America's bipartisan moral rot cancer

 Context

A NYT opinion (not paywalled), The Pardon That Represents the New Era of Corruption, by two former federal corruption prosecutors discusses a example of blatant moral rot related to a Trump pardon of a sleazy political criminal. Both political parties are complicit in the moral rot. This example is representative of a much broader gaping wound on our democracy. Deep moral rot that has set in on our two-party system. At present, it is very likely not reasonably repairable.

Last week, Trump issued another pardon that is corrodes the rule of law. Trump pardoned Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat. He was awaiting trial on well-documented federal bribery charges. This pardon was brazen. Trump publicly acknowledged that he had issued it to induce Cuellar to switch parties, and attacked him for a “lack of LOYALTY” when he didn't.

Instead of criticizing or staying silent, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries welcomed and justified Trump's unwelcome, unjustifiable pardon. Jeffries pandered to maintain Cuellar’s party loyalty. He attacked the legitimacy of a very legitimate criminal case. Jeffries publicly dismissed the not at all thin federal indictment against Cuellar as “very thin.”

What about the Democratic Party?

The deep moral rot of Trump and his MAGA elites is very well documented and no longer rationally disputed. It is still irrationally disputed, as things in politics often are, but that major concern is off topic.

The question is why did Jeffries, a Democrat, praise Trump's clearly morally rotted pardon? Exactly who is this guy? Well, he was put in power by Democratic party elites, especially by the morally challenged Nancy Pelosi.** therefore, Jeffries can be therefore be seen as representative of Democratic Party leadership morality or lack thereof.

** As some may recall, Pelosi had a hard time figuring out why insider trading by members of congress, their families and some others should be made illegal like it is for everyone else. At least for some of us, the arrogance and condescension in her moral cluelessness was insulting and breathtaking.

If one looks, one finds that Jeffries has a long, troubled moral track record, to say the least. His competence in terms of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties is weak. Arguably, that reflects the inherent moral incompatibility of democracy and the rule of law with post Citizens United corruption of politics (also a major, but off topic concern).

For example, 1992, as a 21-year-old college student, Jeffries wrote an editorial defending his uncle, Leonard Jeffries. Leonard was a Black studies professor who had made virulently antisemitic statements claiming "Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies" and comparing Jews to "dogs" and "skunks". Jeffries has lied about this and been found to be a liar.

Also, some credible critics have criticized Jeffries' timid strategy and risk-averse politics. They plausibly argue he fails to be the leader for the party needs because it is basically operating without effective political leadership. Old Democratic Party dinosaurs like Schumer and Clyburn are feckless and worthless as party leaders. Jeffries has turned out to be corrupt, but no better than the old dinosaurs.

In short, Jeffries' decision-making on key issues like the Cuellar pardon is solid evidence of poor judgment. His defense of Trump's Cuellar pardon is an inexcusable moral failure that legitimizes corruption for narrow political gain. He is driven by short-term political calculations over moral principle and vigorous defense of democracy and the rule of law.

Are moral rectitude and holding power in American national politics currently mutually exclusive?

Under current post Citizens United politics, it now appears that moral rectitude in both parties are mostly to completely incompatible with gaining and holding power. The 2010 Citizens United USSC decision opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of special interest money in and corruption of politics. That money has now almost completely subdued and neutered pro-democracy and pro-public interest morality in politics. Money and power talk, while everything else walks.

In the 2024 election cycle alone, over $1 billion in "dark money", which is undisclosed donor spending, flooded elections. Billionaire spending multiplied by a factor of 163 since Citizens United. Over 80% of billionaire spending now flows through channels that were illegal before 2010. Some scholars describe the situation as "dependence corruption", which is politicians' dependence on private campaign finance that leads to democratic erosion. Even without explicit any quid pro quo bribery, this is systemic corruption that courts refuse to recognize as legally actionable.

One expert on corruption in politics, Sarah Chayes, commented that Democrats have jumped into the corruption with both feet, and now neither party can credibly defend democratic norms. Both are captured by the same donor class. Public opinion mirrors Chayes' assertion. Over 80% of Americans believe the federal government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and not for all the people or the public interest. Research shows these public perceptions of corruption are accurate, not mistaken.

