What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

As much as I understand that sort of nihilism (après moi le déluge) and fear, it's really accelerating US's consolidation of authoritarianism. I keep seeing colleagues who seem to hold their breath and hope it will pass, without doing much in the way of actually developing a playbook to oppose what they can. I know it is hard to dismantle decades, if not centuries of American exceptionalism in collective consciousness, but the responses from civil society has been incredibly weak.

Well they are almost begging us to resist so they can shoot us with our own army. It is hard to see a clear path forward, at least not until a large percentage of the population is on our side.

[Oexmelin]

I understand the fear, but that's where you are. Doing nothing will not magically convince people to resist, and the strategy of "waiting for the economy to turn bad" will not work either, because Trump is dismantling both the information supplied about the state of the economy, and putting his cronies to places of authority re: elections. 

On the more positive side, you are still at a time when it doesn't take much push back on the ground to shake the resolve of some of the armed forces, and shake off the spell of obedience. Except for ICE. At this point, they are the President's paramilitary, and have attracted fitting candidates.

The thing is: you have to be relentless. It has to take over some of your hobbies - some of your career, if you are fortunate enough to wield authority, or to carve out space and time for it, or you have useful skills. Your priorities have to shift a bit. Not a lot of people seem to be willing to do that now. But it is now - or rather, it had to be years ago - that you have to enact such a change. The more people wait, the more it will appear as an insurmountable task.

[The Minsky Moment]

I guess I give Kavanaugh some credit. The rest of the Justices in the majority were content to write a single line saying stay granted, without even trying to explain or justify why they taking what used to be (from 1789-Jan. 20, 2025) the extraordinary step of issuing a stay of a lower court order before an appeal is properly before the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh OTOH at least had the honesty to say that the order was justified because Trump's immigration policy is so marvelous and because arresting people based on their race is perfectly AOK. Though that he felt comfortable writing that down is disturbing.

But even if Kavanaugh is right and the US constitutional order incorporates the principles of 1970s South Africa, what irreparable harm would result from allowing the lower court's order to stand, given that a finding of such harm is required to issue a stay?

Kavanaugh's reponse:

Notably, moreover, the District Court's injunction threatens contempt sanctions against immigration officers who make brief investigative stops later found by the court to violate the injunction.  The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing and contempt proceedings will inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts

Americans who still remain conscious may experience slight feelings of skepticism that Trump, his unholy gang (Hohman, Noem, Miller,.Bondi) and their masked ICE praetorians are likely to be chilled by a piece of paper waved by a California district judge.  And indeed, the absurd premise collapses immediately on contact with reality. Per the dissent:

Moreover, the on-the-ground reality contradicts the Government's and the concurrence's claim of a chilling effect. Since the issuance of the TRO, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has called the District Judge an "'idiot'" and vowed that "'none of [the Government's] operations are going to change.'"9  The CBP Chief Patrol Agent in the Central District has stated that his division will "turn and burn" and "go even harder now,"10 and has posted videos on social media touting his agents' continued efforts "[c]hasing, cuffing, [and] deporting" people at car washes.11 See also ECF Doc. 128–6, pp. 5–6 (declaration describing July 21 incident in which two masked agents walked into a donut shop, grabbed two Latino men, and threw them to the ground or against a wall, all without asking any questions). Accordingly, there is no reason to credit the Government's assertion that it will suffer irreparable harm.

There is a narrative among some that the Supreme Court has not been an effective check on Trump's gross executive over-reach because of some sort of timidity or fear.  That is not so.  It has been ineffective because a majority of its members are perfectly happy with the trampling of the executive boot, as long as it is the right foot in the boot doing the trampling.  This is not a conservative court acting too slowly and timidly.  It is a far right court cheering on its partisan team.

[Norgy]

The lesson of the 1930s is get out while you can.

Neither Norway nor Sweden have space for 380 million Americans. I can take in a few. Female ones. 

[Iormlund]

The lesson of the 1930s is get out while you can.

Neither Norway nor Sweden have space for 380 million Americans. I can take in a few. Female ones. 

We don't need all of them, though. Just the smart ones. Well, those that don't want to go back to China anyway.

[Admiral Yi]

Letter Trump allegedly wrote to Epstein.

[Syt]

"The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing"

... isn't that what the judiciary is there for?

[Solmyr]

Letter Trump allegedly wrote to Epstein.

That seems way too eloquent for Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

Roberts just issued another stay, this time of a lower court injunction blocking Trump's effort to purge the Federal Trade Commission of its Democratic commissioners. (the law requires partisan balancing of the FTC and similar commissions).

If only Roger Taney had known you could do this.  He wouldn't have had to put all that effort into his Dred Scott opinion.  Just a simple order: "Scott's a slave, Blacks have no rights, so ordered.  Oh yeah and by the way, the Missouri Compromise is illegal and every state is slave state now.  Thanks for your attention."

[crazy canuck]

There can be no clearer signifier that the USA has become something else and will not return

RIP

With a preface by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and contributions from more than 30 conservative judges, the Heritage Foundation, the influential think tank that has helped shape the Trump administration's second-term agenda, will soon publish an 800-page, clause-by-clause analysis of the Constitution.

