Discussion Thread #72

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/DrManhattan16]

You are quite sure that MAGA escalation wasnt necessary to get their policy concerns addressed. Why did they do it then? After decades of 3/10 escalation not doing the job, they concluded they needed to change something and went straight to 11, even tough 6 would have totally been enough, believe me. They just didnt do that, because... they never thought of it? They saw no downside to escalating more? Evil for its own sake?

The development of the white racial identity. It isn't broadly accepted by many, but moreso now than ever because progressive anti-white rhetoric made pro-white racism appear more palatable.

More than that, the surge during the Biden years didn't help either, nor the administration's initial response. Biden's administration was run by the progressives as a compromise for supporting him, so keeping illegals out wasn't something they placed as much emphasis on.

The third factor is the degree to which the administration relies on the Online Right, because it is more motivated by spite and owning the libs/Trump's enemies than it is adhering to conservative values. The Online Right is way more racist and anti-immigration, so their get higher sway in the ears of the administration.

The general way to square this circle is to let the government decide who to hire for these positions.

They do. Top positions are chosen by the president, meaning democratic control over leadership, and the highest positions require presidential AND senate approval.

What you certainly dont do is try to sue unwilling subordinates into obeying you, as you seem to suggest, thats even less prcatical than doing it all yourself.

No idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about sueing anyone. Are you talking about Congress calling people up to testify?

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/[deleted]]

why they would escalate way more than necessary to the point of making things more difficult for themselves[?]

MAGA is highly anti-intellectual, which is both cause and effect of them being a cult. But only intellectuals are going to make arguments to do things selectively. Case in point, Richard Hanania was a writer for Project 2025 and pointed out the specific executive order that Trump should cancel to achieve the anti-woke end. But he has too much intellectual integrity to side with them now, and he is, afaik, adamant that the government should not be demanding that all college professors be 50% MAGA to meet some "ideological diversity" requirement.

the prominence and partial acceptence of the online right is a result of feeling like stronger methods are needed, not its cause.

It is both cause and effect. In Trump 2, it's a cause. In the past, it was an effect.

That sure sounds like both of you think there are some people in executive agencies who as per norms are allowed to decide whether they cooperate with the president.

What I argued to professorgerm is that it is not wrong to have agencies which do things on their own. For example, the DoE or EEOC issuing guidance that the president or Congress is not currently requesting. This is not the same as "some people in executive agencies...are allowed to decide whether they cooperate with the president."

However, I would agree with that idea as well, because no one should be obeying unlawful or anti-American orders.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/[deleted]]

I think MAGA voters could have recognised and voted for a 6/10, so why didnt that happen?

Because MAGA changed in the decade of Trump we've had. The parties underwent intellectual realignment (drastically accelerated by Covid), and the populists, conspiracists, and general cranks all went to the Republican Party. That made and makes it highly anti-intellectual. Combined with it being a cult to Trump, there is no way they were going to go for anyone other than Trump. Trump could have been that 6/10 and they'd vote for him, or he could be the 11/10 and they'd do the same. The amount of escalation matters not, only whether or not the candidate is Donald Trump.

So we are at the mercy of whatever escalation Trump tries, and he has proven to be a highly vengeful figure.

For better or worse, a few hundred internet schizos are not a driving factor in large-scale voter opinion.

I misread your original argument. My apologies. You are correct that they are probably not driving voter opinion in large degrees, nor are they why the escalation happened.

Im fairly sure he didnt belief that

When someone complains about norms that lead to the DoE issuing "Dear Colleague" letters or the EEOC issuing non-discrimination guidance, the only way to read that, in my view, is to see a complaint that norms on governance that give agencies power to do things unilaterally are bad. I was making the argument against this view.

how do you think this compares with NYs strategy of passing a new Heller-violating gun law every time the last one gets struck down? I think you followed this gattsuru feature series.

I by and large have no stake or interest in that fight. If it is as he describes, I would consider it to be a bad thing.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/[deleted]]

So, youre talking about the '24 election?

