. I wrote about this in a post back in May of this year.

** Such as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (50 USC Chapter 3, §21-24) and the Insurrection Act of 1807 (10 USC §251-255). Both are so loosely written as to be ripe for abuse by a weak yet power-hungry president seeking to project an image of strength. 

The Cost of Justice

It's no secret that competent, expert legal advice is expensive. There are lots of jokes about lawyers charging fees based on the "billable hour" - which might be as short as ten minutes, depending on how the attorney in question defines it - and those hours don't come cheap. After all, lawyers are trained specialists in an arcane subject that few of us understand but all of us live under. You wouldn't want a PhD microbiologist to repair your computer, would you?

Although I despise the legal profession in general as a result both of bad personal experience and the demonstrated venality of lawyers serving the ill bidding of Der Furor, I understand that lawyers are a necessary evil. What really bothers me at this point in time is the cost of the law - on both sides - to the nation.

Since Der Furor took office on January 20th of this year, courts across the country have been buried under an avalanche of lawsuits, countersuits, appeals, appeals of appeals, and general legal detritus. Much of it consists of various litigants suing to counter the worst excesses of Der Furor and his quasi-governmental DOGE entity, and much of the rest of it consists of the Orange Airhorn's long-recognized practice of dragging out every legal challenge until everyone involved is either broke or dies of old age. The Lawfare website actually has a [Der Furor] Administration Litigation Tracker to 

"... track legal challenges to the [Der Furor] administration’s executive actions that deal with national security issues, as well as cases on behalf of the [Der Furor] administration to enforce them." 

When I began drafting this post on the morning of May 30th, the tracker listed 324 separate lawsuits filed either against or by the administration. May 30th was the 150th day of 2025 and the 119th day of Der Furor's presidency ... meaning that for each of those 119 days, an average of 2.7 legal actions has been initiated. Consider what this means ...

Each of these lawsuits is being argued by platoons of lawyers on each side. Each of those lawyers is, of course, being paid*. Those on the government side are being paid by you and I through our taxes, and are probably being paid less than they could make in private practice. Those on the other side are being paid for by individuals and groups opposed to the actions of the administration. According to US News, the average annual salary for an attorney in the United States in 2025 is $145,760. 

Think for a moment about the amount of money being spent on all those lawyers chasing all those lawsuits across the length and breadth of government. Think for a moment about the amount of time courts at all levels are tied in knots with suits, countersuits, motions, appeals, appeals of appeals, or whatever. What does that mean for the availability of court time for an average American seeking legal recourse? And what does it mean for the money that could have been spent on things like education, public health, protection of citizens from predatory commercial actors, the scientific research for which the United States used to be renowned, etc, etc?

I could write more, but I'm too disgusted, and I think you should be, too.

Demand more of your government but - under this administration - expect less, at higher cost.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Unless they work for one of the law firms blackmailed by royal decree executive order, now forced to do pro bono work for Der Furor.

Contempt

As Der Furor's "One Big Beautiful Bill" slithers its way toward near-certain approval by a politically neutered Congress, there's been a huge amount of discussion about its effect on tax rates, the national debt, and the ability of the federal government to provide the protections and services Americans have come to expect. It's clear that the bulk of the tax cuts will benefit corporate America and the wealthiest citizens, and that those cuts will be paid for (to the extent they are) by reductions that will disproportionately fall on the middle and lower classes. What's less clear is what else might be buried in the thousand-plus pages of the bill*.

Alert readers have noted that the bill includes this measure:

"No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section."

What does this complex and opaque language mean? Reduced to basic terms, it would forbid courts from finding administration officials to be in contempt of court when they ignore judicial rulings.

Contempt of Court is a fairly simple concept. Essentially, it is what gives teeth to judicial actions, ensuring that failure to abide by a court's instructions will have negative consequences. If a traffic court levies a fine on you and you fail to pay it, you can be found to be in contempt of court and punished. If a divorce court orders you to pay child support and you don't do it, you can be found to be in contempt of court and punished. But if the One Big Beautiful Bill passes as written, no one in government can be held in contempt for ignoring a legal judgement. 