"The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" is a kind of judicial counterpart to Project 2025, the group's blueprint for the executive branch. The new book urges lawyers and judges to view every provision of the Constitution through the lens of originalism, which has come to dominate conservative legal thought since the Reagan years and calls for constitutional cases to be decided based on the document's original meaning.

The book, shared with The New York Times ahead of its October publication, also serves as a showcase for potential Supreme Court nominees should President Trump have an opportunity to appoint a fourth justice. Almost every judge who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for a vacancy on the court contributed an essay or served as an adviser to the project.

The book's 18-member "judicial advisory board" included Judges James C. Ho and Andrew S. Oldham of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Judge Amul R. Thapar of the Sixth Circuit, Judge Neomi Rao of the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Patrick J. Bumatay of the Ninth Circuit. All have been named as possible nominees for the Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/us/politics/heritage-foundation-constitution-book.html?unlocked_article_code=1.kk8.31Jh.UFCyb9CsiHmh&smid=url-share

[Valmy]

There can be no clearer signifier that the USA has become something else and will not return

I think the Supreme Court has destroyed the constitutional republic and there is no going back and there is no obvious reset button. I think it was recently demonstrated to me that if Democrat became president in 2029 and ordered the summary execution of all six conservative Supreme Court justices on the White House lawn in the name of national security that, based on their own rulings, there would not be anything illegal about that. But maybe Minsky can correct me on that. Our people are sleepwalking into oblivion.

I think ultimately this proves the superiority of the Westminster system of government. Our system has, in other countries that copied us, typically resulted in a strongman coming to power. And it did with us eventually.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think it was recently demonstrated to me that if Democrat became president in 2029 and ordered the summary execution of all six conservative Supreme Court justices on the White House lawn in the name of national security that, based on their own rulings, there would not be anything illegal about that.

It would be extremely illegal. But the President would be immune from prosecution for the crime.  So the illegality would not practically matter.

One of the core maxims of the common law is that there must be a remedy for every right.  A corollary is that there must be a legal consequence for every wrong. That is a foundation of the rule of law. Rights that cannot be enforced are meaningless, as are crimes that not subject to sanction. The Presidential immunity ruling is just one of many violations of that principle that this Court has engaged in.  Again and again this Term, we have seen litigants go to the courts for remedies where Trump takes illegal actions via executive order in violation of statutory law.  And again and again, the Supreme Court denies justice by gratuitously issuing stays of any remedial order a lower court may grant.  It is ironic that a Court obsessed with the idea (though not the reality) of legal history and America's English law antecedents acts so contrary to core common law principles.

I think ultimately this proves the superiority of the Westminster system of government. Our system has, in other countries that copied us, typically resulted in a strongman coming to power. And it did with us eventually.

That system works for the same reason ours used to, namely that the participants agree to abide by unwritten rules of conduct. In theory great sovereign power still resides in the monarchy that could be hijacked by an irresponsible leader who secured royal backing, either by consent or threat.  Or an irresponsible leader with fanatical party backing and a temporary majority in Commons could do all sorts of mischief, especially if like Trump they could partially co-opt or intimidate the courts.

[The Minsky Moment]

Any democratic system of government ultimately rests on the decency and fair-mindedness of the people, and on the people's commitment to be decent and fair-minded.  Sad to say, that is why the US is in trouble now.

[PJL]

As long as the public don't care about the trampling of legal and constitutional norms, then any democratic system is liable to be subverted to authoritarianism.

Edit, JR beat me to it.

[Tonitrus]

There can be no clearer signifier that the USA has become something else and will not return

I think the Supreme Court has destroyed the constitutional republic and there is no going back and there is no obvious reset button. I think it was recently demonstrated to me that if Democrat became president in 2029 and ordered the summary execution of all six conservative Supreme Court justices on the White House lawn in the name of national security that, based on their own rulings, there would not be anything illegal about that. But maybe Minsky can correct me on that. Our people are sleepwalking into oblivion.

I think ultimately this proves the superiority of the Westminster system of government. Our system has, in other countries that copied us, typically resulted in a strongman coming to power. And it did with us eventually.

I don't think it does that at all.  If we had a parliamentary system, with all other conditions the same, Trump would have the power to be even more authoritarian than he is now, with even less roadblocks. (though, with Congress the way it is, it is close).  I am not aware of any obstacles in a parliamentary system that would stop a Trump-like figure if you simply replaced one system/society with the other.  Would rebels/backbenchers have more power to remove the leader?  Sure...but looking at our system through parliamentary lens...I don't see any backbenchers rebelling against a Trump...in fact, quite the opposite.

I tend to think the only "roadblock" that has kept wannabee authoritarians from wrecking either our system, or a parliamentary system, is that we had in the past been "gentlemanly" enough to recognize the rules and play by them.  I think that is more of an insight into the flaw of democratic systems, and perhaps better to say, the failures in our own society, when things go down the bad path we are currently on.

In terms of dealing with the USSC...perhaps Biden's/the Dems biggest mistake was not going ahead and expanding the number of seats on the USSC when they had a chance.  That may have had unforeseen consequences long-term...but is appearing nonetheless deadly in the short-term. 

Edit.  TLDR, JR and PJL beat me to it.