US judge finds administration wilfully defied court order in deportation flights
abc.net.au
abc.net.au
You think you are a citizen today because you've always been a citizen, you have papers to prove it. It's never even been questioned. What if those papers get destroyed? What if the officer interpreting your papers is employed by someone who doesn't like you because you're disobedient. Without rule of law your status as a citizen doesn't protect you. Without a functioning judiciary capable of providing consequences to those who violate rule of law, you have no one to appeal to.
This administration complains about single judges restricting their actions. That should literally terrify you. The judges are not stopping the administration, they are ruling that the law is stopping the administration. When the administration says it is judges stopping it, it is claiming that there is no law, only the actions of loyal or disobedient men.
We are in a constitutional crisis. We are effectively lawless. Right now, we cannot depend on the law to restrict powerful people's actions. We have no way to predict what is possible for someone with a gun who is loyal to the president to do without consequences and therefore no way to act as if the law protects us.
We are in a crisis.
That doesn't mean that the incident isn't concerning. But I think we should be careful to incite false panic which could cause distrust. Save that panic for the real constitutional crisis brewing.
That is your perfect summary of the "unitary executive" which in the past was called even shorter - the King. It has already been decided by Supreme Court - he can't be prosecuted for anything he does as President. And for his subordinates doing his bidding, even if it is illegal, he would write pardons (he may even write pre-pardons like Biden did for Fauci). Thus no constitutional crisis because both things - no prosecution and the pardons - are according to the Constitution.
A commentary on the current Trump situation i heard from the Russian opposition: democracy requires constant maintenance by the people while with autocracy the people are freed from that burden.
If an arsonist threatened to burn down your house, should you only call the police once the house is on fire? Is it possible by taking action earlier you could prevent disaster and loss of well being.
The people who wrote the plan this administration is following said: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."[1] The threat has been credibly made and they appear to be successfully carrying it out with minimal forceful resistance.
People who study Fascism, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, Russia, and Eastern Europe are fleeing the country including Jason Stanley and Timothy Snyder.[2]
Trump has stated he wished he had Hitler's generals.[3]
A second in command of the United States armed forces as well as America's top military advisor have both called him a threat to the constitution. [4][5]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/heritage-foun... [2] https://archive.is/jb23b -- https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/the-fascism-expert-at-... [3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/10/12/mark-milley... [5] https://archive.is/d6f9J -- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-m...
I guess it will be one when it's too late?
There is some unfortunate precedent that allows this. At the time, the ruling was not really that consequential, but obviously, much more so now.
My general view is that pardon power was not really intended to extend to things which are fundamental to the function of another co-equal branch. It was meant to be federal crimes. In the end, Madison/et al felt that impeachment would suffice to protect from pardon abuse.
Contempt of this kind is not really a federal crime - it was considered part of the inherent powers of a court, but there is a statute that now covers it (18 USC 401), so it is unfortunately considered a federal crime and thus pardonable.
So when trump gets pissed off or whatever and pardons whoever gets held in contempt, that's when it's basically a crisis. Because at that point it just means they don't actually have to care. They will just abuse this legal loophole and declare that everything is actually okay, and they have done nothing wrong.
There are other ways, of course, it may become one, but that one seems the most likely path to me at the moment.
This already happened in Melendres v. Arpaio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio
On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor.
In this case Joe was pardoned for criminal contempt of a court order related to racial profiling.
While it involved immigrants, it's not like he was a member of the US government. He was a state official doing state things, that were, yes, in line with trump's policy objectives. That's fairly different.
It was also two months later.
Back then nobody also cared in the way they do now, and to be blunt, it's hard to get people to care about racial profiling crimes anyway.
The same way nobody cared when the precedent was originally sent.
Why did you add "meaningful" as a qualifier, what are on both sides of "meaningful" as a fulcrum of judgement? Why isn't this as bad as it appears?
I would argue it was a proof of concept for executive supremacy over the judiciary and that concept was proven making it a full blown constitutional crisis.
Even assuming what you said is true, from a historical perspective, the SS were not government officials, but a paramilitary "deputized" by their leader and eventually given state legitimacy.