That's bad, but it comes on top of an earlier slap at the rule of law, which states that there is one person who already cannot be held in contempt** - the president. According to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Trump v. United States,

"... the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."

You may be excused for wondering how far the president's "core constitutional powers" extend. Does he have a core constitutional power to accidentally deport someone to a grim prison in El Salvador and refuse to bring him home once a court orders him to do so? Does he have a core constitutional power to eliminate agencies established by Congress? Does he have a core constitutional power to use his authority to attack individuals, law firms, and universities or to spew out childish, often nearly incomprehensible social media posts?

When I went to school, shortly after the dinosaurs died out, our civics classes*** taught us about quaint concepts like checks and balances and the rule of law.  

I wish they still did. And that more people cared.

Have a good day, and hope that honor, dignity, and common sense prevail to eliminate the protection-from-contempt provision from the bill. The country is ours to save.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* The "One Big Beautiful Bill" is an example of what Republicans used to detest as an "omnibus bill," one that consolidated a large number of individual measures into a bill so long and detailed that nobody really understood what was in it. Times change.

** Of court, anyhow.

*** Do we even have civics education any more? And if they do, I wonder if they teach the same lessons in red and blue states.

Law Day, 2025

Today, May 1st, is observed around the world in a number of ways. It is observed as Labor Day or International Workers Day in much of the world, National Chocolate Parfait Day by those who love chocolate, and School Principals' Day by educators. But more important at the moment is that today is observed in the United States as Law Day.

The idea for Law Day was introduced by The American Bar Association in 1957, and in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed Law Day to be observed each year on May 1. Congress made Law Day official when it passed Joint Resolution 87-20 on April 7, 1961. Law Day encourages all Americans to reflect the role of law in the foundation of the country and the importance it has on our society, and to reflect on the personal rights and liberties we enjoy and exercise every day.

One of the major reasons for the success of the United States as a nation in its first 249 years has been its reliance on the Rule of Law - a set of enforceable, reliable rules of government and civic behavior that gave certainty to national civic life. Those rules allowed businesses to plan for the long term and citizens to know that they were free to live their lives without arbitrary and capricious interference from a king who could decide on the fly what the law said and how it was enforced. 

That was then. This is now.

Today, the Rule of Law is endangered as an autocratic president employs an expansive view of his power to define and wield (or to ignore) the law in his quest to reshape the government and the economy as he wishes. Individuals (including American citizens) are rounded up and summarily deported, often to prisons in foreign countries, without the due process the law requires. A well-functioning, if not perfect, economy has been wrecked by the wholesale implementation of the same economic policies that had already wrecked it once before. The Department of Justice has been turned into the weapon that conservatives always whined about, now targeted at those who oppose the administration's policies. Congress has abdicated its Constitutional responsibility to make the laws, allowing a wannabe tyrant to rule by royal decree executive order. Laws intended to protect minorities and right historical wrongs are nullified as "woke" or "DEI" (meaning, unfavorable to white men).

If you haven't read Der Furor's royal decree executive order of April 28, 2025, titled "Strengthening and  Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens," take a moment now to do it. Read it a second time if you're not terrified of its implications.

On this Law Day, it's worthwhile to reflect on the American promise of "equal justice under law," and whether those noble words engraved on the Supreme Court building have any meaning when a president not only refuses to acknowledge them, but actually ignores them. 

On this Law Day, we must acknowledge the staggering level of corruption in Der Furor's administration, and ask ourselves why we - through our elected representatives - let it happen. 

On this Law Day, we must ask ourselves why Congress is missing in action in the face of incipient tyranny. 

On this Law Day, we must ask ourselves why we have ignored the same abuses of power that we once staged a revolution over. 

On this Law Day, we must stop asking whether or not we're in a constitutional crisis and admit that we're smack dab in the middle of one, and ask whether or not we're willing to face it.

