Lawless. https://t.co/WiWb7NvvQA
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) March 26, 2025
Doc Holliday said:Judge James Boasberg was just assigned to the case involving the Signal chat. The same judge who tried stopping Trump from deporting terrorists. pic.twitter.com/ZAOsCnFX4X
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 26, 2025
EatMoreSalmon said:Doc Holliday said:Judge James Boasberg was just assigned to the case involving the Signal chat. The same judge who tried stopping Trump from deporting terrorists. pic.twitter.com/ZAOsCnFX4X
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 26, 2025
Is the judge related to Fred Gwynn, the actor who portrayed Herman Munster?
I think he's more Riff Raff from Rocky HorrorEatMoreSalmon said:Doc Holliday said:Judge James Boasberg was just assigned to the case involving the Signal chat. The same judge who tried stopping Trump from deporting terrorists. pic.twitter.com/ZAOsCnFX4X
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 26, 2025
Is the judge related to Fred Gwynn, the actor who portrayed Herman Munster?
See pages 5-6 and 31-35 of Judge Millett's concurrence:GrowlTowel said:No. There is no judicial review of the President's decision written into the law.Sam Lowry said:The judge is following the law as written.GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.Redbrickbear said:American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionarySam Lowry said:When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.BUDOS said:
Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?
The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:
fascist
/fshst/
noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.
Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.
Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/
The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.
Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.
[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]
[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]
"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader
Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi
[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]
Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power
Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.
He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.
Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.
What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.
Trump didn't just create some new authority.
Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.
Nice try though.
Quote:
Nothing in the AEA forecloses judicial review of an alleged enemy alien's claim that removal would be unlawful. Quite the opposite, Section 23 expressly provides for judicial review of claims raised by persons before the court.
If a judge recused himself or herself every time Trump broke the law, there would be no one left to hear the cases.BearFan33 said:A judge with an ounce of integrity would recuse himself from this case. Does he have an ounce?Doc Holliday said:Judge James Boasberg was just assigned to the case involving the Signal chat. The same judge who tried stopping Trump from deporting terrorists. pic.twitter.com/ZAOsCnFX4X
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 26, 2025
FIFYSam Lowry said:If a compromised judge recused himself or herself every time Trump was accused by partisan hacks of breaking the law, there would be no one left to hear the cases.BearFan33 said:A judge with an ounce of integrity would recuse himself from this case. Does he have an ounce?Doc Holliday said:Judge James Boasberg was just assigned to the case involving the Signal chat. The same judge who tried stopping Trump from deporting terrorists. pic.twitter.com/ZAOsCnFX4X
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 26, 2025
Sam Lowry said:See pages 5-6 and 31-35 of Judge Millett's concurrence:GrowlTowel said:No. There is no judicial review of the President's decision written into the law.Sam Lowry said:The judge is following the law as written.GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.Redbrickbear said:American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionarySam Lowry said:When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.BUDOS said:
Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?
The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:
fascist
/fshst/
noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.
Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.
Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/
The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.
Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.
[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]
[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]
"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader
Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi
[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]
Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power
Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.
He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.
Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.
What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.
Trump didn't just create some new authority.
Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.
Nice try though.Quote:
Nothing in the AEA forecloses judicial review of an alleged enemy alien's claim that removal would be unlawful. Quite the opposite, Section 23 expressly provides for judicial review of claims raised by persons before the court.
Other statutes, like the INA and FARRA, most likely apply too. And as you know, constitutional rights exist independently. The plaintiffs, the government, the district judge, and all three appellate judges, including the one who dissented, agree that judicial review is available in one form or another. Trump, as usual, is playing the demagogue with claims that he knows would never hold up in court.
Of course I know something about appellate review.GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:See pages 5-6 and 31-35 of Judge Millett's concurrence:GrowlTowel said:No. There is no judicial review of the President's decision written into the law.Sam Lowry said:The judge is following the law as written.GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.Redbrickbear said:American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionarySam Lowry said:When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.BUDOS said:
Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?
The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:
fascist
/fshst/
noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.
Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.
Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/
The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.
Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.
[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]
[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]
"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader
Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi
[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]
Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power
Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.
He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.
Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.
What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.
Trump didn't just create some new authority.
Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.
Nice try though.Quote:
Nothing in the AEA forecloses judicial review of an alleged enemy alien's claim that removal would be unlawful. Quite the opposite, Section 23 expressly provides for judicial review of claims raised by persons before the court.
Other statutes, like the INA and FARRA, most likely apply too. And as you know, constitutional rights exist independently. The plaintiffs, the government, the district judge, and all three appellate judges, including the one who dissented, agree that judicial review is available in one form or another. Trump, as usual, is playing the demagogue with claims that he knows would never hold up in court.
