Author: irkedmoderate

Third Update: On May 4, 2025, President Trump was asked the question, “don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” In a brilliant display of “wrong answers only,” to quote the Internet meme, the President of the United States — apparently forgetting the oath of office he twice swore — responded “I don’t know . . . I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

Second Update: On May 1, 2025, a Trump-appointed federal district court judge in Texas has issued an injunction prohibiting future renditions to the El Salvadoran gulag. In response, Mr. Trump appears poised to rendition Venezuelans (and others) to the failed state of Libya instead.

First Update: As of April 19, 2025, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the rendition of Venezuelans to the El Salvadoran gulag. The one-page ruling stated “the government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court.” The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement, “we are not going to reveal the details of counter terrorism operations, and we are complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

*******

ORIGINAL EDITORIAL

President Donald Trump has finally provoked a constitutional crisis, and it only took him a little under three months since his inauguration.

And make no mistake, the constitutional crisis is here. As of April 14, 2025, the Trump administration is openly defying a Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the return of a Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who the administration accidentally renditioned to a Salvadoran gulag — described by many as a “human rights black hole” — that currently houses about 40,000 “terrorists” and gang members.

The Trump administration later admitted in open court that Abrego Garcia was protected from removal. He was snatched off the street in front of his wife and young child (both U.S. citizens) because of an “administrative error.” (In a chilling display of moral cowardice, the Justice Department lawyer who made that admission was fired for discharging his ethical duty of candor to the court.)

At one point, Stephen Miller claimed — among other absurd lies about this case — that Abrego Garcia was correctly renditioned to this Central American black site, and that no error was made. He is alone in espousing that position, though the administration has gone out of its way to tarnish Abrego Garcia.

I’ll pause here for a moment. Abrego Garcia is probably not a saint. There certainly appears to be evidence that he was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order in the past. But he has never been convicted of a crime, and his 2019 arrest and asserted affiliation with MS-13 is complicated. The detective who prepared the gang affiliation report later used to rendition Abrego Garcia was not only fired by his department for gross misconduct, but he was actually indicted for abusing his office. Abrego Garcia wasn’t even charged with a crime in connection with that 2019 arrest.

It’s fair to say that the source of the allegations against Abrego Garcia may have some credibility problems. Or perhaps, he really is a member of MS-13 who has pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes. One thing I can say for sure: he didn’t have “M S 1 3” tattooed in Arial font on his knuckles, and those tattoos were not indicative of anything (other than poor taste in tattoos).

But that’s the point. Credibility questions and the truth of allegations must be evaluated in a court of law — not unilaterally by the executive branch, without any semblance of due process.

To be even more blunt: The only people suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in this country are those who believe the executive branch has — or should have — the power to: (1) defy an immigration judge’s order prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal; (2) deprive him of due process before removing him; (3) ignore a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return after admitting his removal was accidental; and (4) indefinitely detain him in a foreign prison funded by $6 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars — all while claiming the most powerful nation on earth is powerless to make the foreign country we’re paying to detain him undertake efforts to return him to U.S. custody.

I’ll reiterate once again: The issue isn’t whether Abrego Garcia was or was not wrongfully detained. That’s for a court to decide. While Democrats receive plenty of fair criticism over being process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented, can we all agree that the executive branch shouldn’t detain people in this country and ship them to a foreign country’s prison without any judicial recourse?

Even actual terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay had the right to file a petition for habeas corpus — a court order requiring the government to show cause for continuing to detain an individual. Abrego Garcia is being denied that right under the façade that he’s being held by a foreign government.

A recent opinion written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — one of the most staunchly conservative federal appellate judges currently serving on the bench — deftly summarizes the constitutional horror show that is currently unfolding.

Judge Wilkinson is a Reagan appointee who is so conservative, he authored the 4th Circuit’s majority opinion in 2003 holding that the U.S. government could detain Yaser Esam Hamdi — a U.S. citizen captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan — indefinitely without access to counsel or a court.