Points to consider

So did Jeffries had no choice but to pander to Cuellar to keep him in the party? But even if Cuellar did not turn into a Republican and still got re-elected despite his corruption, how does that help democracy or the rule of law? Cuellar would still be an immoral crook. This is evidence of just how broken our morally rotted, special interest money corrupted two-party system is. Apparently, Democratic Party leadership feels forced to pander to criminals. Even if the GOP is significantly worse that the Democratic Party the moral rot is deep with both.

Federal jobs data and the rational basis for distrust

The WSJ reports that Federal Reserva chairman Jerome Powell suspects that federal jobs data is underestimating job losses. By now things like that should be no surprise to most people who pay attention and are not staunch Trump supporters. For months Trump and MAGA elites have been targeting federal data collection and analysis functions to get rid of inconvenient facts and truths.

Powell said Fed staff economists estimate that federal payroll statistics may be overstating job creation by up to 60,000 jobs per month. Since published data show average gains of roughly 40,000 jobs a month since April. If those estimates are right, the true underlying reality would be a loss of about 20,000 jobs per month. 

In view of recent history, it is not unreasonable or irrational to distrust data coming from the Trump administration. Given the evidence, recent unprecedented actions against federal statistical agencies make skepticism reasonable and rational. While historical safeguards at agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) were designed to be robust against political interference, MAGA actions indicate that these firewalls have been dismantled. The current reality is plain to see -- Trump has moved well beyond rhetoric. He has in fact purged officials who produce inconvenient data.

One example is from August 2025. In that situation, Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer because she was responsible for release of inconvenient jobs data. Without evidence (as usual), Trump lied and falsely claimed that the numbers were "RIGGED" to make him look bad. In firing her, he cynically breached public trust. The BLS Commissioner is a fixed-term technical role, not a standard political appointee. The Commissioner's job is specifically to protect economic data from political interference by a president or congress. By firing the head of the agency for producing inconvenient data, Trump signaled to remaining BLS staff that their job security depends on producing convenient data, not accurate data.

By now, all of this lying, corruption and sleaze is just normal business operations under morally rotted Trump and morally rotted MAGA elites in power. Trump voters asked for this, and now they are getting it good and hard. Too bad the rest of us are getting it too -- we didn't ask for it.

Legal scholar commentary on what is happening to our democracy

 

Context

The unitary executive: The six Republican justices on the current USSC (US Supreme Court) support an authoritarian radical legal theory called the unitary executive. Of the six, only Alito has publicly stated he supports a unitary executive. The support of the other five is implicit but clear from their decisions and reliance on the shadow docket to dismantle democracy with essentially no explanation. The implicit, unstated goal of a radical right unitary executive is to establish a dictatorship that (1) calls itself a democracy, and (2) is run by an unrestrained president who is above the law. The explicit stated goal is that by giving almost unlimited power to the president, they will be more accountable to voters via elections than presidents in the past have been.

So far, the six Republican judges have not explained how an unrestrained president will be constrained by elections alone. The six simply say that elections will be the accountability mechanism and our liberty will be protected that way. They provide no explanation of how that would actually work in view of how democracy and elections currently work. They also ignore dissents in their opinions that expose the logical incoherence of empowering a dictator and then expecting them to be accountable to the people. Empirical evidence about dictatorships indicate that they are simply wrong. By definition, dictators are not accountable to the people. Calling a president with dictator-level power a "unitary executive" does not change the fact that he is still a dictator. The disdain of the six Republican judges for reasoned dissenting argument is evidence of their authoritarian intent.

Dictatorship science: From a social science point of view, the unitary executive theory operates on a catastrophically flawed assumption about competence and the public interest. Political science systematically refutes the idea that loyalist-staffed agencies will govern effectively and serve the public rather than the president's personal interests or special interests. There is no mechanism that would ensure service to the public interest as long as a unitary executive is in office. Available evidence shows the opposite occurs routinely (and this), with the dictator and allied special interests generally benefitting at the expense of the public interest and civil liberties.

The experts opine

A NYT opinion (not paywalled) by legal scholars of democracy and dictatorship assess the current state of affairs with the USSC regarding our democracy and rule of law. At issue is radical right authoritarian or MAGA attacks on the independence of supposedly independent federal agencies. Court’s right wing has made clear over several terms that the New Deal/Great Society model of expert, semi‑independent agencies is basically unconstitutional. The opinion ties this to recent and pending cases about agencies like the CFPB, SEC, FTC, NLRB, and others.

