My first SJ post about Memorial Day was in 2007. The idea that someday Trump, or someone like Trump, would be president was unthinkable. “The Donald,” as he was then jokingly called, was the caricature of a dishonorable vulgar narcissist, the sort of person who could never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.

Back then, quaint notions like honor, integrity and liberty, still mattered. People didn’t contort themselves to make excuses for lies. People didn’t fabricate excuses for open and notorious corruption. People didn’t pretend this was only a nation for white Christians, and everybody else should go “back where they came from.” Continue reading →

As a young child, I played with G.I. Joe. Not the new kind, but the original that had ball-and-socket limbs inside its World War II uniform. But I would never have thought to use that as an introduction to an inane diatribe against expecting the Democrats to be elected because voters approved of what they want to do to this nation. Then again, I’m not Roxane Gay.

When I was a kid, my brothers and I often played with G.I. Joe action figures. They battled and drove military vehicles, and though they were too small to reach the pedals, we positioned them to take the occasional spin in Barbie’s pink Corvette.

There was something very satisfying about action figures we could move as we saw fit and insert into narratives of our choosing. As inanimate objects, they had no say in the matter, always staring back at us placidly.

Continue reading →

An autopsy is something that’s conducted to determine the cause of death. And death it was. And death it still is. I feel the pain of Republicans and conservatives who find Trump abhorrent, both personally and politically. To the extent I shared those feelings toward the Democratic Party, the “autopsy” released by Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin, under extreme  pressure  after he sought to conceal it due to the shame it would reveal about the handling of the 2024 presidential campaign and the party’s abject inability to face its failings, only deepened and confirmed my worst fears.

But the “autopsy” is now out in the open and confirms, in its stunning incompetence, the worst fears of the Democratic Party. Continue reading →

There are three pressing questions when it comes to Trump’s pursuit of architectural hegemony over the District of Columbia, determined to leave his mark so that no one forgets that for a brief moment in history, he was in total and unquestioned control. The first is his aesthetic, which tends strongly to the grandiose and tacky. The second is his authority to tear down and build up whatever pleases him at any given moment, which is partially solved by his stacking the relevant commissions with people both loyal to him and clueless as to architecture. The third is who is going to stop him?

Among the more grandiose notions is the arch Trump plans to build at Memorial Circle on Columbia Island. The land is expressly protected, however, and subject to congressional authority. Does that mean Trump has to use his congressional majority to obtain the authority to build a 250-foot tall arch to reflect the greater glory of Trump’s victory in Venezuela, Iran, or maybe Cuba? Not quite. Continue reading →

As of yesterday, the papers were filed and, if they are self-executing as plaintiff’s lawyers within and without the government claim they are to oust Judge Kathleen Williams of jurisdiction, then the deed is done. Trump’s suit against the IRS is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Dead and buried, never to be resurrected.

Then yesterday, like Lazarus, former criminal defense lawyer cum Auditioning Attorney General, who professed his love for Trump, buried half the Epstein files and sought to “86” Jim Comey for his threatening use of seashells, quietly revealed that there was more, one last piece, to prove his adoration. The nine-page putative settlement agreement, which already incorporated a tax free disclaimer without regard to the requirements of law, had a one-page companion. Continue reading →

The notice filed pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stated that it was a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Oddly, the notice went on to present argument that by dismissing the matter with prejudice, the court was divested of jurisdiction and thus unable to render any decision or order relating to the matter.

¹ Although Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) filings are sometimes colloquially styled as “motions,” the Eleventh Circuit has made clear that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) dismissal is self-executing, terminates the action upon filing, and divests the district court of jurisdiction. See Est. of W. v. Smith, 9 F.4th 1361, 1367–68 (11th Cir. 2021); Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs accordingly file this document as a Notice rather than a motion, as the notice does not require judicial action. Est. of W., 9 F.4th at 1368.

Continue reading →

When Vladimir Zelenskyy was attacked in the Oval Office by J.D. Vance for not being sufficiently appreciative of the largesse of the great and powerful Trump, he did the only thing he could. Ukraine needed all the help it could garner from other nations to defend itself against Russia, so as bad as Trump behaved, he had no choice but to try to curry whatever favor he could to keep access to military aid coming. It was, of course, to little avail, but the alternative, telling Trump to shove it, would do nothing to help Ukraine either. Unlike Trump, Zelenskyy put country before ego.

Taiwan now finds itself in a similar position. Continue reading →

In the Trumpian retconning of history, the January 6th insurrection was a “day of love,” and the insurrectionists, who were just visitors touring the Capital, received “unfair” treatment for beating the Capital Police and shitting on then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk. The prosecutions of more than 1500 insurrectionists denied them due process, as they were treated like animals in jail. Except nothing about this is remotely true. It’s a MAGA fantasy, a lie regurgitated over and over as if repetition will make it so. Then again, history is written by the victors, and Trump won the 2024 election.

There was outrage following January 6th, when Trump failed to pardon the insurrectionists for doing as he instructed, serving him loyally by trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to save him from the humiliation of losing, a reality Trump vehemently denied and continues to deny in ever more hysterical terms. As far as Trump is concerned, it’s been “conclusively proven” that the 2020 election was stolen from him, despite there still not being a shred of evidence all these years later, except in the fevered minds of people who confuse conspiracy for reality. Continue reading →

My eleven-year-old son went to Nashville yesterday. It’s a pretty monumental field trip for fifth graders at his school. Ideally, this is to give him and his friends some level of interest in civics by visiting the Capitol and seeing how government works at the state level in Tennessee. The reality? It’s a long-ass day for parents and one that usually marks the first time we’re in a different time zone from our spawn.

Let me set a bit up for you folks before I continue. The school year is essentially over. The boy and his friends graduate on Monday. Summer starts next Thursday. They are all eleven-year-old boys ready to stop studying for sixth grade and start playing during summer. Continue reading →

Over at Prawfsblawg, Howard Wasserman poses a provocative free speech theory. It arises from New York University’s choice of Jonathan Haidt as graduation speaker, which some students found disagreeable. Ironically, given that Haidt contends that universities insulate students from unpleasant ideas, student government leaders wrote a letter to the administration requesting that Haidt be disinvited.

Since the announcement on Thursday, April 30, many students have reported feelings of
disappointment, disgust, unenthusiasm, defeat, and embarrassment – feeling that their
commencement, intended to be a celebratory moment, has instead become another instance
of being misunderstood.

What to make of students trying to cancel a strident critic of cancel culture? Wasserman offers a paradigm within which to consider the options. Continue reading →