The Supreme Court would later overturn his decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and extend the right of habeas corpus to non-citizens detained in Guantanamo Bay five years later in Boumediene v. Bush. (Unlike the current administration, once the Supreme Court decided those cases, the Bush administration complied.)

Here’s what Judge Wilkinson had to say about Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

He also expresses concern about what could happen next. What is stopping the Trump administration from rounding up U.S. citizens and shipping them off to El Salvador, never to be seen or heard from again — unless, of course, the president of El Salvador “decides” (i.e., is instructed by President Trump) to release them back to the U.S.?

The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.

If you say that the courts will stop the Trump administration from doing so, you’re delusional. Federal courts are unable to enforce their orders — as they have neither force, nor will, but merely “judgment.” They rely on the executive branch to voluntarily comply with their edicts.

If you say Congress will exercise its ultimate power of impeachment, you’re dreaming. Congressional Democrats lack the power to stop the Trump administration from violating the Constitution because they aren’t in power. And our Republican-controlled Congress is nothing short of a rubber-stamping politburo that has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to check and balance the executive branch — as its repeated failure to stop the dismantling of federal agencies and programs demonstrates.

Then, there’s the wishful thinking that has been the last bastion of “Lé Resistance” over the past decade — that President Trump’s impulse for political self-preservation, craving for broad popularity, and narcissistic desire for historical relevance will make him back down before he causes an irreparable dissolution of our constitutional order.

But this time just feels different.

As present, the Trump administration is unapologetically acting without color of law.

Yet, the Trump administration has spent the past three months gaslighting the American people into thinking it holds a level of unbridled power that is antithetical to the Founding Fathers’ vision, and well beyond the virtually unfettered discretion the Supreme Court has ceded to the executive branch over the past 30 years in the areas of national security and foreign relations.

In Abrego Garcia’s and other immigration cases, the Trump administration claims it has unilateral power and discretion — not just under a statute intended only for times of declared war against a sovereign country, but also generally under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. But Trump does not have the pseudo-monarchical prerogative he claims — one matched only by the world’s worst autocrats (and formerly asserted by kings and queens).

We are heading for a true constitutional breakdown, and by the time we get there, no institutional guardrails will be left.

The modern Democratic Party is undeniably feckless, misguided and incompetent. If returned to a majority in the House, they will be so consumed by meritless (and unpopular) investigations into the Trump administration — for sins real and imagined — that they will have little time to do their real jobs: passing laws.

And yet, the only chance we have left to restore checks and balances by curbing the executive’s unapologetic excesses is by voting for them in the midterm elections.

Hopefully, the American people are smart enough to realize that an impotent, gridlocked and divided government is better than allowing a burgeoning authoritarian strongman to become a fully vested dictator.

En un esfuerzo por expandir mi audiencia de, quizás, 2-3 lectores al año a un puñado adicional de lectores, ¡publicaré una selección de mis comentarios en diferentes idiomas! Por lo tanto, si estás leyendo esta publicación en un idioma distinto al inglés, bienvenido a mi blog.

Dans le cadre de mes efforts pour élargir mon lectorat, qui est peut-être de 2 à 3 lecteurs par an, à quelques lecteurs supplémentaires, je publierai une sélection de mes commentaires dans différentes langues ! Par conséquent, si vous lisez cet article dans une langue autre que l’anglais, soyez le bienvenu sur mon blog.

In dem Bestreben, meine Leserschaft von vielleicht 2-3 Lesern pro Jahr auf eine Handvoll zusätzlicher Leser zu erweitern, werde ich eine Auswahl meiner Kommentare in verschiedenen Sprachen veröffentlichen! Wenn Sie also diesen Beitrag in einer anderen Sprache als Englisch lesen, heißen Sie herzlich willkommen auf meinem Blog.

************

Los populistas (y los “socialistas nacionales”) escudriñan los supuestos acuerdos secretos que controlan el mundo en la sombra. Parece un juego de niños. Pero esa infantilidad resulta siniestra en los adultos. – Christopher Hitchens

Soy un milenial. Eso significa que se supone que soy inherentemente perezoso, insípido y desinformado. En el peor de los casos, así se nos pinta a nuestra generación. En el mejor, la descripción se convierte en una cruda realidad: una manifestación de una inseguridad política bien merecida. (No soy nada de eso).