According to the experts, the USSC is (1) further removing of restrictions on a president’s power to fire people with or without any reason, (2) placing limits on agencies’ funding outside the annual appropriations process, and (3) limiting delegation of authority from Congress to executive agencies. This is part of a coordinated campaign to gut and neuter the administrative functions by shifting power from congress and federal agencies to the president.

In particular, agencies that serve democracy and the public interest while constraining a president, e.g., ethics offices, civil service protections, and protections for consumers, labor, environment, and elections, are all attacked. They are weakened or completely neutered as unconstitutional or “unaccountable”. By contrast with gutting public interest federal functions, agencies that enable Trump, e.g., ICE, DOJ leadership, partisan election enforcement, and the national security apparatus, are folded more tightly under direct presidential control. The net effect has been and is continuing to be a transfer of an enormous amount of unaccountable power to the president, i.e., the unitary executive.

In short, the USSC’s ongoing project is not a neutral rebalancing of power. Instead, it is a focused, wholesale empowerment of presidential power that is aligned with his own interests and those of allied special interests. That presidential power is not aligned with the public interest, democracy, the rule of law or civil liberties. It is aligned with the president himself.

The one-way flow of power: Finally, the experts point out that that the Court’s supposed concerns about “accountability” and “separation of powers” overwhelmingly cuts in only one direction, namely in favor of the unitary executive. Environmental, labor, consumer protection, civil rights, and financial regulatory agencies are gutted and neutered. By contrast, corporate and wealthy interests gain major new leverage, e.g., by blocking or nullifying complex regulation. Also, when the Court invalidates or narrows agency powers, it rarely insists that Congress actually step in to fill the gap. The USSC knows full well that polarization and gridlock will keep our broken Congress from doing much of anything to compete with the president for the affected powers.

Collectively, all of that contradicts elite MAGA claims that these power flows are about a legitimate constitutional structure. Instead, this is about major deregulatory politics disguised as distortions about what the Founders intended and actually produced. The USSC's administrative‑law project is partisan institutional engineering, not a neutral, principled or fact-based exercise of constitutional theory.

Points for consideration

Accountability America's democratic regulatory state depends on a mix of laws enacted by Congress, expert implementation of those laws by agencies with expertise, and procedural safeguards, transparency, and judicial review to protect the public interest. Weak, delegitimized independent agencies will be unable to resist abusive, partisan, or corrupt uses of power exercised by a unitary executive. In essence, we will have a dictator for a president, or something close to it.

Is that a plausible assessment of our current situation? What compelling empirical evidence is there that contradicts that assessment?

Politics at Christmas Time.

 Advisable or not? Let's ask AI :

Why Christmas Might Be a Good Time to Drop Politics

Focus on Togetherness and Peace

Avoid Conflict

Prioritize Relationships

Why Christmas Might Be a Better Time to Bring Up Politics

 Family gatherings provide a rare opportunity to have face-to-face conversations

 If your family generally shares similar values, discussing how current politics affect those values might serve as a positive and unifying conversation about community and the future

 Some view every opportunity to discuss civic matters as important, believing that open dialogue is necessary for a healthy democracy, even during Christmas

I like both arguments. You can't ignore politics just because it's Christmas but it could damage the Christmas mood if too focused on politics.

So, what does SNOWFLAKE say?

Buh Humbug at bringing up politics during Christmas!

Regarding American authoritarianism: NSPM-7 and MAGA's domestic terrorist list

 The origin and content of NSPM-7

On Sept. 25, 2025 Trump signed NSPM-7, National Security Presidential Memorandum 7. NSPM-7's subject was countering domestic terrorism and organized political violence. The memo's language is broad enough to encompass legal, peaceful political opposition such as Dissident Politics as a source of domestic terrorism that can be targeted by federal law enforcement. Some of the relevant language from NSPM-7 is this:

Heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased in recent years.  Even in the aftermath of the horrifying assassination of Charlie Kirk, some individuals who adhered to the alleged shooter’s ideology embraced and cheered this evil murder while actively encouraging more political violence.

There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.”  These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution.  This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.

This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically. Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society.

