Here's a philosophical question...

[The more they know?]

Is it better to know, or not know?  Nebulous question, but let me get more specific.

Big Brother (sometimes insinuated as the government) already knows about many of the mundane things in your life; e.g., what kind of toilet paper you use, if you smoke or drink, if you go to the dentist regularly.  Which begs some questions: 

Should a government spy on its people?  If yes, how much spying should be allowed?  Where do you draw the line in FBI/CIA/governmental spying?  If you are innocent, why would the government spying on you be a problem?

Question:  Is it better to know about the nefarious elements of a society, at the cost of the innocent, than not to know?  Talk about that.

(by PrimalSoup)

The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket: How Two Decisions Have Broken the Balance

As we are all taught in elementary school, America’s constitutional system is built on checks and balances—each branch of government is meant to restrain the others, safeguarding our freedoms. But recently, the Supreme Court has quietly chipped away at these protections through a series of “shadow docket” decisions. These are fast-tracked rulings, often made without full public explanation or argument, and justified by claims of emergency. Instead of resolving emergencies, these decisions have created a genuine constitutional crisis by removing the judiciary’s power to check the executive in the critical area of deportations. Last week, two such rulings dramatically eroded constitutional checks and balances in an area where Trump’s overreach has been glaring: summary deportations without due process.

1. Trump v. CASA

The Supreme Court ruled that lower federal courts can no longer block government policies for everyone (so-called “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions). Now, if a court finds a deportation policy illegal, it can only protect the handful of people who actually sued—not the thousands or millions who might be affected.

This means if you’re not part of a lawsuit, you’re out of luck—even if a judge agrees the policy is unconstitutional.

2. Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.

The Court allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to “third countries”—places they may never have been, and where they could face torture or death—without giving them notice or a chance to argue for their safety.

This decision was made on the “shadow docket”—an emergency process where the Court acts quickly, often without full arguments or written explanations. Only the three liberal justices dissented, warning of the dangers.

Why Is This a Constitutional Crisis?

The U.S. Constitution is built on checks and balances—each branch of government is supposed to keep the others in line. The courts are our last defense against government overreach. These two decisions have gutted that defense in the area of deportations:

• No More Broad Protections: Lower courts can’t stop illegal policies from hurting everyone. Only the Supreme Court can, and it rarely does.

• No Due Process: The government can now deport people without warning or a fair hearing—even to countries where they face grave danger.

• No Real Oversight: The Supreme Court made these decisions quickly, with little explanation, and strictly along partisan lines. That’s not how major constitutional questions are supposed to be settled.

What Does This Mean in Practice?

• If the government decides to deport you—even if you have a good legal case—you may have no time to fight back.

• If a judge says a deportation policy is illegal, it helps only the people who sued, not everyone affected.

• The President’s power to deport has become nearly unchecked. The only court that can stop him is the Supreme Court—and it has shown it’s unwilling to do so.

Is This Like What Happened in Hungary in the 2010s?

In Hungary (and also Poland) in the 2010s, ruling parties took control of the courts to cement their power and silence opposition. Hungary has since become a type of authoritarian regime that maintains only the appearance of democracy.

The U.S. isn’t there yet—our courts haven’t been packed or dissolved—but the speed and boldness of these Supreme Court decisions echo the early steps seen in those countries. The difference is mostly one of pace and method, not direction.

The Stakes

Checks and balances are not just legal technicalities—they are what keep us free. When the courts can’t check the President, the door opens to abuse, mistakes, and injustice.

Today it’s immigrants. Tomorrow, it could be anyone the government decides to target.

In Sum:
These two Supreme Court decisions, made in the shadows and along partisan lines, have left the President’s deportation powers almost totally unchecked. This is a constitutional crisis—one that threatens the very idea of an independent judiciary and the American promise of due process for all.

Sources

• Slate: “The Supreme Court Just Gave Trump Unchecked Power to Deport Immigrants to Torture and Death” (June 2025)

• The Nation: “The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket Is Dismantling Due Process” (June 2025)

• NY Times: “Supreme Court Lets Trump Deport Migrants to Countries Other Than Their Own” (6/23/25)

• NY Times: “In Birthright Citizenship Case, Supreme Court Limits Power of Judges to Block Trump Policies” (6/27/25)

• Vox: “The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket Is a Threat to Democracy” (June 2025)

• SCOTUSblog analysis of Trump v. CASA, Inc. and DHS v. D.V.D.

• Comparative studies of judicial erosion in Hungary and Poland, e.g., Kim Lane Scheppele, Princeton University; Human Rights Watch reports (2012–2018)

• U.S. District Court rulings and Supreme Court orders (2025)

Chronicling the fall: The walls close in on our democracy and freedoms

Maybe it should not be, but it is surprising at how many people and groups are willing to go along with and openly support the collapse of American democracy, rule of law and civil liberties. That is rapidly being replaced with form of a morally rotted, autocratic-theocratic-plutocratic kleptocracy. Corrupt authoritarian conversion is broad and deep in US society, government and law. 