Nuestro derecho al voto en 2008 primero desafió el statu quo al permitir que nuestra generación tomara el capital político como guardianes de los misterios de Internet. Ahora, nos encontramos como espectadores involuntarios de un acto circense cuatrienal que ha usurpado nuestro púlpito, deformando y destrozando el discurso en acusaciones de 140 caracteres que antes estaban reservadas para nuestras frivolidades narcisistas.

Muchos estadounidenses están luchando. Nuestra generación tiene una posición única para aprender del sufrimiento humano en tiempo real. Pero, el mismo globalismo que permite esta exposición nos ha hecho sordos al descontento económico nacional. Somos educados objetivamente, pero emocionalmente desempleados. Criticamos a los trabajadores de cuello azul que han perdido sus carreras como simples ignorantes. Formamos una burguesía de la cultura pop sin igual: decretando los resentimientos económicos de los Baby Boomers como inadecuados, pero lamentándonos de nuestro potencial de ingresos limitado voluntariamente por la deuda de préstamos estudiantiles.

¿Cuál es el resultado?

Ni el populismo de derecha ni el de izquierda son deseables para nuestro país. Entonces, ¿qué debe hacer un Moderado Irritado? Balancearse en un púlpito fuera de las carpas y llamar a los promotores del Circo Político de este año para que recojan, se vayan de la ciudad y regresen con mejores actos.

************

Les populistes (et les “nationaux-socialistes”) examinent les accords secrets supposés qui dirigent le monde dans l’ombre. Un jeu d’enfants. Sauf que cette enfantillage est sinistre chez les adultes. – Christopher Hitchens

Je suis un millénaire. Cela signifie que je suis intrinsèquement paresseux, insipide et mal informé. Au pire, c’est ainsi que notre génération est dépeinte. Au mieux, la description est une cruelle réalité – une manifestation d’une insécurité politique bien méritée. (Je ne suis rien de tout cela.)

Notre droit de vote acquis en 2008 a d’abord menacé le statu quo en permettant à notre génération de saisir le capital politique en tant que gardiens des mystères d’Internet. Maintenant, nous nous retrouvons spectateurs involontaires d’un numéro de cirque quadriennal qui a détourné notre tribune, tordant et mutilant le discours en réquisitoires de 140 caractères qui étaient auparavant réservés à nos remarques narcissiques.

De nombreux Américains sont en difficulté. Notre génération est unique en son genre pour apprendre la souffrance humaine en temps réel. Cependant, le globalisme même qui permet cette exposition nous a rendus sourds au mécontentement économique domestique. Nous sommes éduqués objectivement, mais émotionnellement au chômage. Nous réprimandons les travailleurs cols bleus qui ont perdu leur carrière comme de simples dupes. Nous sommes une bourgeoisie de la culture pop comme aucune autre : sanctifiant les ressentiments économiques des baby-boomers comme inappropriés, mais nous lamentant sur notre potentiel de gains volontairement entravé par la dette de prêts étudiants.

Quel résultat ?

Ni le populisme de droite ni celui de gauche ne sont souhaitables pour notre pays. Alors, que doit faire un Modéré Irrité ? Se balancer sur une tribune en dehors des tentes et appeler les promoteurs du Cirque Politique de cette année à plier bagage, quitter la ville et revenir avec de meilleurs numéros.

************

Populisten (und “Nationalsozialisten”) betrachten die angeblich geheimen Geschäfte, die die Welt “hinter den Kulissen” steuern. Kinderspiel. Nur dass Kindischkeit bei Erwachsenen etwas Unheilvolles hat. – Christopher Hitchens

Ich bin ein Millennial. Das bedeutet, dass ich von Natur aus faul, seicht und uninformiert bin. Im schlimmsten Fall wird unsere Generation so dargestellt. Im besten Fall ist die Beschreibung eine grausame Realität – eine Manifestation wohlverdienter politischer Unsicherheit. (Ich bin nichts davon.)