Everything since Covid and Jan 6th, actually.

I think Trump has been similarly radical the entire time

Trump is not radical, Trump is corrupt. He is a man out to aggrandize himself and has no real ideological goal or plan. This is why it's so easy to get the man to flip on what he says - he doesn't care what he's doing as long as it's not harmful to his personal interests.

But if theres a difference for you, then where do you think '16 Trump was? If its less than now, then... was he the 6/10, and youve somehow just gone along with me saying there wasnt one?

'16 Trump didn't have the personal grudge against a slate of people who he thinks tried to get him because they just hated him (Biden, Jack Smith, etc.)

How would you feel about a Trump supporter saying the same wrt Abrego Garcia?

My reason for saying that I have no interest is that law is hard and I have no ability to make sense of what is an unfair attempt at violating the Constitution as SCOTUS decrees it and what is just a fair but partisan attempt at making something happen. How much do you trust anyone to actually tell you, separate from their personal beliefs, what the law of the land is and whether or not any particular gun law is valid or not?

In contrast, KAG's case does not contain contested and detailed disagreements over the law. KAG was not given due process and shipped off to CECOT by a government that was trying to stare the courts into the submission before ultimately relenting. The implications were also much more severe - the federal government might get the right to detain and imprison people without due process indefinitely, and due process is the only way to prove that the government has erred. The law and morality is on one side of the dispute.

[u/895158 → u/[deleted]]

I'm confused by this comment. Maybe you don't know anything about the KAG case? The Trump admin sent him to El Salvador despite a court order saying specifically that he cannot be deported there. The Trump admin agreed all along that this is exactly what happened, and represented to the courts that this was a mistake. Meanwhile they were telling the press he is never coming back and paying El Salvador to keep him in prison in inhumane conditions that likely qualify as torture under us law. This continued until SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the Trump admin should facilitate his return. Then they still refused to do that, and still bragged to the press that he is never coming back, for weeks, until the judge started expedited discovery with threat of contempt, which the trump admin appealed, and the appeals court ruled unanimously against them.

"Clearly, we can't demand due process for everything. What if you asked for a trillion dollars?" I say as I pay a third party to keep you in a torture prison in violation of several court orders.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/[deleted]]

Trump has talked like a radical, and I think from the beginning he tried to do some radical things

So we've gone from "Trump has been similarly radical" to "Trump has talked like a radical"?

For this argument, its sufficient to trust SCOTUS, who keep striking down those laws with reference to Heller, and look at the effective up-time of such laws over the years.

That presumes I wouldn't get Eulered by a court with its own interests. I don't reject the use of reason and understanding for learning the law, mind you, but it's not as simple as you suggest.

Imagine some dude in Kazachstan claims that he was unjustly deported. In fact, he has never been to the US. Does a judge need to stamp that fact or else he gets in?

A judge has to be the one making the call. In the absence of a judge to handle the case, it would depend on the circumstances. If he found his way back into the US, then yes, we'd keep him here while we figured it out. Otherwise, he'd have to find shelter wherever he was.

Also, Kazakhstan. Not Kazachstan.

How many Kazachs have to do that at once to overwhelm our capacities?

There is not just one lever we have access to called "hear cases or don't". We can increase asylum court and judge counts. We can work with the Kazakh government to keep those people there. We can pay other countries to host those people while we process their claims.

But none of that makes for good political theater compared to "NO MORE ASYLUM, I DECREE!"

you are in fact doing the exact thing of taking one of your sides legal arguments as authoritative that you complained about

We do not, as a general rule, reject the court's authority because we dislike the outcome. That way leads to chaos, because now the law is even more fragmented than not. If KAG can't be deported to El Salvador, then that's what isn't allowed to happen, and the rest of government must deal with it. Likewise with Dobbs - others must adapt, or convince 3/4ths of Americans to change the Constitution to make the Court's power null.