Category: Situational Awareness

Posts about the situation we are in–the good facts, the bad facts, and the terrible facts. Facts that, if taken on board, will let us “know ourselves, know the other side” and go on to win those hundred battles.

Posted on

The Ninth Circuit Panel’s Decision in State of Washington v. Trump, One of the Birthright Citizenship Cases—Shock and Awe or Shock and Awful?

The opinion, issued on February 19, denied the Justice Department’s “emergency” request for the appeals court to overrule a district judge’s injunction against Trump’s executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship, despite the language of the Fourteenth Amendment and despite consistent judicial interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, going back to 1898. (If anyone cares, that district judge, who reamed out Trump and his Justice Department, was appointed by President Reagan.)

To be clear, the district court’s ruling in question was not the judge’s definitive answer to the question whether Trump was right or wrong on birthright citizenship. It was, instead, a decision ordering a “preliminary injunction” pending full briefing, trial, and argument of the case. 

Brushing away lots of legalese, the central issues at play when a judge rules on a request for a preliminary injunction are three:

  • the “likelihood of success on the merits,” in other words, what does the judge think will probably happen when all the dust settles: Is the plaintiff more likely to win, or is it the defendant who will probably prevail? and, second,
  • the harm issue—will the plaintiff be harmed if a preliminary injunction is not issued to preserve the state of play, while the issue is litigated? Or is it the defendant who will suffer harm if it is enjoined from doing what it wants to do?
  • the public interest issue—apart from the parties to the case, what about the broader public? 

In my experience, the first of these factors—“likelihood of success on the merits”—tends to be dispositive. And so it was here. Two of the three panel members of the appellate panel, Judge William Canby (appointed by Carter) and Milan Smith (appointed by Bush the Elder), joined in a terse, one page decision, declining to overrule the district court, because Team Trump did not make a “strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits.” 

The third judge, Danielle J. Forrest, wrote a much more expansive piece of prose, concurring in the majority’s bottom line result, but “for reasons different than relied on” by the other two members of the panel. 

Many are wondering how the Federalist Society judges, who now bestride the third branch of our federal government, will deal with Team Trump. What the Supreme Court does with birthright citizenship remains to be seen. But Judge Forrest’s treatment of the case is not without interest.

A bit of background: Judge Danielle Forrest was appointed to the bench in 2019, during Trump 1.0. Reading between the lines of her Wikipedia biography, I glean that Democratic opposition to her appointment was weak, probably on the ground that, “Well, this is about the best we can expect from a Trump appointment.”

Interestingly, her Wikipedia entry says, in black and white, that “She was a member of the Federalist Society from 2002 to 2006 and again from 2017 to present.” One might wonder whether her renewed commitment to the Federalist Society in 2017 might have had something to do with a desire for higher office—given that Trump 1.0 farmed out the judicial selection function to the esteemed Society. That said, in any event …

In her six pages of prose, Judge Forrest manfully eschewed any views on the “likelihood of success on the merits”—in other words, whether birthright citizenship is found in the Constitution, or whether it isn’t.

Instead, the very large burr in her saddle was the purported “emergency” referenced by Team Trump. The implication is that birthright citizenship has been the law of the land ever since 1866 or 1898, depending on how you count. Letting it be the law of the land for a few more weeks, or a few more months, is in no way an emergency. 

And just because Team Trump SAYS there’s an emergency does not mean there REALLY IS an emergency. 

In short, for this one Federalist Society jurisprude, Team Trump’s legal Shock and Awe is really Shock and Awful. 

Posted on

The Mad King: a Tour d’Horizon

In this video, the two talking heads cover a whole lot of ground. I mostly agree with them. If you don’t, then God bless, and have a nice day. 

Toward the end, they turn to trying to suss out what’s going on in Trump’s brain. I particularly commend that part of the video. 

In case you don’t know:

Rick Wilson is a former Republican and former Republican political consultant. He currently writes political opinion pieces and is a political talking head on YouTube and elsewhere. He has written two books, including Everything Trump Touches Dies.

During the video Wilson refers, at one point, to his “misspent youth.” He may be thinking about the time he created the ad that defeated Max Cleland—a war hero paralyzed by his wounds—by implying that Cleland supported Al-Qaida.