These campaigns often begin by isolating and dehumanizing specific targets to justify murder or other violent action against them. They do so through a variety of fora, including anonymous chat forums, in-person meetings, social media, and even educational institutions**.** These campaigns then escalate to organized doxing, where the private or identifying information of their targets (such as home addresses, phone numbers, or other personal information) is exposed to the public with the explicit intent of encouraging others to harass, intimidate, or violently assault them. (emphases added)

Criticisms of Trump and MAGA elites often made here are that they are authoritarian and kleptocratic. There is plenty of evidence to rationally support those criticisms. Despite that fact- and reason-based truth, NSPM-7 legally reframes such criticism as the "radicalization" phase of a violence campaign. Here Trump has directly converted good faith, fact-based criticism from constitutionally protected free speech to an actionable source of domestic terrorism. Thus, people merely criticizing Trump and MAGA authoritarianism and corruption don't have to be violent to be targeted. Instead, they just have to share an "ideology" that a violent actor might also held.

Catch-alls: There is a catch all in NSPM-7 to sweep in criticism of MAGA under the "anti-fascism" label. Trump's memo states that the label "anti-fascism" is a "lie" used to "justify and encourage acts of violent revolution." It then lists "common threads" ..... [including] extremism on migration, race, and gender." Thus even if there are significant parallels between (a) Trump, his MAGA elites and their authoritarian tactics, and (b) old-fashioned fascists or Nazis, simply making the comparison can put someone on Trump's domestic terrorist list, so they can be surveilled, financially harassed, subjected to federal conspiracy charges, and maybe some even put in jail.

NSPM-7 explicitly lists anti-capitalism as a common thread of domestic terrorism. This sweeps in criticism of "oligarchs," "kleptocrats," and "corporate corruption", all of which can easily be framed as anti-capitalist and thus domestic terrorist rhetoric.

The vaguest and most dangerous catch-all is NSPM-7's assertion that anti-Americanism, which is not defined, is also linked to domestic terrorism. The scope of NSPM-7 includes any sharp criticism of the US government's legitimacy that can be framed as "anti-American." Thus calling the President a "dictator," "tyrant," or "illegitimate" attacks the core functioning of the state. According to MAGA dogma, that is now domestic terrorism. Terms that delegitimize the state, e.g., junta or police state, can be easily categorized as anti-American sentiment because they imply the government is an enemy to be resisted rather than a democratic administration to be debated.

Federal implementation of NSPM-7

The Bondi memo: According to the Ken Klippenstein substack, and other sources such as Reuters, Trump's weaponized DOJ has produced its own internal (not public) memo that makes clear MAGA's authoritarian intent to squelch legitimate, legal criticism. The memo leaked to the public. Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered the FBI to compile a "list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism." The Bondi memo is a masterpiece of how to weaponize law enforcement language to criminalize legitimate political opposition.

The Bondi memo explicitly states that domestic terrorists are "united by an anti-fascist platform", which the memo links to "an elevation of violence to achieve policy outcomes." The logical chain is simple: if you hold anti-fascist beliefs, you are part of the "common characteristic" network of domestic terrorists. This imposes guilt by ideological association, not guilt by conduct.

Thus, if a person or group has ever written that Trump is authoritarian, an autocrat, or a fascist, Bondi's DOJ memo provides the fig leaf to investigate them as part of the ideological network behind the "Charlie Kirk assassination". Thus a person or group is not charged with the assassination. Instead they are investigated simply for holding the shared ideology that supposedly motivated it.

The memo is designed to treat criticism that attacks the moral legitimacy of the ruling order (capitalist, traditional, nationalist) as the precursor to terrorism. No one needs to call Trump or MAGA elites Nazis or fascists to be on the domestic terrorism list. Calling them corrupt oligarchs destroying America or the like is enough.

Points to consider

This sounds like the creation of a federal speech and thought police force that has been licensed to police speech and thought that the police and dictator Trump want to see policed and suppressed. Is that a reasonable, rational, evidence-based assessment of NSPM-7 and Bondi's no-longer secret memo? Or is it crackpot conspiracy theory or blind partisan opposition to a molehill concern?

Trump lawsuit tracker

The AP published a graphic showing a nice summary of lawsuits filed against Trump. The courts are still generally fighting for the rule of law, but they're being worn down by the USSC and its MAGA authoritarianism and corruption.

Once most of those red squares turn to green, we know we will be in for some very bad stuff, even worse than what we're getting now.

Regarding the mainstream media, and its failures and constraints

Context

Accumulating evidence points to a MSM (mainstream media) that is increasingly weak, subverted and incompetent in keeping the public reasonably informed. The post here yesterday focused on that reality. As used here, the MSM means reasonably professional news and analysis outlets like the NYT, WaPo, Reuters, AP, BBC, and the like. Reasonably professional, not perfect or even stellar. Just reasonable.