Tell us you know nothing about appellate review without saying it directly.
Sam Lowry said:Of course I know something about appellate review.GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:See pages 5-6 and 31-35 of Judge Millett's concurrence:GrowlTowel said:No. There is no judicial review of the President's decision written into the law.Sam Lowry said:The judge is following the law as written.GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.Redbrickbear said:American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionarySam Lowry said:When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.BUDOS said:
Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?
The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:
fascist
/fshst/
noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.
Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.
Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/
The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.
Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.
[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]
[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]
"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader
Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi
[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]
Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power
Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.
He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.
Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.
What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.
Trump didn't just create some new authority.
Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.
Nice try though.Quote:
Nothing in the AEA forecloses judicial review of an alleged enemy alien's claim that removal would be unlawful. Quite the opposite, Section 23 expressly provides for judicial review of claims raised by persons before the court.
Other statutes, like the INA and FARRA, most likely apply too. And as you know, constitutional rights exist independently. The plaintiffs, the government, the district judge, and all three appellate judges, including the one who dissented, agree that judicial review is available in one form or another. Trump, as usual, is playing the demagogue with claims that he knows would never hold up in court.
Tell us you know nothing about appellate review without saying it directly.
What I don't know is why you keep misstating the law.
If only the appellate court agreed.GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:Of course I know something about appellate review.GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:See pages 5-6 and 31-35 of Judge Millett's concurrence:GrowlTowel said:No. There is no judicial review of the President's decision written into the law.Sam Lowry said:The judge is following the law as written.GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.Redbrickbear said:American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionarySam Lowry said:When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.BUDOS said:
Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?
The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:
fascist
/fshst/
noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.
Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.
Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/
The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.
Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.
[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]
[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]
"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader
Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi
[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]
Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power
Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.
He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.
Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.
What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.
Trump didn't just create some new authority.
Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.
Nice try though.Quote:
Nothing in the AEA forecloses judicial review of an alleged enemy alien's claim that removal would be unlawful. Quite the opposite, Section 23 expressly provides for judicial review of claims raised by persons before the court.
Other statutes, like the INA and FARRA, most likely apply too. And as you know, constitutional rights exist independently. The plaintiffs, the government, the district judge, and all three appellate judges, including the one who dissented, agree that judicial review is available in one form or another. Trump, as usual, is playing the demagogue with claims that he knows would never hold up in court.
Tell us you know nothing about appellate review without saying it directly.
What I don't know is why you keep misstating the law.
Therein lies the game - I haven't.
They have no jurisdiction under the Democrat rule of lawOldbear83 said:
So SCOTUS isn't going to have something to say?
I do believe Sam cosplays as the Red Queen when expressing legal opinions.Assassin said:They have no jurisdiction under the Democrat rule of lawOldbear83 said:
So SCOTUS isn't going to have something to say?
If they do I think it will be on the habeas issue. Other than that I don't see any room to quarrel.Oldbear83 said:
So SCOTUS isn't going to have something to say?
Of course you don't, Hunter.Sam Lowry said:If they do I think it will be on the habeas issue. Other than that I don't see any room to quarrel.Oldbear83 said:
So SCOTUS isn't going to have something to say?
You think he's getting a little too big for his britches?Oldbear83 said:I do believe Sam cosplays as the Red Queen when expressing legal opinions.Assassin said:They have no jurisdiction under the Democrat rule of lawOldbear83 said:
So SCOTUS isn't going to have something to say?
lol, thats not why he should and you know it.Sam Lowry said:If a judge recused himself or herself every time Trump broke the law, there would be no one left to hear the cases.BearFan33 said:A judge with an ounce of integrity would recuse himself from this case. Does he have an ounce?Doc Holliday said:Judge James Boasberg was just assigned to the case involving the Signal chat. The same judge who tried stopping Trump from deporting terrorists. pic.twitter.com/ZAOsCnFX4X
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 26, 2025
Not even close.4th and Inches said:lol, thats not why he should and you know it.Sam Lowry said:If a judge recused himself or herself every time Trump broke the law, there would be no one left to hear the cases.BearFan33 said:A judge with an ounce of integrity would recuse himself from this case. Does he have an ounce?Doc Holliday said:Judge James Boasberg was just assigned to the case involving the Signal chat. The same judge who tried stopping Trump from deporting terrorists. pic.twitter.com/ZAOsCnFX4X
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 26, 2025
I am sure you would love to be in front of a judge who happens to have a daughter who works for opposing counsel in a case..(not a direct apples to apples but the point stands)
Even appellate courts get it wrong. Got one overturned just a few days ago.Sam Lowry said:If only the appellate court agreed.GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:Of course I know something about appellate review.GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:See pages 5-6 and 31-35 of Judge Millett's concurrence:GrowlTowel said:No. There is no judicial review of the President's decision written into the law.Sam Lowry said:The judge is following the law as written.GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.Redbrickbear said:American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionarySam Lowry said:When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.BUDOS said:
Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?