Will Saletan has been writing on public affairs since 1996. He has also written two books. Sometimes he’s right, and sometimes he’s not. In 2003 he wrote a book arguing that conservatives had won the public debate about abortion rights. Well, if they had won it in 2003, they have lost it now; look at the headlines out of Missouri today. In 2023, he wrote The Corruption of Lindsey Graham: A case study in the rise of authoritarianism.

Posted on

Actually, It’s Not Just Misunderstand and It’s Not Just Poor Strategery—It’s Magical Thinking

King Canute. Illustration from Once Upon a Time.

The two posts immediately below deal with Trump’s fundamental misunderstanding of how money and interest rates work. One quotes in full a Wall Street Journal Editorial Board piece published late yesterday. The other gives some context: it explains why the fact that these truths are now coming from the WSJ Editorial Board, not some other publication, is a man bites dog story, not a mere dog bites man piece of news. 

This is correct as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. There are all manner of things that I do not understand. But that does not mean that I engage in magical thinking. I do not fancy myself the God of Genesis 1—who just says things, and then they are so. 

King Canute knew that he could not make the tide turn back just by telling the tide to turn back. 

Trump thinks that King Canute was wrong. 

We have elected someone with severe mental illness. 

Those who voted for him are getting the president they richly deserve. 

Posted on

The WSJ Editorial Board Tells Donald That He Doesn’t Know Shit From Shinola, and That His Approval Rating is About to Sink Like a Stone

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes,

Trumponomics and Rising Inflation

The President calls for easier money even though consumer prices keep rising. Does he want even higher prices?

The Editorial BoardFeb. 12, 2025 at 5:33 pm

“Interest Rates should be lowered, something which would go hand in hand with upcoming Tariffs!!!” Mr. Trump posted on his social-media site. The layers of intellectual confusion here are hard to parse, especially since higher tariffs will mean higher prices on the affected goods. But perhaps the President wants the public to look elsewhere when assigning blame for rising prices.

Yet if he’s trying to blame the Federal Reserve, which controls short-term interest rates, he has the analysis backward. Rising inflation means the Fed must be more cautious in cutting rates. This is how financial markets read the news that the consumer-price index (CPI) rose 0.5% in January. Long bond rates rose sharply, with the 10-year Treasury note popping to 4.63% from 4.53%. This reflects market worry over inflation.

The concern is warranted based on the trend in CPI, which has risen each month since a 0.2% increase in October. The 12-month increase in CPI is now back to 3%, up from a recent trough of 2.4% in September. So-called core prices, less food and energy, rose 0.4% for the month and are now up 3.3% over the last 12 months. 

The price increases were broad-based, hitting insurance, used cars and trucks, airline fares, medical care, haircuts, day care, sporting events, cable television, and more.

Mr. Trump isn’t responsible for this after only three weeks in office. But someone should tell him that the mistake goes back to the Fed’s premature interest-rate cut of 50 basis points in September. Long bond rates shot up immediately and have stayed higher, but the Fed still cut another 25 points in November. 

Fed Chair Jerome Powell seems to recognize that mistake because he has been saying for weeks that the central bank is in no rush to cut further. The last thing Mr. Trump should be doing now is demanding that Mr. Powell cut rates further and faster—unless the President wants inflation to resume its Biden-era climb.

The Powell Fed is likely to ignore Mr. Trump, and well it should. But the President’s demand illustrates another risk of Trumponomics. As a real-estate investor, Mr. Trump has long been an easy-money guy. He likes low rates and a weak dollar, which could lead to higher prices, all other things being equal.

As a political matter, an inflation revival may be the biggest threat to the Trump Presidency. Mr. Trump was elected as voters reacted to inflation and falling real incomes under Joe Biden. Real average earnings are flat over the last three months as inflation has bounced up. If this persists, Mr. Trump won’t have a 53% job approval rating for long.

Posted on

“The Mirage That Led Democrats Astray in 2024”

Distracted and heart sick as we are by the shit show that is the second Trump presidency, we must remember that we lost the election because of immigration and the border, and, more importantly because of the misery of the working class. Misery to which affluent center-left people like me were blind. Misery that was ruthlessly exploited by the MAGA noise machine. 