Legal commentator Joyce Vance has noted that each president issues an official proclamation on Law Day, and that Der Furor's proclamation last year began with these words: “On Law Day, we renew our commitment to the rule of law and our Constitution. The rule of law requires that no one be above the obligations of the law or beneath its protections, and it stands as a bulwark against the arbitrary use of government power.”

The level of hypocrisy of this administration is unbelievable, and on Law Day, we must not let it go unremarked. We must stand up to our national ideals, defend the Rule of Law, and insist that Congress and the Courts do their job to protect the rights that set us apart from many other countries.

As Joyce Vance reminds us, "Until [Der Furor's] administration is over, it has to be Law Day every day.

Have a good day. Defend the Rule of Law that defends you against tyranny.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

The Semantics of Tyranny

One day, many years ago, I was complaining to one of my lawyer friends* about the convoluted wording of a particular document, and I wondered why lawyers couldn't just speak and write in plain English. He explained that lawyers write in this way because every word and phrase they use has a precise, legally-understood-and-agreed-upon meaning that has been settled through decades of litigation and court rulings; thus, I should be happy for the semantic protection that judicial Sanskrit provides through precise definition of terms. 

That was then, this is now.

The legal profession has hardly covered itself in glory as it tries to deal with the challenge of a president and an administration willing (and eager) to push the boundaries of what can be considered ethical, moral, legal, and Constitutional ... it's Left-Cheek Ass Clown Award last Friday was richly deserved, and there's no need to plow that field again. Today, I want to talk about its torture of the language ... about the semantics of tyranny.

Der Furor's Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security are fighting bitterly to keep from having to repatriate Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a man they admit was mistakenly arrested and deported to a prison in El Salvador. 

The State Department relies on the language of diplomacy to claim helplessness because Mr Abrego Garcia is "in the custody of a sovereign nation," unwilling to say "we're paying a tinpot dictator six million dollars to warehouse people we don't like." 

The Justice Department quibbles over the meanings of "facilitate" and "effectuate" as it semantically fences with courts unable to simply say, "you admit you effed up, so bring the unjustly imprisoned man home RIGHT NOW." 

Deputy Assistant to the President and "Counterterrorism Czar" Sebastian Gorka says anyone advocating for due process for Mr. Abrego Garcia could be viewed as "aiding and abetting a terrorist" and be federally charged. 

The "Department of Government Efficiency" boasts of eliminating billions of dollars in fraud and waste, but is unable to provide documentary evidence of anything remotely close to that number. It advertises the termination of wasteful contracts, but does not define why they were wasteful.

The Department of Health and Human Services claims to be making America Healthy again, while pursuing policies that actively undermine public health. 

Der Furor and the Department of State have defined the word person as used in the Constitution to mean "United States Citizen." Curiously, the original text of the Constitution (as signed in 1789) does not include the word citizen. That word does not appear until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." And your government is now attempting to remove that guarantee of birthright citizenship.

I love language and words. But I draw the line at the weaponization of words - the semantics of tyranny - as an increasingly authoritarian government tortures the language until it confesses a message that runs counter to everything our country used to stand for. This marvelously framed photo of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt - a lady wholly unencumbered by honesty and accuracy - pretty much sums things up. 

Have a good day, and remember that words matter. When this administration speaks, listen for what it's really saying.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* There are one or two that I still respect, despite my general detestation of lawyers.

The Left-Cheek Ass Clown for April, 2025

The most dangerous aspect of Der Furor's second shot at the presidency is that there are no longer any adults in the room, no longer any experienced and thoughtful civil servants to give sound advice and protect him (and us) from his worst impulses. He has stocked the administration with yes-people and sycophants who owe their positions not to their competence, but to his need for flattery and total domination. His cabinet contains dangerous conspiracy theorists and unqualified ass-kissers. The Supreme Court has a deeply conservative majority, at least three members* of which have serious ethical compromise issues. Political appointees occupy positions across the government for which many - if not most - are clearly unqualified. The unrestricted, unqualified, and dangerously unsupervised agents of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency work busily at tearing the heart out of what was previously a flawed, but generally well-functioning government. And the Republican majorities in the Senate and House are missing in action, cravenly abdicating their Constitutional responsibilities in deference to the most dangerously unqualified man ever to win the presidency.