This means the analysis must not be done from a framing of official acts, because in an authoritarian government anything the authoritarian wants is officially sanctioned, and punishment of anything they don't want is also officially sanctioned.
Pardoning contempt, under any circumstances, means that the court cannot compel a person to participate in judiciary process, no? NPR was talking about this back then and stating that the apparent ruling is that the only check on executive power right now is a 60% vote in congress, otherwise the president is above the law. That is a constitutional crisis.
There was a guy in Poland who was extorted by gangsters. Initially he took an informal loan, but they made him repay it indefinitely, threatening violence. Police failed to help, for unclear reasons. He ended up murdering the extorted. It was a premeditated murder, not in direct defence of his life, etc, and so he got life imprisonment.
He did serve a chunk of his sentence, but in the end was pardoned, on the grounds that he was kind of in a hard place. Without help from the police, he was at the mercy of a gangster, with a constant threat of violence and no perspective of any relief. Link in Polish: https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Bryli%C5%84ski
It's not without controversy in Poland either. It was used in an attempt to quash an ongoing process about blatant abuse of power by two politicians. But I would disagree that the prerogative is totally without merit.
Or federal agents refuse to arrest them.
They are bound by your consent, you are not bound by their fear.
Complaining on social media is fine, but that won't solve the problem.
As a European, I'm shocked at how complacent the public has been. I've lived in France and people do global strikes and widespread civil unrest for a change of retirement law. Yet in the US a dictatorship emerges and you have small demonstrations here and there and spicy comments on social media. That won't change things.
He was elected to bring prices and inflation down; that’s what he campaigned on! He lied at that time and people trusted in his lies. He have no idea what he can do to bring prices and inflation down! Marketing could be his expertise, but when it comes to performing duties of the President, he’s super dumb.
"I voted for the Party because I supported their infrastructure plan, I had no idea where all of those trains would be going" kind of feel.
And the sad thing is, it will work because our entire framework of subjective truth and reality is built on the very technologies they already use to reprogram us and revise history. Trump was always an honest man. We were always at war with Canada. It was always about egg prices.
He put a fair bit of effort in telling people he wasn't going to do most of this stuff. It was always clear that he was lying, but lots of people believed him and are now very surprised.
People that only care about themselves or their racial group are a curse upon society.
It constantly astonishes me how blatantly racist some of the people in the U.S. are. How do they not get punched in the face?
Guns and pre-segregating their social circle.
Be careful about assuming that we are all tolerating and enabling their behavior. That's not true as a blanket statement.
This US slip into authoritarianism should cause us all to reconsider history too. This is the wealthiest country in the world, so economic trouble is clearly not required, and it gives lie to the notion that the US had some kind of unique structural defense against authoritarianism - maybe there is no defense, and this is inevitable.
See: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ See: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
One of the primary reasons Trump won the election is that the Democrats were hailing the high-level economic numbers as a big success, but the average person wasn't really feeling it. Being told that things are going great when they're suffering put many people off voting and caused others to vote against the incumbent party in hopes of a change.
Unfortunately for the masses, the Republican party has largely been responsible for the current wealth inequality through repeated tax cuts disproportionately affecting the wealthy and attacks on worker representation over the last half century. Though, to be fair, despite their rhetoric, the Democratic party has generally been complicit, as they are also owned and operated by moneyed interests. Citizens United was probably the final nail in the coffin containing any hope to turn things around.
That they (and you) don't believe this to be the case is important and interesting. But it's not true.
[1] Maybe not for that ←long once the Q2/Q3 results show up with the tariff impact and the layoff start
[2] Anyone with a broad enough sampling I guess. There are always tiny states with skewed statistics.
And I guess it does represent such a truth, but it's a great truth about universal delusion at the end of an empire, or something else. It's not about wealth. It's not.
Totally agree with you, don't know why so many downvotes. But important point is wealth is never absolute, but comparative. And that's where inequality comes into play. Almost all revolutions happen because of inequality.
I've met Silicon Valley multi-millionaires why cried they are poor and how those damn billionaires gentrifying them from their lovely neighborhoods.
I'm against forced equalization of incomes, but on the long run that's what keeps the system stable. Unless you are Norway, of course, where people strongly believe equalization is good, and post everyone's compensation on public (well, taxes, but it's easy to get comp from taxes).