For a deep dive, please check out Eugene Ludwig, Voters Were Right About the Economy. The Data Was Wrong. Here’s why unemployment is higher, wages are lower and growth less robust than government statistics suggest (Politico, Feb. 11, 2025).

Mr. Ludwig writes,

­­ What we uncovered shocked us. The bottom line is that, for 20 years or more, including the months prior to the election, voter perception was more reflective of reality than the incumbent statistics. Our research revealed that the data collected by the various agencies is largely accurate. Moreover, the people staffing those agencies are talented and well-intentioned. But the filters used to compute the headline statistics are flawed. As a result, they paint a much rosier picture of reality than bears out on the ground.

Take, as a particularly egregious example, what is perhaps the most widely reported economic indicator: unemployment. Known to experts as the U-3, the number misleads in several ways. First, it counts as employed the millions of people who are unwillingly under-employed — that is, people who, for example, work only a few hours each week while searching for a full-time job. Second, it does not take into account many Americans who have been so discouraged that they are no longer trying to get a job. Finally, the prevailing statistic does not account for the meagerness of any individual’s income. Thus you could be homeless on the streets, making an intermittent income and functionally incapable of keeping your family fed, and the government would still count you as “employed.”

I don’t believe those who went into this past election taking pride in the unemployment numbers understood that the near-record low unemployment figures — the figure was a mere 4.2 percent in November — counted homeless people doing occasional work as “employed.” But the implications are powerful. If you filter the statistic to include as unemployed people who can’t find anything but part-time work or who make a poverty wage (roughly $25,000), the percentage is actually 23.7 percent. In other words, nearly one of every four workers is functionally unemployed in America today — hardly something to celebrate.

Ludwig goes on to analyze the flaws in other indicia, including earnings averages, inflation measures. “The resources required simply to maintain the same working class lifestyle over the last two decades,” he writes, “have risen much more dramatically than we’ve been led to believe.” Moreover,

the aggregate measure of GDP has hidden the reality that a more modest societal split has grown into an economic chasm. Since 2013, Americans with bachelor’s or more advanced degrees have, in the aggregate, seen their material well-being improve — by the Federal Reserve’s estimate, an additional tenth of adults have risen to comfort. Those without high school degrees, by contrast, have seen no real improvement. And geographic disparities have widened along similar lines, with places ranging from San Francisco to Boston seeing big jumps in income and prosperity, but places ranging from Youngstown, Ohio, to Port Arthur, Texas, falling further behind. The crucial point, even before digging into the nuances, is clear: America’s GDP has grown, and yet we remain largely blind to these disparities.

Take all of these statistical discrepancies together. What we have here is a collection of economic indicators that all point in the same misleading direction. They all shroud the reality faced by middle- and lower-income households. The problem isn’t that some Americans didn’t come out ahead after four years of Bidenomics. Some did. It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks, and the last four years did not turn things around enough for the lower 60 percent of American income earners. …

In an age where faith in institutions of all sorts is in free fall, Americans are perpetually told, per a classic quote from former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, that while we may be entitled to our own opinions, we aren’t entitled to our own facts. That should be right, at least in the realm of economics. But the reality is that, if the prevailing indicators remain misleading, the facts don’t apply. We have it in our grasp to cut through the mirage that led Democrats astray in 2024. The question now is whether we will correct course.

Posted on

The Next Four Posts: Our Current Crisis

Four posts below aim to sum up the current state of our constitutional crisis, as of Monday afternoon, February 10.

In The Constitutional Crisis, immediately below, I quote a long article based on the outlook of a number of constitutional scholars. 

A post titled Wargaming Out the Constitutional Crisis Over the Next Weeks outlines the steps that could lead to a ripening, as one might say, of the catastrophe. 

In Catastrophists Imbued with Certain Certitude: Predicting How the Courts Will Address the Constitutional Crisis, I mainly address whether a majority of the Supreme Court will or will not cheerfully overthrow the republic. 

Finally, I have a few words to say about What Happens When and If Trump Defies a Supreme Court Order?