Only one potential barrier remains to protect the nation from the appalling damage being inflicted by the present administration ... and it is failing us.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Readers, the dishonor of designation as 

The Left-Cheek Ass Clown for April, 2025

is bestowed upon

The American Legal Profession

Over the last few weeks, nine formerly-powerful legal firms have crumbled in the face of royal decrees executive orders aiming to destroy them for their temerity in representing clients who have in some way opposed Der Furor. They have, in the most cowardly and craven fashion, bent the knee before a dangerous demagogue, agreeing to perform a total of nearly a billion dollars in pro bono work on issues important to the Orange Airhorn ... which will almost surely be detrimental at best, and dangerous at worst to the average American. So far, only one firm has pushed back for the rule of law.

Lawyers representing what nowadays passes for the Department of Justice make ludicrous arguments before skeptical judges, attempting to put legal lipstick on the pig of a terribly weaponized government willing to ignore the Constitution, centuries of legal precedent, and simple morality to satisfy Der Furor's need for revenge and power.

As far as I know (not being a lawyer), an attorney must swear an oath to be admitted to the bar in each state, as well as to serve in a legal capacity for the United States government. You can find a list of the oaths for each state here. This is the oath taken by members of the Federal Bar Association:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States; that I will adhere to, and abide by, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Federal Bar Association; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” 

It is not lost on me that this oath, unlike the oaths required for admission to the bar in nearly every state, does not explicitly require an attorney to exhibit good faith, honesty, and honorable conduct.

I have had utter contempt for the legal profession for many years, based on incompetent representation that once cost my family thousands of dollars and years of avoidable misery. But when huge, powerful law firms fold like cheap card tables in the face of blatantly illegal and unconstitutional threats, leaving the American people at the mercy of a president with dreams of unchecked tyranny, they harm the entire nation, not just a single family. Likewise, when lawyers sworn to uphold the Constitutional guarantees of "liberty and justice for all" deliberately stonewall or ignore court orders and have only the most tenuous relationship with truth and ethical responsibility, none of us is safe.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Readers, the Left-Cheek Ass Clown for April, 2025, is The American Legal Profession. One hopes it can grow a spine and remember its responsibilities before it's too late ... but I'm not holding my breath, and neither should you.

Have a good day, and come back tomorrow for Cartoon Saturday, when we'll visit everybody's favorite good egg, Humpty Dumpty. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, of course.

What Did That Declaration Say, Again?

If you're one of those old enough to remember when we used to learn about actual history, rather than history as interpreted through the filter of MAGA fever dreams, you may recall a document known as The Declaration of Independence. 

This document, written and signed in 1776, detailed the reasons why the American colonies sought independence from a tyrannical king. Here are some of the king's actions cited as reasons for demanding independence ... along with a few present-day observations:

"... cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." Including remote islands inhabited only by penguins?

"... imposing taxes on us without our consent." Tariffs, anyone? Regardless of what Der Furor would like to have you believe, a tariff is a tax that isn't paid by some foreign government, but by you, the consumer.

"... depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Jury trial." Summarily rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants or accused criminals without providing evidence or allowing the accused their Constitutional rights.

"... transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences." Deporting prisoners to El Salvador and refusing to bring them back, even when it admits the rendition was in error.

"... obstruct(ing) the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers." I suppose this also includes ignoring inconvenient laws and legal decisions with which Der Furor does not agree.

"... erect(ing) a multitude of New Offices, and sen(ding) hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." (if this isn't a definition of the so-called "Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)," I don't know what is.

"... combin(ing) with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws." I guess this includes working with the president of El Salvador to establish prisons there for US citizens who incur Der Furor's wrath.

I wonder what the signers of the Declaration of Independence would make of Der Furor's aggressively imperial view of the presidency as a kingship free of interference from the great unwashed and their elected representatives. I expect they're turning in their graves.