Unsere Wahlberechtigung im Jahr 2008 bedrohte erstmals den Status quo, indem sie unserer Generation erlaubte, politisches Kapital als Hüter der Geheimnisse des Internets zu ergreifen. Nun finden wir uns als unwissende Zuschauer eines vierjährlichen Zirkusakts wieder, der unser Sprachrohr missbraucht hat – indem er den Diskurs in 140-Zeichen-Anklagen verdreht und verstümmelt, die zuvor unseren narzisstischen Bemerkungen vorbehalten waren.

Viele Amerikaner kämpfen. Unsere Generation hat eine einzigartige Position, um menschliches Leiden in Echtzeit zu erfahren. Doch der Globalismus, der diese Exposition ermöglicht, hat uns taub für die wirtschaftliche Unruhe im Inland gemacht. Wir sind objektiv gebildet, aber emotional arbeitslos. Wir tadeln die Arbeiter der Arbeiterklasse, die ihre Karrieren als bittere Tölpel verloren haben. Wir sind eine Popkultur-Bourgeoisie wie keine andere: Wir deklarieren die wirtschaftlichen Ressentiments der Babyboomer als unangemessen, beklagen uns jedoch über unser Einkommenspotenzial, das freiwillig durch Studiendarlehensschulden belastet ist.

Welches Ergebnis?

Weder rechter noch linker Populismus ist wünschenswert für unser Land. Was also soll ein Verärgerter Gemäßigter tun? Auf einer Seifenkiste außerhalb der Zelte wanken und die Promotoren des diesjährigen Politischen Zirkus auffordern, ihre Zelte abzubrechen, die Stadt zu verlassen und mit besseren Akten zurückzukommen.

[Updated March 31, 2023]

It’s finally happened. Former President Donald Trump was indicted. On a felony. In the state of New York.

There will be handcuffs (probably). There will be a mugshot, and a DNA swab. There will be an arraignment. And then, who knows what happens next?

Will it guarantee Mr. Trump the Republican nomination? Will this indictment permanently destroy the social fabric of our republic? Will it set a dangerous new precedent — that any politician who is despised is a target of future legal action simply because he (or she) has an abrasive personality?

Anyone who claims to know the long-term ramifications of this indictment is lying to you, and lying to themselves. But a few things are clear.

First, at least for now, it appears Mr. Trump is following his lawyers’ advice and is willingly turning himself in — staving off at least one new political crisis.

Second, again, at least for now, no mass protests have broken out on the streets.

****************

[Updated March 18, 2023]

On March 18, 2023, the New York Times reported that former President Donald Trump announced that his arrest was imminent.

To many, this is just another exercise in Lucy pulling away the football, and Charlie Brown is still falling for it. I, for one, will not hold my breath until I physically see the handcuffs on him.

To others, this represents an egregious abuse of state power — a political prosecution (or persecution) of an American Saint whose only “crime” was standing up to a “cabal of Satan-worshipers.”

There can be no reasoning with those people, and it is precisely those people that law enforcement is rightly concerned about. (And worse, precisely the people that Mr. Trump is trying to whip up into a Second Amendment worshipping lather.)

Thus, the point here is that upon learning of his apparently-impending arrest, Mr. Trump immediately took to social media to whip up his supporters into a frenzy — the same kind of frenzy that resulted in January 6th, and perhaps this time, worse.

But Mr. Trump does not care about the consequences this country will face in the wake of possible mob violence he is trying to incite for a second time. He could have just as easily released a press statement condemning the potential prosecution as political, based on false charges, and the like.

But instead, he called for extra-judicial action from his supporters through mass protests (and even though he didn’t say it, the same kind of violence that occurred at the Capitol). This shows, yet again, that this is exactly what he wants — Americans fighting Americans — and that his incitement at the Capitol was no accident.

It also betrays an incredible level of self-aggrandizing sociopathy that he would do this again, regardless of the consequences the first time around.

It shows not just his lack of respect for the justice system and the American people, but also that he has not learned anything from the events of January 6th. But he just cannot help himself.