As conceptualized here, the MSM does not refer to sources like Fox News, The Federalist, Town Hall or other MAGA demagoguery outlets. Years ago, those place were subverted into partisan demagoguery and propaganda outlets for American authoritarianism (dictatorship, Christian nationalist theocracy and oligarchy).

Public opinion is deeply divided over those definitions and assertions. For the most part, the MAGAland rank and file firmly believes that the sources I call the MSM are corrupt, authoritarian radical left demagoguery and lies sources. They also firmly believe that MAGA demagoguery news and commentary sources are the truth tellers. In those MAGA minds, my definitions make me a radical left demagogue and liar. Such is the inescapable nature of humans doing politics.

Obviously, the vast differences between the two perceptions of reality are bitterly contested, vast and not reconcilable. They're not reconcilable mostly because authoritarianism does not compromise when circumstances do not force it to at least some degree of compromise. Reasonable compromise is a trait of democracy, not an authoritarian trait.

The frightening current anti-democracy reality

Under current political conditions, one can reasonably treat MSM outlets as at most as sources of raw material (documents, quotes, on‑the‑record claims, empirical facts), but not as trustworthy framers of facts, reasoning, implications or explanations. In recent years, the basis for trust in the MSM has been mostly destroyed. But to be honest and transparent, one must acknowledge historical facts. There has never been a time in colonial or American history when the press was completely trustworthy, at least from the perspective of the public interest. Special interest points of view present a different analysis.

In recent years what pushed the status of the MSM from reasonably trustworthy to not? The main sources of anti-truth, anti-rationality, and anti-democracy framing that push against reporting and commentary about truth, rationality and democracy are probably obvious to most people who pay reasonable attention.

First and foremost is the profit motive. Investors and owners of corporations that own MSM sources are under constant, relentless pressure for more profit. The profit motive never goes away. It does not care about democracy, authoritarianism, truth, lies, good, evil or anything else. It cares about itself and only itself. Pro-profit ideologues and propagandists tell us that they are on our side. They strenuously argue that the profit motive is moral and good. And, we are told that very forcefully, very often. But, that propaganda is simply not true.

So, the MSM is forced to report, analyze, and comment through a lens that protects profit. That's just a matter of fact in a capitalist system. News, analysis and commentary are all influenced to soften adverse impacts on revenues and profits. MSM outlets that offend big advertisers, lose ad revenue and ad profit. That is common sense, not rocket science or even high school biology. Newsroom cuts and audience‑chasing algorithms prioritize conflict and novelty over structural analysis. Investigative capacity has shrunk because slow‑burn accountability stories don’t drive enough ad revenue.

The second big factor is direct threats and attacks by MAGA authoritarianism and MAGA elites including Trump. Trump filed a $15 billion lawsuit against the NYT for alleged defamation. The lawsuit was frivolous but nonetheless profoundly threatening to the NYT. For years, MAGA elites have been asking our authoritarian MAGA USSC chooses to lower the evidence standards that public officials have to meet to prove defamation in court. If this USSC finally does choose to lower the evidence standard, what is left of the MSM will either be completely destroyed, or more likely neutered to the point of being akin to the non-MAGA news and commentary sources mentioned above.

Other minor factors are in play to weaken the MSM, but the bottom line is this: Anger and frustration with the MSM and its failures are rational. The best that pro-democracy citizens can do is to use that emotion as a guide. One must understand that the MSM has serious structural conflicts that mitigate against telling the whole truth. A person has to extract what the MSM still provides, namely the raw material. People of good will have to either interpret the raw material for themselves or trust sources to interpret it for them.

Points for consideration

Gathering and interpreting news is complicated and time consuming. Most people cannot or will not do that. Most people generally rely on news sources, not their own analyses, on occasions when they do pay attention. Poll data supports the claim that trust has been “mostly destroyed” among large segments of the population, with Republican trust in MSM outlets falling to single digits. However, human susceptibility to deceit, and emotional manipulation (demagoguery) is a deep, species‑level vulnerability, not something unique to this moment or MAGA and its demagoguery. We have been here before.