Have a good day. Watch what's going on carefully, and know that time is running out to save our  representative democracy.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

What "Weaponization of Government" Actually Looks Like

During the first of Der Furor's stints in the presidency, and throughout the administration of Joe Biden, the endlessly-repeated fever dream of the GOP and the farthest-right orbits of the conservative world was that the federal government had been "weaponized" against them ... that the Biden Justice Department was constantly seeking every possible opportunity to bring down the full weight of the government on the heads of innocent Americans guilty only of opposing the "radical left lunatics" ... as opposed to, say, innocently storming and damaging the Capitol Building and killing several people in the process. 

When they regained power, the Republicans promptly established the United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, under the leadership of firebrand Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, to drill down and prove that the perfidious Democrats had "weaponized" the government against them. By the time the subcommittee was disbanded at the end of the the Congressional session, it had published a report that was long on innuendo and woefully innocent of actual evidence of the alleged weaponization. Proving "weaponization" of the government against conservatives was also a prime focus of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee (also known as the Oversight and Government Reform Committee) under Kentucky Representative James Comer, which relentlessly - if fruitlessly - tried to find evidence of wrongdoing by the Biden administration.

When Der Furor returned to the presidency, one of his first acts was to revitalize the search for the weaponization not found earlier. On his first day in office, Der Furor issued Royal Decree Executive Order 14147, Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government*. He would, by gawd, find the evidence no one had found before.

What has happened since then has shone a light on the actual weaponization of the power of government against opponents and critics.

Consider the following royal decrees executive orders (EOs) cast down from Olympus by Der Furor**:

EO 14250: Addressing Risks From WilmerHale - accusing the law firm (among other things) of "engag(ing) in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, support(ing) efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, back(ing) the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and further(ing) the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote."

 

EO 14246: Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block - accusing the law firm of (among other things) "engag(ing) in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, support(ing) attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and back(ing) the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders."

 

EO 14237: Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss - accusing the law firm of (among other things) "hir(ing) unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney's office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution."

 

EO 14230: Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP - accusing the law firm of (among other things) "undermining democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement, [and] racially discriminat(ing) against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants."

President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks Associated with Miles Taylor - in which Der Furor accuses Mr Taylor of being "a bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his government position, prioritizing his own ambition, personal notoriety, and monetary gain over fidelity to his constitutional oath."

 

President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks from Chris Krebs and Government Censorship - which accuses Mr Krebs by name of being "a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his government authority" through his leadership of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

 

Let's look at this for just a moment, shall we?

 

The President of the United States has issued royal decrees executive orders specifically targeting law firms and individuals against which he has a personal grudge, the EO targeting Paul Weiss being the most obviously blatant ("solely to manufacture a prosecution against me," "unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me"). Mr Krebs' offense was to deny Der Furor's insistence that the 2020 presidential election had been rigged, while Mr Taylor is accused of spreading "falsehoods" and "false narratives" about Der Furor through his writings.

If you're looking for evidence of the "weaponization" of government power against individuals, you now have some spectacularly clear examples. The President of the United States has unilaterally directed specific punitive actions against specific individuals and against law firms guilty of representing clients who have angered Der Furor. Worse, some of the targeted law firms have caved to the pressure, agreeing (in the very definition of "a deal with the devil") to provide millions of dollars of pro bono work on issues near and dear to Der Furor's heart (assuming that a "heart" can actually be found). 

There are dozens of other examples of instances where Der Furor has stripped security clearances from individuals who have angered him, denied White House press access to the Associated Press because it has not wholeheartedly embraced his rebranding of the "Gulf of America," and taken other petulant actions which advance his petty grievances ... while his rudderless mismanagement of the economy threatens both the livelihood of Americans and the entire international economy.

It's interesting, but not surprising, that Republican members of Congress in positions of responsibility (I'm looking at you, Jim Jordan and James Comer) have turned a willfully blind eye to this outrageous, blatantly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral abuse of the power of government. Today's GOP observes the Wizard of Id's version of the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

If you are a full-throated supporter of Der Furor's frighteningly un-American, self-serving actions, there's another quote you should note, this often-cited one from long-form history podcaster Dan Carlin: Imagine all that power in the hands of someone you loathe. When the President of the United States gets around to turning his sights on you, your America won't seem quite so great.