But this time, the Republican Party gains nothing by continuing to stand by this man. There are plenty of viable candidates who can beat President Biden. Mr. Trump is damaged goods, and he has been for a long time.

Whatever short-term losses Republicans may feel by booting him to the curb will be offset by the enormous gains in credibility from sane, ordinary Americans who simply want this clown show to be over.

****************

The American president occupies a unique position among the governments of the world. He is neither a monarch, nor a minister. He is instead a semi-sovereign leader of a (theoretically) co-equal branch of government — the executive.

In this respect, a fair number of legal scholars believe in a “unitary executive,” i.e., “[A]rticle 2 of the Constitution evidently contemplated [ ] vesting general executive power in the President alone.” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 135 (1926).

Others disagree. As one scholar critiqued, “the executive power is vested in a single President simply because the framers decided to have only one. And all legislative power is vested in our Congress and judicial power is vested in our Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall create. These are repositories of power. They are not sources of power. Nor do the three Vesting Clauses define the scope of the power of each branch in any way, shape, or form.” Vicki Divoll, Transcript: Eight Things I Hate About The Unitary Executive Theory, 38 Vermont L.R. 148, 149 (2013).

Some legal scholars take it a step further. They subscribe to the Nixonian view of things. To paraphrase it, “if the president does it, it’s not illegal.” Former President Trump (and his acolytes) clearly took this view. Mr. Trump believes that he was, in essence, a king during his four long years in office. And as the British are keen to say, “the king can do no wrong.”

Most certainly, the President has the power to forgive others’ wrongs against the United States — the Consti­tu­tion gives the President the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeach­ment. A 1974 Justice Depart­ment memo argued, however, ­that a self-pardon would collide with “the funda­mental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.”

So, what happens if the January 6th Committee presents such compelling evidence to the Justice Department that Mr. Trump committed crimes against the United States that the Justice Department seeks (and obtains) an indictment against the former President?

Well, we don’t know. It’s never happened. President Ford pardoned President Nixon before we could find out. Though President Biden has not yet made that move.

Here’s my take. My prior writings make my opinions about our former President perfectly clear. But it is something else entirely to subject Mr. Trump to federal criminal prosecution.

Just as Mr. Trump’s attempted coup nearly caused a constitutional crisis, the political crisis that would arise from an unsuccessful (let alone successful) prosecution of a former President by a Justice Department led by a person who a disturbing number of Americans believe was illegitimately elected is too ghastly to imagine.

Now, some might argue two points in response. First, protecting the rule of law, including the precept that no person is above the law, is worth protecting, even at the risk of short-term political unrest. Perhaps, his actions were shielded by some form of executive privilege? Or perhaps not.

Second, that it is important for our nation to create the legal framework necessary to prosecute a former President for crimes he committed while he was in office. While the severity of Mr. Trump’s crimes are debatable, the next (former) President’s may not be. Indeed, are too many currently unresolved questions about the scope of the President’s executive authority and his pardon power for comfort. It may be time for a test case.

Here’s my concern. The supposition that the unrest resulting from Mr. Trump’s prosecution would be short-lived is dubious. On the contrary, prosecuting him would turn him into a martyr. Consider briefly that Adolf Hitler was imprisoned for his attempted coup. The end result was that his power grew while he was imprisoned. And we all know how that eventually turned out — with a successful coup.

Now, as a matter of law, if Mr. Trump were actually convicted of a felony, he likely would be prohibited from running again. But that also scares me. His supporters could very well use that as an excuse for civil unrest — that Mr. Trump was “corruptly” prosecuted and they are justified in taking vengeance. Or, the person who takes Mr. Trump’s place is even more cunning and dangerous than Mr. Trump ever was, effectively implementing right-wing populist policies. Either way, at worst, we could see bloody low-level civil unrest would not only destroy the fabric of this country for a generation, but collapse America’s and the world’s economy in the process.

At best, we could see authoritarian populist uprisings across the country. And those who think that “moderate” politicians would stand firm to prevent such a result clearly haven’t been paying attention.

