As discussed in The Atlantic:
Appearing before a Senate hearing this morning, Noem was asked by Senator Maggie Hassan, “What is habeas corpus?” Noem, whose hearing prep clearly did not anticipate any questions with Latin terms in them, replied, “Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to—”At this point, Hassan interjected to explain that habeas corpus is, in fact, “the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.” In other words, it’s the opposite of what Noem said. It’s not a right the president possesses, but a right the people possess against the president.Habeas is an extremely basic right, for the obvious reason that, if the government can simply throw anybody in jail without justifying their imprisonment in court, its power is absolute. It dates back to the Magna Carta, and is one of the few rights the Founders included in the original Constitution, without waiting for the addition of the Bill of Rights. Noem—the head of a department with a budget exceeding $100 billion a year, more than a quarter-million employees, and vast domestic enforcement powers that critics warned upon its creation had dystopian police-state potential—would ideally be familiar with the concept...Upon having habeas defined for her by Hassan, Noem recovered enough to declare, “I support habeas corpus,” as if it were a bill before Congress or an aspirational slogan. Then she immediately contradicted herself by adding, “I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.”If the president had the authority to suspend the right of habeas corpus, then it wouldn’t be a right. That’s how rights work. Generations of Americans feared that liberty might perish under the thumb of ruthless leaders who ignored or undermined constitutional rights. There turns out to be an equal threat from leaders who simply don’t understand them.
Pitiful. Sad. And dangerously incompetent.
Idiocracy kakistocracy hybrid.
ReplyDeleteAs this kind of stuff continues to occur, I just don’t understand why there’s no backlash. Since his first term (and even before that in campaign), the things said and done by him and his administration are just appalling. Why aren’t there riots in the streets? I’m ready to go 1968 again but seems like we all just laugh at how stupid they are and carry on in our complacency
ReplyDeleteDo a Google search for "No Kings" protests...
DeleteRiots in the streets? Same reason there were no riots in the streets under Biden. Many people, including liberals, are quite comfortable. There are no riots for the same reason Bernie Sanders was not successful in his campaign for the presidency: the status quo is just fine for a whole lot of people. People will whine about Trump, but in many ways the whiners are not that different; they want security and comfort and a high-consumption lifestyle, with all that implies in terms of economic justice and the environment. Listening to NPR doesn't change any of this, though it may make people feel virtuous. Working class solidarity has been gutted by identity politics, as was the plan of the liberal elites since the 1960s. So there's not much chance of seeing the bottom 50% united enough to do any "rioting."
DeleteAmerica has had big protests in recent years and the only result is more laws curtailing protests.
DeleteProtests can work in France (less so these days TBH), they don't work in Hungary or Turkey. The difference is free democracies vs locked-down "democracies". When you protest in Turkey you're up against a hand-picked legislature, media that's under the thumb of government and law enforcement that's itching to crack liberal skulls. There's a reason Trump and Erdogan are on such good terms.
Crowboy, people are protesting. See Minnesotastan's comment above. Biden and Trump are not exactly alike. Among other things when Biden hosted foreign leaders he didn't lie to their faces like Trump has done with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
DeleteThe most frenzied people got, at least where I live, was when the stock market slumped. The NPR Boomer liberals were on the street in force--which means 2% of them held signs. Since the market recovery, far fewer. It's like there was a palpable threat to financial security embedded in Trump's tariff tirade and that's what got people off their butts. I attended one of these gatherings and felt despair, given the difference between what I was hearing and what was being said in the Occupy movement. "Hands Off!" is a status quo aspiration. If this is the left in America, America has no left.
DeleteI cannot believe that she is doing TV ads for voluntary deportation.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Boomers, you just have to accept that words can sometimes change meaning. Woke, gooning, freedom, traitor, nothing means what it used to. Get a small child, or a Fox News viewer to explain it to you.
ReplyDeleteIf I, as a Boomer, say I find this comment perplexing, have I fallen into a trap? Without admitting anything, I'll just say I wish a specific example was included, illuminating the complaint.
DeleteI also am puzzled, Anton (and I'm also a Boomer...)
DeleteThe combination of 'small child' and 'Fox news' in the same sentence should indicate to all that Anton is using the writing style called humorous.
DeleteI read somewhere that the German people, back in the 1930s, were complicit in the rise of Nazism because they sat down and whinged about it on social media sites, rather than rise up and baring arms, like what they shoudva done.
ReplyDeleteCouldva put an apostrophe in there somewhere.
Here's a book about the Weimar Repubic for you:
DeleteVertigo: the rise and fall of Weimar Germany by Jähner, Harald,1953-..