Have a good day. Hope the most powerful person in America doesn't decide to turn the whole weight of the federal government against you and yours.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* In the words of the royal decree executive order, "The American people have witnessed the previous administration engage in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents, weaponizing the legal force of numerous Federal law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community against those perceived political opponents in the form of investigations, prosecutions, civil enforcement actions, and other related actions. These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives. Many of these activities appear to be inconsistent with the Constitution and/or the laws of the United States ..." Sounds to me exactly like what we're seeing now.

** A complete list of royal decrees executive orders published in the Federal Register can be found here. The whole list of Der Furor's fulminations, including those not yet on the Federal Register, can be found here. Don't read unless you want to be depressed and disgusted.

Echelons Above Reality

Many years ago, during my last active duty tour as an Air Force lieutenant colonel in the Pentagon (shortly before the Air Force transitioned to single-wing aircraft), I ran an office that did long-range resource planning for intelligence systems. There were a great many times when we spent days or weeks painstakingly developing packages for approval by the senior leadership, only to have those carefully crafted plans shot down or sent back for revision by the generals, the senior civilians, or ... worst ... the lawyers*. We, of course, complained bitterly about this, raging that those people at echelons above reality didn't really understand that we knew better than they did.

Echelons Above Reality was the usual scornful description we applied to those whose jobs required them to look farther, deeper, and with more legal and political nuance than we did. They caused extra work for us, but it almost always resulted in plans that were more sound at all levels than our original products.

Which is why I was horrified to hear the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America denigrate our domestic and international legal responsibilities and the concerns of our (now former) allies as fluff of concern only at echelons above reality ... as annoying cobwebs to be brushed away as impediments to the only legitimate purpose of a military force: killing people and breaking things. 

Now, obviously, we live in a dangerous world, and there's no point in having a military that's not fearsomely lethal. It's like a pickup truck ... you don't need it very often**, but when you do need it, nothing else will do. But on the other hand, you probably want to know that that fearsomely lethal military operates under at least minimum constraints of legality and morality. There's a reason the framers of the Constitution placed the military under civilian control ... they'd lived the experience of having a king that turned his army loose on the citizens.

And now we have a president who actually fancies himself a king, and who had the staggering nerve to say so on the White House Twitter (X) account:

or perhaps "king" isn't quite good enough, as this depiction of Der Furor as an emperor a la Julius Caesar which appeared at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference may be more to his liking:

But it gets worse ...

This past Friday night**, Der Furor fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force for the unforgivable crime of actually caring about the concerns of the men and women under their command. I don't expect someone who has denigrated those who lost their lives in the service of their country as "suckers and losers" to understand that real military leadership means letting those you may have to send to their deaths know that you care about them and their welfare.

At the same time, he fired the most senior Judge Advocates General (JAGs) of the Army, Navy, and Air Force ... the officials responsible for ensuring that the fearsomely lethal military Der Furor and Mr Hegseth want is run according to the law, inconvenient though it may be. These are the people who would explain posse comitatus to unhinged leaders who care only for the ability to wield raw power ... not for the legality and propriety of its employment. 

MAKE NO MISTAKE - THIS IS THE MOST FRIGHTENING AND DANGEROUS THING DER FUROR HAS YET DONE!

There aren't many supporters of Der Furor who read this blog, and so I have the unfortunate sense of preaching to the political choir. The MAGAts who follow the Orange Airhorn have their own sources of information, and will never acknowledge or understand the danger he poses until it affects them personally.

And then it's too late ... for them, and for the rest of us who saw it coming.

Have a good day. Do what you can to keep yourself informed and to help take back what's left of your country and its honor and dignity. More thoughts tomorrow, when we name the first out-of-cycle Ass Clown Special Award.

Bilbo

* There's no emoji to indicate dripping scorn, so just imagine it here.

