Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 19
Conservative republican columnist and journalist David F*ing Brooks is sounding the alarm and calling for a united, coordinated uprising against Mad King Donald and his administration.
What is happening now is not normal politics. We’re seeing an assault on the fundamental institutions of our civic life, things we should all swear loyalty to — Democrat, independent or Republican.
It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.Brooks calls for lawsuits, mass rallies, strikes, work slowdowns, boycotts and other forms of noncooperation and resistance -- even an antifascist general strike.
Hey Dope1, LurkerMom, BigHairyMike, and you others... if David F*ing Brooks has seen the light, maybe it's time to reconsider why you remain on the wrong side of history, favoring fascism instead of democracy.
Gift Link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/opinion/trump-h...
No. of Recommendations: 1
David Brooks has been changing his tune- slowly but surely, since 2015. For awhile, around the time of the last election, it seemed that he was backtracking.
It’s good to see that he realizes that his hope was misplaced.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Conservative republican columnist and journalist David F*ing Brooks is sounding the alarm and calling for a united, coordinated uprising against Mad King Donald and his administration.
It will require two of the Trump appointed justices to be a “switch in time that saves nine”, to appropriate the FDR trope of nearly a century ago.
Which two? Certainly not Thomas or Alito (*hereinafter referred to as Clarito). Probably not Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. That leaves Amy Coney Barrett or Roberts, and that assumes Kennedy stays in the sane column.
I don’t have a lot of hope here, but “nine” is a lot easier to count than 235 or 100, and they’re the last line of defense, since the 235 and 100 seem determined not to do anything. (In fairness it’s not all 235 or 100, but it might as well be.)
No. of Recommendations: 1
Which two? Certainly not Thomas or Alito (*hereinafter referred to as Clarito). Probably not Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. That leaves Amy Coney Barrett or Roberts, and that assumes Kennedy stays in the sane column.
Kennedy?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Conservative republican columnist and journalist David F*ing Brooks is sounding the alarm and calling for a united, coordinated uprising against Mad King Donald and his administration.
About damn time.
All law-abiding and constitution-loving Americans need to work together to prevent the complete loss of our country to an authoritarian. Those of us who have opposed Trump from the beginning will need to swallow our anger and work with those who are just converting away from Trumpism to stop him before he becomes unstoppable.
We're going to have to look beyond the errors that many have made in the past in their support of Trump and embrace their conversion and seeing the light. That's not to say that there won't be a price to pay for those past errors, but this is not the time to deal with that issue. The house is on fire and we all have to work together to put it out. For now, it doesn't matter than some of those working to put out the fire helped start it. If they're helping to put it out, they are our friends and not the enemy.
I have my problems with Brooks, but he is finally on the right side of history. He's got the right idea and I'll support him in this quest.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
It will require two of the Trump appointed justices to be a “switch in time that saves nine”, to appropriate the FDR trope of nearly a century ago.
Which two? Certainly not Thomas or Alito (*hereinafter referred to as Clarito). Probably not Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. That leaves Amy Coney Barrett or Roberts, and that assumes Kennedy stays in the sane column.
That leaves Amy Coney Barrett or Roberts, and that assumes Kennedy stays in the sane column.
I think you meant GOP-appointed justices, not Trump specifically. Roberts was appointed by Bush, not Trump. Trump's appointees were Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think you meant GOP-appointed justices, not Trump specifically. Roberts was appointed by Bush, not Trump. Trump's appointees were Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Yes. Careless error, I got out over my skis as I was rushing to do something productive with the day rather than blather endlessly in this giant void we call “the internet.”
No. of Recommendations: 14
That leaves Amy Coney Barrett or Roberts, ……
Barrett is way too conservative for my tastes, but at least she seems to believe in the Constitution and she doesn’t seem bat shit crazy. I can live with that.
Roberts is like an earthworm. Every once in a while he catches a fish, but he doesn’t have a backbone.