So, what does this all mean? That we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t? Prosecuting him leads to conflict, but not prosecuting him also leads to conflict?

I can’t yet say I have a firm answer to this problem. If I come up with one, I’ll write another post.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs is devastating to millions of people across the United States. Never before has the Court recognized a constitutional right, built an entire body of constitutional law and socio-legal expectations, only to eliminate that right half a century later — all to the vehement disapproval of (about) seventy percent (or at least, a large majority) of the country.

Let me preface this by saying that I will never have to face the gut-wrenching choice of whether to terminate a pregnancy. And truly, the moral question of when life begins, and when that “potential life” should take precedent over existing life, underlies this debate. That much is clear to both sides.

It is equally clear that many legal scholars — on both the left and the right — agree that Roe had a questionable principled basis in constitutional law. To paraphrase Professor Tribe, Roe was great legislation that I would have voted for as a legislator. In other words, the court just made up a test (which, by the way, none of the litigants had actually asked for, proposed, or even thought of).

Regardless of the legal failings in Roe, it is abundantly clear that nothing has changed since Casey was decided in the early 90’s. Roe/Casey stood as “super precedent” precisely because the debate surrounding those cases has always been so contentious and the Court spoke on the constitutional right to abortion, as established by Roe, for the last time in Casey — at least so we thought. For the overwhelming minority of people who oppose those holdings, there was no such thing as “settled constitutional law,” no matter how horrible the societal upheaval might be if overturned.

Indeed, while the law is often immune to the slings and arrows of popular sentiment, one of the few times it does matter is in the context of a stare decisis analysis. And in this case, the Roe/Casey/June Medical/Whole Women’s Health framework was largely working. And like any legal doctrine, there will always be flaws and conflicts that need to be sorted out from time to time.

But the only people who seriously wanted the Supreme Court to abrogate Roe altogether represent a small percentage of the country. Any unbiased, legitimate stare decisis analysis would have compelled the same results in Dobbs as we got in Casey.

But that didn’t happen. What we may have instead is the tyranny of the minority in some states. Several states may seek to simply limit the procedure in a thoughtful (albeit conservative way). But others, like Oklahoma, will strike no balance at all.

In Oklahoma, abortion is now banned outright, at any stage of pregnancy, except when “necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency” or if the pregnancy is the result of rape, sexual assault or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.

This extends to cases like trisomy 18, or Edwards Syndrome, where a child will be born with little risk to the mother, and therefore can’t be aborted. But, the child will die within a few days, which will be lived in abject suffering and pain. (But sure, tell yourselves the “moral” thing to do is to let the infant be born anyway, to the child’s and parents’ unyielding torment.)

Oklahoma’s law quite literally treats women as A Handmaid’s Tale-esque child-bearing incubators — with virtually no independent legal rights — from the moment they conceive, to the moment they give birth. At which point, the state will disclaim any responsibility for assisting the mother with raising the potentially-unwanted child — instead, the policy will be slashing education budgets, refusing Medicaid expansion, cutting other welfare benefits, and constricting the social safety net. (We have very different understandings of what being “pro-life” means.)

But at the end of the day, the most simple explanation for why Roe was overturned is probably the best one. Six Supreme Court Justices finally did what conservatives legal scholars have been saying should happen since the day Roe was decided. They’re the dog that finally caught the car.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court dropped Dobbs at the most politically divided time since the Civil War. This is a gravely unpopular decision that is fundamentally different than the other precedents they cited as proof that sometimes cases are properly overruled — failing to mention all of them granted new constitutional rights, and did not take them away.

At the end of the day, I don’t pretend to know what this country will look like ten years from now. But if I had to guess — conservative states will look a whole lot poorer, unhealthy, with underfunded social safety nets, and quite a bit different demographically. And liberal states will still be cowering to a woke mob complaining about abortion not being a “women’s rights” issue, but rather one affecting “people who get pregnant,” and calling those who disagree “transphobic.”

I hope that as a country, we can find a way to heal and move forward together in what will become a fractured and contentious political, societal, and legal landscape. But it looks like it will be a long journey ahead.