** Unless you're in need of a powerful boost to your alpha male-ness.

*** He didn't even have the cojones to do it in the light of day.

Who Gets to Define and Interpret the Law?

On February 18th, Der Furor signed yet another royal decree executive order, this one titled "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies."

As most of his royal decrees executive orders do, this one begins with several paragraphs of lofty rhetoric about presidential responsibilities and sound government, and pays lip service to the "structural safeguards, along with the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, regular elections for the Congress, and an independent judiciary whose judges are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, by which the Framers created a Government accountable to the American people."*

So far, so good. Things go downhill fast, though, and by the time you get to Section 7 of the decree order, you learn what it really means ... 

Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.  The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.  No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.

Translation: the president - not the Congress or the Courts - decides what the law is. The Attorney General can also provide "authoritative interpretations of law," but only "subject to the President's supervision and control."

It's been a long time since I took my American history lessons in high school and college, but I seem to remember that we fought a war for independence from kings whose whims and opinions were the law. As I see it, the only real difference between a royal decree from a king and a royal decree executive order from Der Furor is that a king announced his decrees with a roll of drums and a blare of trumpets, while Der Furor slips his in quietly, carefully couched in executive doublespeak so that you don't realize you're being screwed until it's too late. 

I'm glad I didn't vote for this, although I'll suffer from it along with all the fools who didn't pay attention in history and civics classes. 

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow, when we announce the Left-Cheek Ass Clown for February. See you then.

Bilbo

* Section 1: Policy and Purpose, first paragraph.

So, How's That Constitution Thing Working Out for You?

I wrote the original version of this post almost three years ago (June 27, 2022), and today seems like an appropriate time for a revisit and update ... 

The 55 representatives - all of them male, all white and all privileged members of their society - who attended  the Constitutional Convention of 1789 drafted the United States Constitution to define the parameters of a new form of government for a new form of nation. 

The preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So, how’s that working out now, 236 years after the representatives to the Constitutional Convention slapped each other on the back and went home? Let's see ...

“Form a More Perfect Union.” We survived the Civil War more or less intact, but the union today is being torn apart by political passions inflamed by the power-mad, the ultra-wealthy, and the religion-blinded. At a time when the nation faces huge problems and perils at home and abroad, Congress is driven by an angry and vengeful president to force an agenda that most of his supporters don't fully understand and probably wouldn't support if they did. The Blue and Gray states of antebellum America have given way to the Blue and Red states of modern America, aided by relentless gerrymandering of Congressional districts to ensure control by a particular party, rather than by the people to be represented. 

“Establish Justice.” We have a larger proportion of our population in prison than any other nation. The degree and quality of justice one can expect is directly proportional to one’s ability to hire the largest number of the most expensive, most aggressive, most experienced, and least principled attorneys. If you are black, brown, or poor, good luck. And whether or not you agree with the freedoms once granted by the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions, consider that a strongly conservative Supreme Court ignored 50 years of precedent and - for the first time - used the Dobbs decision to remove a freedom we thought was guaranteed under the Constitution. And as if that weren't enough, consider that Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to write that the Supreme Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [which removed legal barriers to contraception], Lawrence [which guaranteed the right of privacy in sexual intimacy between consenting adults], and Obergefell [which required states to allow same-sex marriages and recognize those from other states]” - three cases dealing with Americans’ fundamental rights to privacy, due process and equal protection under the law. And we haven't even talked about Der Furor's open defiance of the law. If you don't think justice is going backward, you're not paying attention.

“Insure Domestic Tranquility.” You might believe that the storming of the US Capitol by a howling mob of Der Furor's supporters on January 6th, 2021, was a one-time thing, but I wouldn’t bet on it. When a large portion of the population is fired up by a relentlessly authoritarian president and his cowed Congressional supporters, Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, and believes its political opposition is nothing more than Satan-worshiping radical left libtards and pedophiles hell-bent on destroying the nation, domestic tranquility is most assuredly not insured.