Anti-democracy and anti-rule of law attacks are now openly coming from almost all major wealth and power sources. In particular, the MAGA Republican USSC has protected and empowered djt to rise to corrupt, incompetent, racist dictator status. Those six authoritarian MAGA judges defend a Trump dictatorship-kleptocracy as a "constitutional unitary executive." 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

The Verge (and others) report and comment about the recent USSC decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. In that case, the USSC obliterated decades of precedent and upheld a Texas law imposing age-verification for websites with more than 33% of sexually explicit content. That arguably would not be such a bad thing except for one gigantic problem. The MAGA elites and djt who now run the US are morally rotted, vindictive, kleptocratic authoritarians. That is a real problem. Once a website gets your proof of age info, you are sucked into the gigantic surveillance machine that MAGA elites are building right now.

Three points:

• The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, to uphold age verification as a "necessary component" for shielding minors from obscenity, marking a departure from precedents like Ashcroft v. ACLU that protected adult speech. This amounts to a new "pornography exception" to the First Amendment. As we all know, MAGA will not stop with this attack on free speech. This is just the beginning.

• Mandatory age verification using government IDs or third-party checks obviously creates data breach and surveillance risks. Given MAGA's hate of target groups, especially ones that God hates, this will endanger marginalized groups, especially racial minorities and the LGBTQ+ community. Educational sources and sex education will be misclassified as "harmful to minors" under vague criteria. 

• 24 states have enacted similar laws. This USSC ruling normalizes age-verification mandates across the internet. That empowers authoritarian state governments to cite child safety to justify broader speech restrictions. 

Peanut 1: MAGA elites care way too much about what you do with your genitals, and they will ruin your life over it. It's not like showing an ID to buy beer or liquor. Nobody cares about that.

Peanut 2: All that needs to happen is for these porn sites to be hacked and the viewing habits of politicians to be revealed. Then, and only then, will there be a push by politicians to preserve privacy on the internet.

Peanut 3: A known sexual predator is currently the President of the US. I'm pretty sure the days of sex scandals ending careers are over.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

An opinion that AlterNet (and others) published focuses on the deep surveillance infrastructure that djt and MAGA elites are building to enable aggressive, intrusive spying on all Americans and what they do and say. AlterNet writes (shortened and edited):

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency .... has made significant progress in achieving a poorly publicized but very important objective: assembling into a single federal database the personal details of hundreds of millions of individuals who have contact with the government. Such a database would combine information from the IRS, the Social Security Administration and other agencies. The process formally began in March 2025 when, as The New York Times reported, President Trump signed an executive order “calling for the federal government to share data across agencies.” Such a move, as Times reporters Sheera Frenkel and Aaron Krolik note, raises “questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power.” 

Quoting the WaPo: 

The current administration and DOGE are bypassing many normal data-sharing processes, according to staffers across 10 federal agencies, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution. For instance, many agencies are no longer creating records of who accessed or changed information while granting some individuals broader authority over computer systems. DOGE staffers can add new accounts and disable automated tracking logs at several Cabinet departments, employees said. Officials who objected were fired, placed on leave or sidelined.

Peter Thiel [builder of the surveillance database] and his elite tech bros, including Musk, Internet pioneer and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, and Clearview founder Hoan Ton-That, share a particular philosophy. Other believers include figures like fervent Trump supporter Steve Bannon and Vice President Vance. This explicitly anti-democratic worldview goes by various names, including the “neo-reactionary movement” and the “Dark Enlightenment.”

djt's surveillance initiatives are copying surveillance systems employed by China and Russia, countries where civil liberties are mostly non-existent. MAGA elites intend the same for the US. djt's partnership with Peter Thiel and his Palantir Technologies will build a centralized citizen database in a gigantic expansion of government surveillance capabilities. We can expect the same civil liberty-crushing tactics that China and Putin use will apply to us within the next couple of years.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

An AP article discusses an example of the lust for enraged, mindless vengeance that djt has instilled in his loyal MAGA thugs in government: 

The Justice Department on Friday fired at least three prosecutors involved in U.S. Capitol riot criminal cases, the latest moves by the Trump administration targeting attorneys connected to the massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, according to two people familiar with the matter.

A letter that was received by one of the prosecutors was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter did not provide a reason for their removal, effective immediately, citing only “Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States,” according to a copy seen by The Associated Press.

The terminations marked yet another escalation of norm-shattering moves that have raised alarm over the Trump administration’s disregard for civil service protections for career lawyers and the erosion of the Justice Department’s independence from the White House. Top leaders at the Justice Department have also fired employees who worked on the prosecutions against Trump and demoted a slew of career supervisors in what has been seen as an effort to purge the agency of lawyers seen as insufficiently loyal.

This is dictatorship, not democracy. 

The More You Know...

We hear it often, especially when referring to political polls:

“Among college educated [women, men, Whites, etc.]...”.

Now, I believe that every cog in the employment wheel is important and worthy of respect.  But why bring one's education level up during polling?  Well, I also believe there’s a good reason.  

Question: Granted, it’s not a hard and fast rule, but why is it, on balance, that the more education you have, the more liberal you tend to skew, politically?

Explain it.  

(by PrimalSoup)