""Germany, 1918: a country in flux. The First World War is over, the nation defeated. Revolution is afoot, the monarchy has fallen and the victory of democracy beckons. Everything must change with the times. Out of the ashes of the First World War, Germany launches an unprecedented political project- its first democratic government. The Weimar Republic is established. The years that follow see political extremism, economic upheaval, revolutionary violence and the transformation of Germany. Tradition is shaken to its core as a triumphant procession of liberated lifestyles emerges. Women conquer the racetracks and tennis courts, go out alone in the evenings, cut their hair short and cast the idea of marriage aside. Unisex style comes into fashion, androgynous and experimental. People revel in the discovery of leisure, filling up boxing halls, dance palaces and the hotspots of the New Age, embracing the department stores' promise of happiness and accepting the streets as a place of fierce political battles. In this short burst of life between the wars, amidst a frenzy of change, comes a backlash from those who do not see themselves reflected in the new Republic. Little by little, deep divisions begin to emerge. Divisions that would bring devastating consequences, altering the course of the twentieth century and the lives of millions around the world. Vertigo is a vital, kaleidoscopic portrait of a pivotal moment in German history"--Publisher's description.
On the bright side, she didn't shoot the sheriff or the deputy, just the dog... and she had reasons.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of person would brag about shooting her own dog because she couldn't train it? Most, if they were forced to admit to it would at least be sorry because they couldn't find anyone to take or afford to mercifully euthanize it. My wife and I cried when we had to put down our 16 1/2 year old friend. Five years later i still get misty over it.
Delete...on Monday, Jeanine Pirro, the interim United States attorney for Washington, said that the verdict sent a message.
ReplyDelete“When you abuse your position and betray the public trust to line your own pockets, it undermines the confidence in the government you represent,” Ms. Pirro said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/navy-admiral-convicted-bribery.html
It's too bad ignorance isn't painful.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad that karma rarely shows itself or Trump's mass deporters of the "others" would be accidentally deported themselves with no chance of coming back. Then maybe Kristi would be put in the same cells with all those tattooed "rapists, criminals and thugs". Except they would probably treat her better than they have been treated by her.
DeleteDon't even want to start on what would happen to Trump and the rest of his incompetent, greedy and hateful administration.
If it makes you feel any better, Pam Bondi is also probably unclear of the concept.
ReplyDeleteWe are in deep, folks. Somehow the stupidest, most vicious politician in American history is well on his way to cementing a coup of rich white people.
I ask one simple question (to which I have never received a satisfactory answer): What, then, is the solution to those who came illegally to our country?
ReplyDeleteThere it is. If you say let them stay, I then will ask, "OK, but if millions of people now pour in from all over the world, knowing that if they can just get over the border, they get to stay, what will you do then?"
Habeas Corpus shouldn't take much time at all: "You are charged with illegally coming to America. Period."
Then, as we move through due process, we simply say we have no evidence that you came to America legally or have any right to stay. And if that person cannot provide evidence that they are here legally, we send them home. That should take about 30 minutes of court time.
So, my liberal friends, may we send them home THEN? Or is there some other hurdle that America must leap before we can send illegal immigrants back home?
In truth, the only SENSIBLE solution is to send them back home, but if they have been otherwise good folks, they get in line to come legally, and, when suitable, we allow them to return.
The left, though I love them dearly, seems to have nothing but protests and outrage to offer. WE NEED SOLUTIONS.
What, then, is the solution to those who came illegally to our country?
DeleteStart by recognizing that America did half of the illegal part by letting them in. The US immigration system is failing. Yet, Congress hasn't updated immigration laws since the 80s. Yes, the current immigration rules were written with the cold war in mind. No wonder they don't fit the current reality.
"OK, but if millions of people now pour in from all over the world, knowing that if they can just get over the border, they get to stay, what will you do then?
This was US policy until 1908 or so. You could just come here, and get a nice life. Did the US suffer? Seems to me it did quite well.
Also, just legalize them. Instead of assuming bad faith, assume good faith. Like with Dreamers, create a process in which all undocumented people that are here and are living normal productive lives get documentation. This is not hard. Reagan did a big pardon. That did not cause issues. The US is a large country, with plenty of space and an always growing economy (despite the fuckery of politicians).
There are plenty of programs in existence (developed by Obama and Biden) to pick out the few criminals. Send them home. Find ways for them to take their (American) family. This can be an easy part of the process to get people documents.
Also, Congress could get of its lazy ass and write immigration rules for the current age.
Habeas Corpus shouldn't take much time at all: "You are charged with illegally coming to America. Period."
It is not a crime to do so. You can not charge people with a crime that does not exist.
^^^ This is the biggest problem in the immigration debate. The fact that many *Americans* do not want to take responsibility for the fact that they have *not* voted for politicians that have enacted immigration laws that work in current times.
Also, it is not about legality. If it were, the current administration would not be yanking all kinds of legal status from people who have followed all the rules. Think about those people who were "eating cats and dogs". They are here legally. And again, if you don't like that, that's on you, not on them. You keep voting for politicians who keep those rules as they are.
may we send them home THEN?
You are not considering the option that their home is America, considering that they've been her for a long time.
In truth, the only SENSIBLE solution is to send them back home
It is not. It is cruel.
WE NEED SOLUTIONS.
Then vote for politicians that will enact them. You are the one with agency here. Not the undocumented people - they can't vote. Nor can all the documented people that are swept in with the undocumented people for racist purposes. They are not citizens either and can't vote.
So please, stop yelling at the people who can not change the laws. You can. You are American and can vote for people who solve these problems. But Americans didn't. They voted for a racist convicted felon that can't complete a coherent sentence. Americans did that. Not the immigrants.