“Provide for the Common Defence.” We have the most powerful military on Earth to protect us from external threats. Within our borders, however, we remain under threat from each other, exacerbated by a constitutional amendment that has made us the most heavily-armed citizens in the world, and animated by a belief that personal defense and individual rights trump all other rights and responsibilities. When angry militias are training in the wilderness, storming the Capitol, openly advocating violence against the government and their political opponents, and openly threatening elected officials and other public servants, providing for the common defense takes on a different meaning.

“Promote the General Welfare.” Unless the general welfare runs contrary to the interests of big business and the wealthy, that is. Der Furor's GOP is working hard to do away with what it disparagingly call the “deep state” that ensures your welfare ... that you have safe drugs, wholesome food, reliable products, a stable (more or less) economy, safe working spaces, drinkable water, and breathable air. Good luck with all those as federal agencies are stripped of the regulatory powers that have kept you safe and healthy in the fever dream of Republican fury at the "nanny state" and its "job-killing regulations."

“Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Many people nowadays interpret “liberty” as meaning “my personal liberty," rather than "our shared liberty.” The Declaration of Independence speaks of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as "unalienable rights," but your right to those things has become secondary to the perceived rights of those who want to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, to anyone they choose. Our rights aren't unalienable after all ... just ask Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.

As a brand new Air Force Second Lieutenant in June of 1973, I swore this oath:

“I, Bilbo, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I swore my oath to the Constitution ... not to any individual. I swore my oath to an idea and a set of fundamental principles, not to a president, king, or dictator, and not to a pope, imam, rabbi, or patriarch.

Our poor, battered Constitution has served us pretty well for the last 236 years, but it's showing its weaknesses - not the least of which is how easily it can be subverted by those bold and wicked enough to openly ignore it or interpret its meaning in new and unsettling - when not blatantly illegal - ways. The weaknesses of the Constitution are, I believe, caused by the fact that its framers were honorable men who did not foresee the willingness of other evil and unscrupulous actors to undermine the government for which the founding generation had fought and died.  

So, how's the Constitution working out for you? If you're smart, you won't take its words of freedom and justice for granted. You'll support political leaders who uphold the grand words of the Preamble to the Constitution, who will work for all Americans, not just those of the preferred color (white), sex (male), or religion ("Christian"*). 

In the (paraphrased) words of former CNN anchor Jim Acosta, do not give in to the lies, and do not give in to the fear. Your country's future depends on it.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* It should be noted that most present-day "Christians" have only the most nodding of relationships with the actual teachings of Christ.

Der Furor Gets the Return on His Investment

Historian Heather Cox Richardson began her "Letters from an American" essay last night with these words: 

"Today the United States Supreme Court overthrew the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law."

And ended with these words:

"Today’s decision destroyed the principle on which this nation was founded, that all people in the United States of America should be equal before the law."

In a blizzard of highfalutin' language that ignored the lessons of history and the very reason the United States sought independence from Great Britain nearly 250 years ago, the Supreme Court gave Der Furor the gift he wanted, the power that no other president in history has ever felt he needed ... absolute immunity for any action he takes. In the words of the decision in the case of Trump v. United States, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 6-3 (no surprise, there) majority,

"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

And who decides which acts are "official" and which are "unofficial?" The Supreme Court*.

And what of the concept of criminal intent that applies in every other criminal trial? It doesn't apply. In the words of the decision,

"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose ... Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on 'every allegation that an action was unlawful,' depriving immunity of its intended effect."

Other commentators more legally educated and eloquent than I have expressed shock and outrage at this appalling decision that makes a mockery of the words Equal Justice Under Law engraved on the Supreme Court building and contributes to the ongoing destruction of the court's reputation.

If you didn't think it was important to vote in November, and the implications of the ultraconservative Project 2025 don't bother you, think again. As President Biden said in the wake of the decision,

“There are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States ... (with) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Have a good day, and get angry enough to do your civic duty. Come November, vote like your democracy depended on it, because it does.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* When it's not too busy deciding whether executive agencies can impose rules based on laws passed by Congress, or what reproductive freedoms women can have.