UPDATE: so the metric we should look at is Gini index, not GDP or PPP.
I mean, think about it: there have always been phenomenally wealthy people. If every billionaire in the US had their net worth cut by 50%, instantly, that would fix the "Gini index" you think we should be looking at.
But would their lifestyles change? Would anyone but the billionaires even notice? If you stop a person on the street and ask "Is it fair that Bill Gates is worth $50B dollars?", they're going to say "no", right? That's way too much money. Except, of course, that Gates is worth twice that and the number is something that you argue should be "fair".
No, it's not numbers. It's irrational delusion fed by fear and anger and click-chasing from everywhere across the media landscape. But. It's. Wrong. And someone needs to start telling people that.
Because at this point our shared delusion is causing a trade war that is going to make all of us (literally, all of humanity) poorer.
When it comes to luxury goods, sure - things like TVs and computers are cheaper than they ever have been, both relative to wealth and even in absolute terms.
However, when you look at necessities like housing, healthcare, and I dare say education, you'll notice that all have far outpaced inflation and even wage growth.
See: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
See: https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/
See: https://www.statista.com/statistics/631987/percent-of-income...
See: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/18/cost-of-coll...
See: https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-costs-over-tim...
See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/camilomaldonado/2018/07/24/pric...
---
As a personal anecdote - my father did much the same job I do, and yet while he was taking care of a full family of four, I can't say that I feel any better off despite being single and not regularly vacationing like I did growing up.
As far as I can tell - I'm not alone. If anything, I'm uniquely blessed relative to my peers due to my tech background. We have an entire generation putting off family building because stagnant wages coupled with high student loan debt and housing prices cause many to perceive they are hardly getting by. Nearly half of all adults live paycheck-to-paycheck.
Sure, the headlines try to imply it. Which is why you believe something wrong. But it's still wrong, and the data don't say what you think they say.
> As a personal anecdote - my father did much the same job I do, and yet while he was taking care of a full family of four
This part is actually true. White Men have fallen off the pace relative to what they expected to earn generations ago. But that's not society getting poorer, it's the disadvantaged finally being allowed to catch up.
On the Maidan revolution of Ukraine:
The Maidan was a revolt against произвол (pronounced: preez-vol), an idea of arbitrariness tinged with tyranny, helplessness in the face of power, the feeling that the powers that be can do whatever they want to you, and you are helpless, that you are being treated as a plaything, as a thing and not as a human being, as an object and not as a subject, and the Maidan became a revolt against произвол, it became an insistence on being treated as a person and not as a thing, as a subject not as an object, and they began to call themselves on the Maidan the revolution of dignity. The Making of Modern Ukraine: Maidan and Self-Understanding, Guest Lecturer: Marci Shore -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg_CLI3xY58&list=PLh9mgdi4rN...
In November 2013 Ukraine was expected to sign a long-anticipated association agreement with the European Union. At the eleventh hour, on 21 November 2013, Yanukovych refused.
The disappointment was especially crushing for students, who felt as if their future had vanished; Europe would be closed to them. That evening a thirty-two-year-old Ukrainian journalist from Kabul named Mustafa Nayyem wrote in Russian on his Facebook page:
Come on, let’s get serious.
Who is ready to go out to the Maidan by midnight tonight? ‘Likes’ don’t count.
I showed up to the first protest of my entire life on April 5th. This Saturday, April 19th, everyone here should show up, too.
Upvotes don't count.
A couple of months later not just violence. I know someone who was at the Maidan helping the wounded. That guy is mostly neutral and not pro West or whatnot, he just talked about what he saw and that included a few protesters fatally shot by paid agents (I didn't know about that until I talked to him). Clearly even that didn't work when people are motivated enough.
I don't know whether that would work in America. The Vegas shooter killed 60 and injured several hundred people, to zero political effect. BLM riots incurred a lot of injuries but very few actual deaths. I suspect Amerimaidan would go very badly and be easily demonized in the media.
It was so traumatic for America's top military advisor that he made a major point to those under him that they swore an oath to the constitution and not a "wannabe dictator."
Many police departments have enacted various reforms, hard to tell if they have been enacted in good faith.