No. of Recommendations: 4
What is happening now is not normal politics. We’re seeing an assault on the fundamental institutions of our civic life, things we should all swear loyalty to — Democrat, independent or Republican.
Absolutely. I've been saying that for years. I may disagree about policies, and I may even disagree that something should be legal/illegal. But at the end of the day, you have to respect rule of law, and procedures, and facts. As long as that is present, I can agree to disagree about any given policy. If it is absent, our democracy is in peril.
Glad a few Republicans are seeing it. Probably not enough in the face of Faux Noise (et al), though. Repeat lies often enough, and people will start to believe them.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That leaves Amy Coney Barrett or Roberts, and that assumes Kennedy stays in the sane column.
What is your opinion about the justices? I know Thomas is as corrupt as the day is long. He openly takes bribes, and doesn't even try to hide them (e.g. by reporting them as gifts...he just doesn't report them). I've read numerous articles, and John Oliver thought it important enough to dedicate an entire show to discussing his graft.**
But what about the others? Are they likely to respect precedent and rule of law? I've been surprised by some rulings in recent years (both positively and negatively).
**He even offered Thomas a tricked-out RV, plus a stipend every year for the remainder of his life, if he resigned during Biden's term. And, shockingly, it was legal for him to make that offer...the HBO lawyers cleared it.
No. of Recommendations: 6
But what about the others? Are they likely to respect precedent and rule of law?
Got me. I don't practice in front of the Court, and only know as much about their jurisprudence as any interested 'hobbyist' would be. So apart from the rather surface observations that most people have made (Thomas and Alito are conservative, Jackson and Sotomayor are liberal, etc.), I don't have any particular insight.
I will say that many of the issues that are heading their way are really....weird issues, in the sense that they involve questions that Court members haven't really spoken about much. For example, most people had a pretty good idea where many of the Justices' heads were at on the question of Chevron deference - that questions been at the center of a lot of legal scholarship, several of the Justices had given their thoughts on Chevron in prior opinions and dissents, etc. But the issues raised in the Abrego Garcia case, or the issue of the scope of injunctions where one party (the U.S.) is interacting will millions of people on any given disputed point of law, or the Citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment....these are not issues that have been well-chewed before making it to the Court.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I will say that many of the issues that are heading their way are really....weird issues
Not Snope v Brown and Ocean State Tactical v Rhode Island! Hopefully those come out of conference on Monday.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Not Snope v Brown and Ocean State Tactical v Rhode Island! Hopefully those come out of conference on Monday.
Of course - the SCOTUS will have all of their regular docket to deal with as well, almost all of which involves legal disputes from before Trump took office. I took the original question to be asking about the stuff that is heading up to the SCOTUS resulting from the..."aggressive" approach to prior practice being implemented by the Adminstration.
No. of Recommendations: 0
He's right, but Brooks is no staunch "conservative Republican" anymore. He's more like the token moderate/strawman non-liberal on the NYT editorial dept.
No. of Recommendations: 9
brooks went far out-of-character when he recently stated 1-on-1 tariff negotiations have little purpose other than extract donations and bribes (also supported by game theory for complex scenarios)
however, it was unclear who he was talking to regarding kleptocracy...most sensible people that knew of this goal even before trump 1.0, or fellow gop that dont care.
i dont think brooks deserves a break as another tiny gop voice that is regretful after it doesnt matter.
below are more-or-less his trump stances during the past 3 elections :
2016 : obama has swung the country too far left, trump will grow into the presidency
2020 : trump was doing great until his covid management, and was not forgiven for this on the margins
2024 : inflation, blah blah blah
No. of Recommendations: 8
2016 : obama has swung the country too far left, trump will grow into the presidency
2020 : trump was doing great until his covid management, and was not forgiven for this on the margins
2024 : inflation, blah blah blah
How could any intelligent person NOT see what Trump is!
It's easy for people to get blinded by partisanship, but I've never seen anything close to this Trump cult madness.