One question is to what extent, if any, has the failure of the MSM this time worse than at times in the past? Another is what are the odds of democracy, the rule of law and our civil liberties surviving the current kleptocratic authoritarian MAGA threat, and to what extent does (1) the current state of collapse of the MSM, and (2) the non-MSM such as Fox News, contribute to the threat?

From the MAGA death chronicles: MAGA attacks infant HBV vaccination, babies will die

The NYT reports (not paywalled) that Dr. Brainworm's (RFK Jr) politicized, pseudoscience CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has changed the science-based standard recommendation to get infants vaccinated against HBV (hepatitis B virus). The new magic and crackpottery based recommendation is shown below. The vaccinations at birth and 1 month are no longer recommended despite data proving that lives are saved using the current vaccination schedule.

A modeling study released in December 2025 by researchers in partnership with HepVu, the Hepatitis B Foundation, and the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable projected that delaying the birth dose to 2 months for infants whose mothers test negative could result in at least 1,400 preventable hepatitis B infections among children, 304 excess cases of liver cancer, and 482 preventable deaths for each year the revised recommendation remains in place, along with over $222 million in excess healthcare costs.​ If the vaccination schedule is delayed to a first vaccination at 12 months of age, the projections increase to 2,700 preventable infections and over $313 million in excess healthcare costs annually.

Infants face catastrophic outcomes if infected. Ninety percent of infants infected at birth develop chronic infection, and one in four chronically infected children will die prematurely from liver disease or liver cancer. Children infected between ages 1-5 have a 25-50% chance of developing chronic infection.

A comprehensive review by the CIDRAP Vaccine Integrity Project examining more than 400 studies spanning 40 years found no evidence that delaying the universal hepatitis B birth dose improves safety or effectiveness. The review found that birth dose vaccination does not cause any short- or long-term serious adverse events or deaths.

The NYT article commented:

Dr. Noele Nelson, a hepatitis expert at Cornell Public Health and a senior author on the C.D.C.’s previous guidelines for the vaccine, said the advisers did not “follow the scientific evidence, and risk undoing decades of progress in hepatitis B prevention, eroding vaccine confidence, and causing confusion among parents and health care providers.”

Mr. Kennedy fired all 17 previous members of the vaccine panel in June, replacing them with people who largely share his [pseudoscientific] skepticism about vaccines. Meetings of the new members, most of whom have no experience in vaccine research or clinical practice, have been marred by disorganization and intense disagreements, sometimes devolving into shouting matches. (emphasis added)

CDC vaccine experts 

Q: Once there is solid evidence of an increase in infant deaths from HBV infections under the new recommended HBV vaccination schedule, does that make Dr. Brainworm, his crackpot experts and his boss evil people who have committed Trump homicide, i.e., killers, or are they (a) merely good people doing what they think is best for us, or (b) something else, e.g., ignorant but making excusable honest mistakes?

Qs: Killer or not, or do we need to wait for the mortality data to accumulate? Is it responsible or not to suggest he and his crackpot pseudoscience cadre and his boss Trump are killers?

Dr. Brainworm - a killer?

Q: Does being deceived and manipulated by MAGA crackpottery absolve parents of the deaths, harms and costs of them being deceived and manipulated?

Clueless, therefore not responsible 

for their actions?

An editorial shift at the NYT: Authoritarian institutional capture

An incoherent opinion defending the indefensible

Context

One astute observer of politics recently noticed that something strange seemed to be going on at the NYT (New York Times). The newspaper openly positions itself as pro-democracy and staunchly opposed to Trump and MAGA authoritarianism and corruption. Despite that public face, the observer pieced together information that led to an assessment that the NYT has undergone a major editorial shift. The shift constituted what the observer called "a retreat from pluralism and from the democratic purpose the NYT so recently claimed to defend".

That assessment was based on several congruent observations. One was that NYT reporting and editorializing about threats to democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and the public interest generally from Trump and MAGA elites had shifted. There was an apparently intentional, strategic omission of context and facts readers needed to assess what was being reported. What the NYT left hidden was the scope and depth of MAGA authoritarianism. Instead of core facts needed to assess MAGA politics and actions, NYT reporting and commentary had degraded into superficial reporting of selected facts and MAGA propaganda without context or mention impacts on democracy or the public interest.

In essence, the argument is that the NYT and a lot of other national reporting and commentary frame Trump and MAGA authoritarianism in ways that normalize and justify what is clearly abnormal and unjustifiable.