The Vegas shooter is business as usual and generally considered a societal problem. The BLM protests were different and seen as caused/provoked by the administration at the time.
As far as the grim part... Unfortunately that's the way power works. Power will not be challenged without putting up a fight.
If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny. Timothy Snyder - On Tyranny.
There have been large, growing, and recurring protests.
> Yet in the US a dictatorship emerges and you have small demonstrations here and there
They aren't small. (They aren't well covered by the media, but the media is actively part of the problem.)
> that won't change things.
The social infrastructure and culture around which things like general strikes and more significant actions occur does not exist in the United States. The current and growing protest movement (and the networking and community building go on around and behind it) is how that infrastructure gets built. So, I disagree, the things you are saying won't change it are absolutely indispensable to building the capacity for the kind of things that can change it, assuming that it continues to develop in a way that cannot be constrained effectively by more regular political means such as the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...
Obama approved a policy of targeted killing, which killed an American bystander when targeting an Egyptian citizen. That's very different to "ordered an extra judicial killing".
So much of this stuff comes from the war on terror. It's all extended Guantanamo. The movie creation of a category of bad guys so bad that they can't be afforded court process and instead are murdered on the basis of secret "evidence".
Voters don't care otherwise, or they would never have elected him.
It's not just a human issue - it's a fundamental stability issue. If the POTUS and his associates can point to someone and just disappear them without any due process or recourse, then why can't they do the same with a "Chinese collaborator" corporation's executives? Or, heck the CEO.
And then certain politicians can have those people reassign shares to them.
A lot of Americans will say that I'm grasping at straws, or being far fetched. And they would be wrong.
This is a thing that happens in authoritarian regimes that lack due process. Even when the people are one of the "elites."
When you look at Trump point a finger and disappear people, ask how is Jack Ma doing lately?
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/china-alibaba-crack...
https://www.wired.com/story/jack-ma-isnt-back/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65084344
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5308604/alibaba-founder...
More germanely, he disagreed with the regime. Fairly harmless criticism,
The Financial Times reported that the disappearance may have been connected to a speech given at the annual People's Bank of China financial markets forum,[41] in which Ma criticized China's regulators and banks.[41] Ma described state banks as operating with a pawn shop mentality and criticized the Basel Accords as a "club for the elderly."
Ant Group made major changes to its ownership structure and corporate governance in January 2023.[42]: 261 That month, Ant Group announced a series of changes in shareholder voting rights, with Ma no longer the actual controller of Ant Group.[50] Ma's voting rights were reduced from 50% to 6%.[42]: 271 Following these changes, no single shareholder has a controlling stake in the company.[42]: 261 The company's board also added another independent director.[42]: 261 The Chinese government spoke positively of Ant Group's changes, including describing them as improvements in transparency and accountability
Do you want the US to follow in these footsteps?
This isn't a slippery slope. It's a Slip 'N Slide. Ma's not the first person they did this to. China is not the first country to do this either. And yes, none of them imagined it would happen to them until it happened to them.
The reason why the US is a bastion of technological progress, startups and capitalism is because the freedom to do business is underwritten by fundamental personal freedoms. If you lose that, then you will lose all of the wealth that system created.
Why would you want to be a founder in a world where you can show obedience to the party, rise up the ranks, and just... grab shares from the next big startup? Wet your beak a little. Get a cut.
It might not happen now. It might not happen in a year. Or three. But it will happen.
For the night is long and the knives are ever sharp.
Would be nice!!!
However, as is easy to see from recent, well known examples, the results of our legal system depend heavily on personal attitudes, predilections, and opinions of individual judges, lawyers, etc., and, net, "the law" is inconsistent, unpredictable, unreliable (some might say emotional and irrational), often too slow, too expensive, and a source not of justice or "the law" but of lawfare battles, war by special means. As in shooting wars, both sides lose. E.g., can see
Dershowitz to Newsmax: Boasberg Should Be Held in Contempt
at
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-james-boa...
where Judge Boasberg and Emeritus Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz strongly disagree.
For another example, one part of this Boasberg case had the SCOTUS rule 5-4 -- that is inconsistent and unpredictable.