It’s “thoughts and prayers” time again in America. The promise of long life denied to the most vulnerable among us. Parental widows wallowing in the streets. Two rabidly partisan sides unwilling to compromise on simple and broadly-favored reforms.

If there is anything to be said about gun violence in America, it is not that there is a simple solution.

We are living in the aftermath of D.C. v. Heller, in which Antonin Scalia, writing for a divided Supreme Court, announced that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right — unconnected to service in a “well-regulated militia.”

Scholars can agree or disagree. But what’s clear in Heller is that the right to own a gun is more limited than some might realize — the right inures only to those “peaceable citizens” who were not traditionally prohibited from owning guns.

For this reason, felons are out. Domestic abusers are out. Mentally ill people are out (so long as they pose a risk of harm to themselves or others).

There exists an entire area of potential legislation that could survive constitutional scrutiny, yet we somehow seem reluctant to pursue it: red flags laws.

“Red flag laws” allow teachers, friends, law enforcement, parents, or other family members to obtain an ex parte emergency order allowing a person’s guns to be temporarily seized if that person poses a risk to himself or others.

In virtually every case challenging the constitutionality of such measures, the laws were upheld.

We live in a country where there are more guns than people (or at least, pretty dang close). In the absence of repealing the Second Amendment — something that surely will not happen any time soon — our only hope is to pass legislation within the existing constitutional and factual framework that we find ourselves in.

Until then, there is no “one” solution to mass shootings. As any security expert would tell you, defense in depth is what is needed.

Make it harder for “non-peaceable” citizens to acquire guns, such as through universal background checks and red flag laws. Empower law enforcement by increasing funding for school resource officers or other armed security. Continue to train teachers and students on lock down procedures.

But bans on “guns we don’t like,” i.e., “assault weapons” won’t work. Because a dedicated attacker can and will use whatever firearm is at his disposal to perpetrate horror.

Screeching calls that the “libs want to take all your guns” at the slightest hint of legislation makes it harder to pass meaningful and popular reforms.

What we need now is real solutions, not partisan drivel — unless we’ve truly reached the stage where children being massacred does not matter for more than one or two news cycles. Perhaps, we’ve been there for a long time. In which case, I fear it’s already too late.

In the past 72 hours, the world has witnessed a breach of international norms and law that was hitherto unimaginable since the establishment of the United Nations after World War II.

Indeed, one of the foremost principles of the charter of the United Nations is a prohibition on the use of military force against a sovereign nation for the purposes of changing a border.

Russia, led by a man who has proven himself to be a despotic authoritarian, is waging an unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against a sovereign nation based on nothing more than lies and deceit, rather than lawful casus belli.

Ukraine is not being led by a “junta of neo-Nazis,” a laughably absurd claim given the Jewish ancestry of the country’s sitting President. But nobody is laughing. Rather, for the second time (or even third time) in lives of many of us, Europe finds itself embroiled in a conflict caused by a madman.

Masquerading as a war to prevent a security threat, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is nothing of the sort. It is Vladimir Putin’s attempt to stage a coup because Ukraine’s leader committed the “crime” of preferring democracy to being a puppet of the Kremlin.

But today’s conflicts are very different from yesterday’s wars. This time, with our interconnected global economy, the effects of Putin’s aggression will be felt everywhere.

For nothing more than preserving his own infamy in the history books, Putin has decided to collapse his country’s economy and defy the near-universal opposition of his citizens to this unjust war.

For now, the world can only support Ukraine’s fight for survival and impose against Russia the most crippling economic sanctions ever devised. Perhaps, the embattled patriots in Ukraine will provide a sufficient resistance to cause Putin to back down.

The equally favorable, or perhaps more hopeful result, would be for domestic pressures to topple Putin’s regime and relegate him to the pages of the history books reserved for failed leaders.

To my shock and dismay a few moments ago, I discovered that I have not posted a blog entry in almost a year.

It is not for want of things to say, mind you. I still have a great many terrible, terrible opinions that I feel duty-bound to share with the 2-3 people who accidentally read this blog every year.