The Trump administration has waged unprecedented lawfare against the NYT. Direct legal attacks include a $15 billion defamation lawsuit filed in Sept. 2025 over 2024 election coverage. However, it is unclear if the NYT shift results mostly from public threats that Trump and MAGA elites have leveled at the NYT, or if other factors dominate. Authoritarian capture of political discourse has become widespread and that could easily be a major factor in the NYT editorial and reporting changes. NYT journalists reported explicit pressure to avoid appearing biased, leading to both-sides framing even when one side openly defies democratic norms. There is fear at the NYT of (1) loss of access to news sources, and (2) being labeled partisan for accurately describing MAGA's authoritarian actions.

The NYT hasn't become pro-Trump or pro-authoritarian, at least not yet. But it is institutionally captured. Its commitment to "viewpoint diversity" now includes perspectives that, if implemented, would destroy the free press it claims to defend.

An incoherent opinion defending the indefensible

An NYT opinion by Sarah Isgur (not paywalled), senior editor at The Dispatch, argues that the USSC (US Supreme Court) knows what it is doing, and it is good. Her argument is pretty simple. To increase accountability of executive agencies, the USSC is merely rebalancing power among the branches of government. She asserts that this not just transferring power to a unitary executive with legal immunity for committing crimes while in office. A unitary executive is close to a dictator, since he is now legally above the law while in office. 

In her opinion Isgur also claims, incoherently, that the Founders would be "shocked" not by a presidency that has accumulated vast new powers, but by a Congress that has given up a lot of its power. She argues that congress has too little power. But in the same opinion she notes that the USSC is on the verge of giving the president a whole lot more power at the expense of congress. The case, Trump v. Slaughter, could decide the fate of dozens of independent administrative agencies and the president’s ability to control them.

Isgur denigrates members of congress like this:

They [the Founders] would be confused that so many of its more than 500 members seem to have no further ambition than to act like glorified Instagram influencers**.**  

That may be true to some extent, but not very much. That aside, how that justifies giving an already too powerful and corrupt but above the law president more power is clear as mud. Her NYT opinion claims to strengthen Congress but she directly proposes supporting the USSC to weaken it further by transferring congressional delegations to unlimited presidential control in Trump v. Slaughter.

Points for consideration

Does this opinion mostly amount to the NYT publishing legal arguments that sanitize authoritarian power grabs as constitutional theory, the Founder's intent or some other rationalization?

If Isgur is right that the Founders would be shocked at how wimpy congress has become, is it irrational for her to argue that the presidency needs more power, which would be taken from congress in the pending Trump v. Slaughter case? Do her arguments amount to a blatant contradiction that exposes intellectual dishonesty? Does that dishonesty extend to the NYT itself, or is the newspaper walled off from criticism by saying it's her opinion, not ours?

Current GOP on Conspiracies.

 

https://manhattan.institute/article/the-new-gop-survey-analysis-of-americans-overall-todays-republican-coalition-and-the-minorities-of-maga

 On specific theories:

• The 2020 election: Just over half of the Current GOP (51%) believes that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was fraudulent, while 41% say that view is probably or definitely false. Among New Entrant Republicans, support for this belief rises to 60%.
• Vaccines and autism: One in three in the Current GOP (33%) believe that childhood vaccines cause autism. This view is more common among college graduates (42%) than non-graduates (29%), and among New Entrant Republicans (47%).
• 9/11 conspiracies: Four in ten in the Current GOP (41%) believe that the 9/11 attacks were likely orchestrated or permitted by U.S. government actors. Belief is highest among men (48%), college graduates (51%), Republicans under 50 (53%, compared with 34% of those over 50), and New Entrant Republicans (53%). Among black GOP voters the figure is 58%, and among Hispanic GOP voters, 56%.
• Holocaust denial or minimization: Nearly four in ten in the Current GOP (37%) believe the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated or did not happen as historians describe. Younger men are especially likely to hold this view (54% of men under 50 vs. 39% of women under 50). Among men over 50, 41% agree, compared with 18% of women over 50. Racial divides are particularly striking:
  • 77% of Hispanic GOP voters
  • 30% of white GOP voters
  • 66% of black GOP voters
• Moon landing: A similarly sized chunk of the Current GOP (36%) believes that the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked by NASA. Again, younger men are more likely to hold this view (51% of men under 50 vs. 38% of women under 50). There are stark racial divides: while only 31% of white GOP voters believe the conspiracy, this rises to 59% among Hispanic Republicans and 63% among black Republicans.                           