In math, physical science, and now often in biology and medical science, we have many examples of one things, clear, explicit, highly predictable -- the Pythagorean theorem, Einstein's Special Relativity, protein folding, Phase III trials, placebo controlled, randomized, double blind.
But, in strong contrast, "the law" is unpredictable, in each case, no "one thing", closer to medieval ugly torture and nonsense than math, science, technology, etc. of 2025. The law profession should be ashamed. "Your Honor"? Not really.
As I understand the situation, the SCOTUS is created by our Constitution, but the rest of our legal system, including Judge Boasberg, is the creation of and funded by Congress. So, Congress can cut off the funds and maybe just abolish Boasberg's court.
My guess is that the media has raised attention, the voters want something better in our legal system, and soon Congress will make some changes. With also the POTUS, the legal system, "the law", currently widely less liked than a skunk at a garden party, can be turned inside out, fumigated, disinfected, bleached, scrubbed, washed, rinsed, hung out to dry, stitched, patched, ironed, folded, and used as, hmm, a seat cushion.
Sorry 'bout that. As a startup founder, my view is, at any or all costs, to stay low, quiet, out of sight, and anonymous, have only an LLC and never a corporation, and be far from any entanglements with "the law".
I think perceiving laws at the US as unpredictable is just showing that you haven’t seen countries with truly dysfunctional judicial. Of course justice can be tricky. Of course courts can be flawed. It’s a spectrum, and we’re not at the worst spot in it so far (maybe apart from SC, SC is terrible).
I’m not sure what’s a point of federal courts being creation of Congress (ie laws) and not creation of constitution. Most of the executive branch is creation of Congress too.
The nicety of laws and courts you can (by yourself) go and read courts opinions and arguments and made your own judgements who’s at fault - executive branch ignoring laws and stressing the system with bad faith behavior, or courts deciding unjustly by reading laws wrongly. I did this for bunch of court opinions and don’t expect good faith from the administration anymore.
I avoided that. I was commenting in general terms.
"countries with truly dysfunctional judicial"
I suspect that much of how people get along in such a country is just to pay enough to the right persons. As a joke, that would often be faster and cheaper than following the US system fully honestly.
I'm reminded of the movie where, given a problem, someone could go to Vito and get a solution -- he had "all the judges and politicians in his pocket".
The role of Congress: The SCOTUS is from the Constitution, and all the rest are from Congress. If Congress sees a problem with those courts, it can fix it right away -- impeach a judge, cut off their funds, abolish their court, etc.
Just because our legal system is not the worst possible in the world does not mean that we should tolerate its faults.
Americans don't have much experience of this kind of tug of war (good for you). So far Trump hasn't faced any difficulties yet. Courts haven't kicked in, economy is steady, no external shocks and the tariff stuff hasn't percolated down to Main Street. It's easy to be a populist.
The hard stuff starts when the combined noose of court action, domestic discontent and external shocks really starts to bite, and there's still hope courts will retain their independence.
If you assume US is now irredeemably fucked forever, you might as well stop venting. But nothing actually is forever. Much, much worse Soviet rule in Europe lasted 45 years. I still hold out that populism in the US will be over much sooner.
I agree, I wouldn't count on the judiciary to stop him in his tracks. Even then, if some of his associates go to prison, and stay there, everyone else might think twice next time they are given dubious instructions.
There is no real reason to believe that a state with this level of sophistication, if willing to use the US military on civilians, could ever be toppled by the people.
If it was another small country, the rest of the world would probably ignore what is currently happening in USA.
However it isn't a small country, rather one of the major countries and world powers, hence everyone gets hurt when failing to learn from history.
You have three branches, for checks and balances, and gave one of them command of the entire US military. It seems not so much a stretch of imagination that that one may go rogue one day.
It was badly engineered.
And it was overly confident on trust over the course of events and human nature - while you are obliged to do the opposite.
The thing is, no political system is foolproof and free of issues. But the US and the UK are about the only major countries in the world that didn't experience a forced reboot of some sorts - wars, revolutions, secessions, whatever - that brought an update of the constitution and legal system with it. Everyone else, however, did and learned from the issues that they and other countries had experienced in the meantime.
By now, the US is running on the same system for over 238 years. Yes, there have been some updates and amendments, but the fundamental assumptions are still the same stuff from centuries past, when virtually instant, global communication and transport of goods and people wasn't even thinkable.