So I will convey only this for now: my mind is quiet, but my thoughts are restless. Wow, what profundity!

Join me as I wade into a geopolitical issue that has no clean answer, stewarded by multiple sides that are all convinced the very lord above has ordained their victory.

The following ten statements represent my core beliefs on the most recent escalation in Israeli-Palestinian tensions. You need not agree with all of them, or even some of them. But I hope that you will give them the same weight and consideration as many are giving to the Iranian bots and leftist imbeciles who are spewing utter lies and antisemitism on Twitter.

1. Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign, independent Jewish state based on internationally-recognized borders and lands controlled by them both de facto and de jure.

2. Israel has a right to take offensive and defensive military action to defend its borders and its people against Hamas and Islamic Jihad — Iranian-sponsored hostile forces that wish Israel’s destruction by state-sponsored violence, sabotage, terrorism, economic sanction, and political subterfuge. All actions Hamas is taking against Israel is with the express goal of killing all of the Jews living in Israel and replacing Israel in its current form with a Palestinian state.

3. Israel no longer occupies Gaza. Gaza’s citizens bear at least some responsibility for the consequences of electing a terrorist organization whose sworn and stated goal is the destruction of Israel.

4. Hamas is intentionally targeting civilians with rockets in violation of international law. Hamas has renewed its call for suicide bombing campaigns against Israeli civilians.

5. Israel takes all reasonable precautions to avoid harming civilians when it prosecutes targets in Gaza. This includes warning residents who are being used as human shields by Hamas prior to launching attacks.

6. Hamas purposefully uses civilian infrastructure as military command and control centers, staging grounds, supply depots, and even launch pads for their rocket attacks on Israel.

7. Hamas wants Israel to cause as many unintentional Palestinian civilian deaths as possible because Hamas cares more about pushing the narrative of the Israeli “oppressor” than protecting their own people. Hamas is equally, if not more, responsible for civilian deaths than Israel.

8. Israel is justified in attacking purportedly “civilian” infrastructure when it is being used by Hamas as military infrastructure. The destruction of these buildings is proportional to the military necessity of disrupting rocket attacks being directed from, and originating from, those locations.

9. The Iron Dome is a marvelous defensive weapons system. But, its efficacy does not justify Hamas’s deliberate targeting of civilians because if the Iron Dome did not exist, far more Israelis would be dying right now. Those who say that Israel’s military actions are not justified because of the Iron Dome’s effectiveness are literally saying that more Israelis should die before Israel can use force to prevent more rocket attacks.

10. The situation in Gaza should not be conflated with the situation in the West Bank. Settlements are a political problem and require a politician solution. Thousands of rockets being launched are a military problem. If you say that Hamas is justified in launching rockets against Israeli civilians because of settlements, you are endorsing using violence to achieve political goals — the very definition of terrorism.

This situation will never change unless and until the international community stops imposing a double standard on Israel when it takes offensive and defensive military actions that are necessary to prevent potentially lethal attacks on its citizens.

The right of Israel to exist is not a question. It is a fact. Israel’s critics must recognize that when Israel takes steps to attack Hamas in Gaza, it is doing so in order to survive. Israel is not attacking “Gaza,” it is attacking Hamas — the organization bent on Israel’s complete destruction.

Am I intellectually honest?

I used to ask myself this question on occasion. In recent weeks, I ask it with troubling regularity.

I spent a great deal of emotional, logical, and rhetorical energy during these turbulent past few months viciously criticizing the former President and the merry band of scumbags the GOP has become.

Now, we have a new administration. I wonder why I do not feel the need to criticize it. Surely, they have advocated for and enacted policies that I disagree with.

But perhaps, I overestimate the logical and rhetorical components of my past criticisms. Might these blog entries have been motivated more by visceral emotion? Is the fact that I do not bear personal animus towards our new President and his administration the reason why my blog has fallen silent?

I have always considered myself to be fair-minded and rigorous in my editorial commentary. I promise to return to these values in the future.

Stay tuned.