Damn, now THAT above link breaks down a lot of the attitudes of today's GOP and MAGA types. Too much to post all of it here but worth delving into that link by the Manhattan institute.

I just posted the conspiracy theory parts because it is just too bizarre that there are still this many folks who believe those conspiracies. 

Made me laugh.

Balancing of interests in the law is under attack

 Context

Since the founding of the Republic, American laws have generally taken into account cost-benefit for affected people and interests when a law has significant impacts. Balancing of interests has been ubiquitous in constitutional law since the early 20th century. Even when absolutists claim the Constitution is silent about balancing, e.g., clauses asserting a right "shall not be infringed" or congress "shall make no law", their decisions are usually crafted in ways that actually do some balancing, even when that is denied.

Although absolutism and hostility toward balancing of interests is a minority legal view, it is arguably dogma among MAGA legal practitioners, generally including all six Republicans on the US Supreme Court bench. That makes absolutism a powerful influence on modern law despite it being a minority position. The majority view is that constitutional rights and laws must be interpreted in a manner that is sensitive to their purpose and to the necessities of society and the law.

Some legal scholars have called out the hypocrisy of selective anti-balancing originalism in the law. That brand of originalism almost always results in partisan outcomes, not principled outcomes. It uses the law as means to partisan ends. One scholar asserted that originalism is a form of a living constitution that is simply not honest about its values, aims, and commitments. In the hands of MAGA US Supreme Court judges, originalism functions as an after-the-fact rationalization, and an anti-democracy weapon, for partisan decisions made on partisan grounds.

In short, anti-balancing legal scholars and judges are, or at least look like they are, asserting anti-balancing absolutism as a smoke screen for MAGA authoritarianism. The current US Supreme Court is increasingly extending absolutist levels of protection to current favored rights, e.g., speech, religious exercise, bearing arms, and holding property, while zeroing out protection for currently" disfavored rights, e.g., abortion, voting rights and consumer rights and protections.

The Founders' Approach

The Founders explicitly embraced balancing. James Madison cautioned against "absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them". He understood that rigid rules will not be well-respected when they significantly oppose the public interest. Jefferson similarly acknowledged that declarations protecting free press will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed" and that protecting religious freedom "does not give impunity to criminal acts, dictated by religious error. The historical record makes clear that the Founders assumed rights had limits.

MAGA Hypocrisy

Today's conservative Supreme Court majority claims to reject interest balancing in favor of "text, history, and tradition." However, historian Eric Foner has observed that originalism is intellectually indefensible because there is no important document in the world that has only one original meaning or one original intention.

The hypocrisy is glaring. The same justices who eliminated interest balancing for gun safety laws (the 2022 Bruen decision) employ balancing when it favors preferred outcomes. Preferred outcomes include expanding executive power (under the authoritarian unitary executive theory), religious exemptions (allowing discrimination against target groups), and weakening protections for voting rights. Legal scholars document that when convenient, conservative originalists announce decisions and doctrines that have no basis in the Constitution's original meaning.

The Authoritarian Threat

The net effect of MAGA's selective anti-balancing dogma is authoritarian. Recent scholarship argues that the widespread adoption of originalism has diminished the ability of the United States to stare down anti-democratic threats because it has eroded two key bulwarks against authoritarianism, namely individual rights and an independent judiciary.

Since January 2025, the Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in 20 of 23 shadow-docket rulings. Lower-court judges who ruled against the administration have been consistently overturned by a Supreme Court majority that claims fidelity to constitutional text while functionally expanding executive power beyond anything the Founders contemplated. There's little to no balancing in that.

Public Ignorance

Most Americans remain unaware that abstract-sounding debates over "originalism" versus "balancing" determine whether their rights have practical meaning. When courts refuse to balance, they either make rights absolute by blocking all regulation, or they defer to government or special interest power. Neither outcome reflects the Founders' nuanced understanding that liberty requires both protection and prudent limits. Both are anti-democracy

The stakes are democracy itself. Empowered originalism creates a legal environment where authoritarianism is viable and democracy weakened. When a an anti-democratic constitutional dogma becomes a weapon wielded for partisan ends, the rule of law and democracy have eroded. Understanding this battle is an important first step toward defending democracy and self-governance.