Maybe they figured if things get too bad, officers of good conscience would stem the madness and have some political/legal cover from the other 1-2 branches? Eg. If a president tried to give orders to the military after being impeached and removed, it's doubtful they'd be followed.
The problem then is compounded by the fact the president picks the secdef, and is more or less able to fire anyone showing an ounce of 'disloyalty', as we've seen happen in recent weeks. Twice if memory serves me right.
So all but the very dumbest would curate their military leaders before attempting boldness.
It took us 48 years to get rid of our dictatorship, and in theory there were multiple occasions where the militar could have joined to take it down, it was only when the colonial wars got bad enough, that there was enough people in the movement to have made it possible.
And to make a point out of it, the laws imposed by the Allied did nothing to prevent what happened in East Germany and Stasi deeds after that law came to be.
Trying to work out which country you're referring to - Spain? Portugal? East Germany?
> laws imposed by the Allied did nothing to prevent what happened in East Germany and Stasi deeds after that law came to be
Well, yes, I should probably have clarified West Germany, a different country from East Germany, due to the Soviet control at the end of WW2. I suppose the point is that no legal order withstands overwhelming force in the end.
I belong to the first generation growing up as a child after the dictorship ended, thus like many people around the world in similar circustances, I do happen to have a close relation to what it means, and stand by the revolution cries "25 April forever, fascism never again", that unfortunely many in voting age have no clue what it actually means in practice, hence we have our own issues coming to our shores with Chega party.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The founding fathers were big fans of the philosophy of John Locke and his social contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Our founding father's were very very liberal and strongly believed in a consent based government which implies the idea of revoking consent. When a government starts acting in ways you cannot consent to, like invading Canada or Greenland, robbing people of due process, preventing trade, and refusing to be bound by law, they had a very clear answer. You can find many Jeffersonian quotes about this very idea that many young Americans hear from their fathers and grandfathers, sadly many of those once young Americans have been corrupted by fox news.
The writer of the declaration of independence and third president of the united states chose "Rebellion unto tyranny is obedience to god," as a motto on his personal seal: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers...
People asked, at the time, if that applied to women or black people, and after considerable argument concluded that the answer was "no". From that stems a lot of America's problems.
The American Revoltion actually sparked a first round of antislavery laws and court cases, which eliminated slavery in the northern states within a generation. Even in parts of the South, there was increasing questioning of slavery. The US banned the international slave trade. Virginia made it legal (for the first time) to free slaves, and there was a small wave of manumissions. People like Thomas Jefferson admitted that there was something wrong with slavery, even if they were so financially dependent on it that they didn't free their own slaves. Jefferson even drafted a new constitution for Virginia that would have freed anyone born after 1800, but shelved it when he decided it wouldn't have enough support to pass.
Vehement proslavery ideology really developed a few decades after the revoltion.
The US didn't have a military and resisted having a standing army until WWI.
No excuses.
This is THE line in the sand. Either you agree that people have rights afforded to them by the constitution or you are a fascist. And there is no mincing words on this.
# El Salvador rejects US senator's plea to free wrongly deported migrant
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/el-salvador-rejects-us...
> [Senator] Van Hollen[, who represents Abrego Garcia's home state of Maryland,] said he had asked Vice President Felix Ulloa ... why Abrego Garcia was still locked up in the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) if he had committed no crime and El Salvador had no evidence that he was a member of the street gang MS-13. // "His answer was that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador, to keep him at CECOT"
> Bukele said during a White House visit on Monday he did not have the power to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. // Trump told reporters he did not have the authority to intervene, leaving the man in limbo
Today in America, that could be rephrased as "The Courts? How many loosely organized, non-uniformed paramilitaries do they have?"
(Don't get me wrong, I know there should not be "sides" when talking about the rule of law.)
But here, Trump can play the "tribal" card to his base very easily (I'm expecting a variation of "non white woke judges are once again defending dangerous illegal gang members immigrants against hard working white Americans, this is a witch hunt, fight !")
I think the average republican voter won't care. We already know they don't care about document mishandling, cyber security, sharing war plans, gutting science, etc... They used to care about sex and religion, but don't any more. However, we know they care about kids.
