Unreconstructed Curmudgeon

1) This isn't a shocking insight. Many of us have pointed out for years elections are now existential events for Trump and the rest of the GOP and associates (such as Musk, his DOGE gang, etc.) I must have, myself, mentioned this 50 times.

1) The failure of liberal democracy seems directly related to the failure of centralists to halt corruption and restore an equitable judicial system ensuring everyone plays by the same rules. Inevitability, money's sheer weight becomes too much of

2) an aphrodisiac to abjure, and the field of play starts tipping again. Centrists aren't indifferent spectators. They're institutionalists dedicated to protecting those institutions designed to protect assets. IOW, they're foxes dressed alluringly in simpatico costume protecting the henhouse.

1) "This is not really in the temperament of most national Democrats. They are uncomfortable marching into hostile institutions and giving orders." When institutions fail, institutionalists aren't the answer. One would think this would be self-evident. open.substack.com/pub/brianbeu...

1) Astonishingly, Jack Goldsmith doubles down in his view accountability should be politically expressed and confined. That's not usually what the word means. This is what I mean when I say centrists are trapped in their open.substack.com/pub/executiv...

2) 20th Century leggings. They're commenting as a Newtonian physicist might upon encountering Schrödinger's cat. This isn't really much different than most folks thinking the music of their adolescence is way better than current stuff. They might be right, but producers and

1) Jack Goldsmith is a remarkable, dependable political analyst but this piece is pure blather. I'm actually shocked he wrote these words. Here's a sample: "I believe accountability for Trump 2.0 should focus first and primarily ........ open.substack.com/pub/executiv...

3) This is argyly-bargly, pure blather. Transparency is worthless when an administration says explicitly what it's going to do, and then does it, ignoring court orders, possible crimes, long tradition...whatever. Only accountability matters. For Jack Goldsmith to argue

1) Jack Goldsmith is a remarkable, dependable political analyst but this piece is pure blather. I'm actually shocked he wrote these words. Here's a sample: "I believe accountability for Trump 2.0 should focus first and primarily ........ open.substack.com/pub/executiv...

4) otherwise, a guy with a law degree, no less, is a guy so infected with elite cynicism, he no longer knows what's real. This is pure "dual state-ism". A normative judicial system for us plebes, and a prerogative one for the elites. Goldsmith is pining for the good old days when those

1) Jack Goldsmith is a remarkable, dependable political analyst but this piece is pure blather. I'm actually shocked he wrote these words. Here's a sample: "I believe accountability for Trump 2.0 should focus first and primarily ........ open.substack.com/pub/executiv...

1) I followed @rparloff.bsky.social's magnificent reporting job on this, but had I known @chrisgeidner.bsky.social was going to summarize, I would've waited. This is why I subscribe to Law Dork, and why I'll reup when the open.substack.com/pub/chrisgei...

1) One can't emphasize this enough. The state as one remembers it is gone, DOGEd to the maximum, and further devastated by an administration impervious to court orders and Congressional oversight. There's very little "there" ----->there.

1) That Isaac Chotiner has published this in The New Yorker limns how far Israel has lost the PR battle here. Hard to see how any of this is defensible. This is “facts on the ground” taken to ultimate conclusion. I don’t believe Israel survives this in its current form. Eventually, there’ll be

4) drawing a sharp line in the sand between Israel the nation state, and Jews as essentially Western and essentially decent, but doing that renders Aliyah meaningless. It severs the anchoring rope, unmooring Israel to fend for itself, and opening the gates to enveloping

1) That Isaac Chotiner has published this in The New Yorker limns how far Israel has lost the PR battle here. Hard to see how any of this is defensible. This is “facts on the ground” taken to ultimate conclusion. I don’t believe Israel survives this in its current form. Eventually, there’ll be

2) total International isolation, and its economy will wither. No Western nation’s domestic politics will allow any support for this, because to do so would undermine their own national interests. At some point, Israelis will be psychologically crushed.

1) Those of us who've written similarly have been called nut cakes, paranoid conspiracists etc. et al. It remains true, losing the Mid-terms would be an existential event for Trump, and everyone of us should expect he'll act accordingly. I've no idea how things might go. I don't know...nor does

2) anyone else, for that matter...how secure Trump's hold on the military is. He has, though, clear and unimpeded control of DHS. I don't know, because no one's said a word, how robust/effective various defensive maneuvers by Dems and state governments will be.

1) Re: impeachment IF Dems win control of the Senate, the single most critical issue will be limiting the damage a lame duck Trump can (and will) do. GOP senators will be well aware of the damage looming. Dems will have to do whatever's necessary, including

3) neighbors who saw and/or heard never bothered to call the police for fear of "being involved.") Put another way, if Dems win both House & Senate, their clear responsibility is to demonstrate the government's

1) Re: impeachment IF Dems win control of the Senate, the single most critical issue will be limiting the damage a lame duck Trump can (and will) do. GOP senators will be well aware of the damage looming. Dems will have to do whatever's necessary, including

1) Professor Vladek sagely answers questions about whether SCOTUS expansion is a good thing or a bad thing, but, rarely (at least IMO) misses the forest for the trees. He makes excellent arguments except the problem's neither legal nor Constitutional. It's open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

1) Professor Vladek sagely answers questions about whether SCOTUS expansion is a good thing or a bad thing, but, rarely (at least IMO) misses the forest for the trees. He makes excellent arguments except the problem's neither legal nor Constitutional. It's open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

5) a factor of faith in the society, no t'other way 'round. The unfortunate answer to this quandary is to forget about everything except what's necessary to reconstruct a society offering robust political accountability and social fairness These are hard truths. What matters is accountability, not

1) Professor Vladek sagely answers questions about whether SCOTUS expansion is a good thing or a bad thing, but, rarely (at least IMO) misses the forest for the trees. He makes excellent arguments except the problem's neither legal nor Constitutional. It's open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

3) bias. The public has already, or surely well along the process, come to see the judiciary as well as the judicial system as a reflection of, not to mention a tool of, those possessing power. What applies to SCOTUS applies for circuits such as the Fifth.

1) Professor Vladek sagely answers questions about whether SCOTUS expansion is a good thing or a bad thing, but, rarely (at least IMO) misses the forest for the trees. He makes excellent arguments except the problem's neither legal nor Constitutional. It's open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

1) I said exactly this in a post yesterday, and it terrifies me that Krugman has mirrored my own fears. I happily concede Krugman is way smarter than I ever was, am, or will be so to have him confirm my own speculation is chilling. paulkrugman.substack.com/p/nerobefehl...

Oh. So that's what that's about. Hard to imagine how things could get any worse, but somehow they do.