The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:
fascist
/fshst/
noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.
Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.
Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/
The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.
Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.
[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]
[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]
"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader
Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi
[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]
Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power
Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.
He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.
Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.
What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.
Trump didn't just create some new authority.
Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.
Nice try though.Quote:
Nothing in the AEA forecloses judicial review of an alleged enemy alien's claim that removal would be unlawful. Quite the opposite, Section 23 expressly provides for judicial review of claims raised by persons before the court.
Other statutes, like the INA and FARRA, most likely apply too. And as you know, constitutional rights exist independently. The plaintiffs, the government, the district judge, and all three appellate judges, including the one who dissented, agree that judicial review is available in one form or another. Trump, as usual, is playing the demagogue with claims that he knows would never hold up in court.
Tell us you know nothing about appellate review without saying it directly.
What I don't know is why you keep misstating the law.
Therein lies the game - I haven't.
I can't get through the pay wall. Gov't claims he was a gang member. He says he's not.Sam Lowry said:
The Trump administration deported a man to El Salvador in what it calls an administrative error and isn't able to bring him back, immigration officials said in court filings.
Last month, ICE agents arrested Abrego Garcia, alleging he was a member of the gang MS-13. Abrego Garcia, who lived in Maryland with his wife and child, both U.S. citizens, denies any gang affiliation. Abrego Garcia hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime.
Abrego-Garcia is being held in El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as Cecot.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/ice-deportation-maryland-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-8bee52f5?mod=e2fb
This is worth watching, especially if you've wondered where federal district judges get their authority to issue universal injunctions. Hint: there is no such authority. They just do it. https://t.co/qkg1q7GuGp
— Brit Hume (@brithume) April 1, 2025
Doc Holliday said:Judge James Boasberg was just assigned to the case involving the Signal chat. The same judge who tried stopping Trump from deporting terrorists. pic.twitter.com/ZAOsCnFX4X
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 26, 2025
Actual court documentsBearFan33 said:I can't get through the pay wall. Gov't claims he was a gang member. He says he's not.Sam Lowry said:
The Trump administration deported a man to El Salvador in what it calls an administrative error and isn't able to bring him back, immigration officials said in court filings.
Last month, ICE agents arrested Abrego Garcia, alleging he was a member of the gang MS-13. Abrego Garcia, who lived in Maryland with his wife and child, both U.S. citizens, denies any gang affiliation. Abrego Garcia hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime.
Abrego-Garcia is being held in El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as Cecot.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/ice-deportation-maryland-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-8bee52f5?mod=e2fb
Other court documents show an immigration judge ordered Abrego-Garcia to be removed from the U.S. back in April 2019 over his alleged gang ties.
Alleged gang member arrested in Baltimore deported to El Salvadoran prison
In any case when millions of people come into the country illegally and there are efforts to remove them, some mistakes are going to be made.
"Whoops! We let in 8M people. No clue who most of them are or what they're doing" is fine.BearFan33 said:I can't get through the pay wall. Gov't claims he was a gang member. He says he's not.Sam Lowry said:
The Trump administration deported a man to El Salvador in what it calls an administrative error and isn't able to bring him back, immigration officials said in court filings.
Last month, ICE agents arrested Abrego Garcia, alleging he was a member of the gang MS-13. Abrego Garcia, who lived in Maryland with his wife and child, both U.S. citizens, denies any gang affiliation. Abrego Garcia hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime.
Abrego-Garcia is being held in El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as Cecot.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/ice-deportation-maryland-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-8bee52f5?mod=e2fb
Other court documents show an immigration judge ordered Abrego-Garcia to be removed from the U.S. back in April 2019 over his alleged gang ties.
Alleged gang member arrested in Baltimore deported to El Salvadoran prison
In any case when millions of people come into the country illegally and there are efforts to remove them, some mistakes are going to be made.
Redbrickbear said:This is worth watching, especially if you've wondered where federal district judges get their authority to issue universal injunctions. Hint: there is no such authority. They just do it. https://t.co/qkg1q7GuGp
— Brit Hume (@brithume) April 1, 2025
Injunctions imposed by district court judges and how many of those were issued by judges appointed from opposing party:
— Mirthful Moments (@moment_mirthful) April 1, 2025
Bush- 6 - 3
Obama- 12 - 7
Trump- 64 - 59
Biden- 14 - 14
Trump- 96 - 83
Rogue judges have become activists in robes.
This needs to change.