Is there a lawsuit brewing about harm done by the trump administration to kids of white, non immigrants, conservative, affluent, christian, devouts, mainstream and influencial Americans ?
(That being said, I was very surprised to read that the SCOTUS itself confirmed Trump should not have deported at least one of those people [1].)
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250410235416/https://www.cnbc....
Interesting. In effect I think you are asking how the opposition should appeal to the supporters.
One way would be as you suggest to angle the message towards their identity, their group affiliation. This would work for the groups you suggest but this would a) only strengthen group identities that are being targeted and b) weaken the oppositions beliefs in their own groups. The opposition views politics as groups of people with characteristics at fight with each other. The election showed that for supporters the hard identity groupings are, at best that softer than before and at worst don't actually exist in reality.
A more effective argument would lead to the opposition using the belief system of their target. For example "All people have equality and valuable personhood and illegal actions damage this inherent value". This is basically the classical liberal mindset based on Christian values. But this isn't really the mindset of those in opposition while they continue to view the world as being run by power between conflicting identity groups. They believe that people are not equal, that equity is more important, that people belong to groups with inherent characteristics of varying levels of power, and that to solve issues the power needs to move between groups.
In other words, yes, an appeal to the group identities of the supporters will probably work for some but it will strengthen their group identity (increased race-nationalism), and the supporters actually cover a much wider range than the identities you give. An alternative appeal to the values of the supporters would work much better but would lead to a weakening of the oppositions own beliefs. Looking at it from a religion lens: the opposition cannot use Christian appeals to morality while they reject Christianity.
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves." Enders Game
Exactly. The opposition has to realize that they are outnumbered, at the moment ; but this is not a static or permanent things.
By definition, every majority hangs on "swing voters", and is ousted when the swing voters decide to swing again.
"Appealing to your base" is how you win primaries ; if you continue beyond that, and insist on "purity", "support 100% of our causes, or you're a facist", while the other side has a "big tent" strategy, then you only alienate potential supporters, and opposition is going to be long.
(Caveat: of course, this assumes pretty "normal" conditions where elections happen fairly, on a regular basis, etc...)
Also, about the role of "kids" in those discussion, one side obviously knows how to do it _very_ well: [1]
Well, yes. It's the Pinochet situation; I'm sure the majority of white Americans can be propaganda'd into supporting having dissidents thrown out of helicopters.
> harm done by the trump administration to kids of white, non immigrants, conservative, affluent, christian, devouts, mainstream and influencial Americans
The whole point of a fascist setup with personal rule is that those people will get almost instantly exempted from any of this stuff happening to them. Whether that's by the discretion of agents on the ground or as soon as it reaches the media. And including in cases where they've committed actual crimes.
This is just one more in a long string of lies. They absolutely do not care about kids unless it's about their right to marry them[1]. Or watch passively as they die to easily preventable diseases[2]. Or go out of their way to deny them access to food[3].
[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/wyoming-ending-child-marriage-spark...
[2]: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/20/texas-measles-family...
[3]: https://newrepublic.com/post/173668/republicans-declare-bann...
They don't fear their kids will be married in Wyoming, or part of mennonites, or poor.
They're terrified that their kids could turn gay, or be raped in the bathroom by a trans men, or be denied a scholarship because some other diverse kid is getting it.
Are those fear rational ? I don't know.
Is one side much better at stoking such fear than the other ? I do know.
Which side is going to keep winning until the other side gets it's act together, if it ever gets a chance ? You bet I have my opinions...
Just today (yesterday?) they're already doing this - the Press Secretary paraded a mom whose daughter was murdered by an undocumented immigrant and said "this is why we're doing this, for people like her", completely ignoring the small detail that this current person is not accused, suspected, or convicted of murdering anyone.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/do...
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-lifts-temp...
and this single district judge is trying to enact a political movement.
Flights take off. Dude issues temporary ban on Alien Enemies deportations. Flights do not turn around. Supreme Court clears temporary ban. Dude now claims admin defied his court order.
Isn’t it chilling to the bone to pretend admin can do whatever they (themself) consider right? I’m terrified by this possibility, and I think you should be too.