Yeah, it's the Bulwark, but they're dead on nonetheless.
Trump Moves to Settle the Fascism Debate
Plus: A supposedly fun thing Chuck Schumer will never do again.
substack.com
President Donald Trump took another step in an openly fascist direction over the weekend when he skirted
a federal court order to cancel or turn back deportation flights carrying alleged gang members who had not received any due process to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned at a high-security facility designed to house terrorists.
The administration says the planes were already in international airspace by the time the judge's written order to turn them around was issued (the verbal order came earlier). And they argued that the deportations were legally permissible under the president's Article II powers. But legal scholars were flabbergasted and the judge seemed unimpressed.
As for lawmakers, the move was met with two reactions on Capitol Hill: sycophantic clapping on one side, and evasive shrugs on the other. As I've noted before, each time Trump crosses a red line, Republican lawmakers draw a new line farther away. And to make everything feel even worse, the White House is fully leaning into the abuse of power as the president's normal prerogative instead of trying to justify it in other terms or explain it away.
Tom Homan, the White House "border czar," said in a
Fox News interview that the flights will continue, and any judge's contrariwise order is inconsequential to him.
"We are not stopping. I don't care what the judges think," he said. "I don't care what the Left thinks. We're coming."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt added in a
statement that the court order has "no lawful basis."
DOJ lawyers weren't as defiant, telling the judge the flights would stop if being done under the Aliens Enemies Act. But in a following court hearing, Abhishek Kambli, a Justice Department lawyer, refused
to answer questions about the deportation flights. According to the
New York Times:
The tense back-and-forth in court between the judge, James E. Boasberg, and the Justice Department lawyer, Abhishek Kambli, left open the possibility of further conflict down the road. Judge Boasberg directed Mr. Kambli to certify in writing by noon on Tuesday—under seal if needed—that no immigrants were removed after his written order went into effect, a piece of information that will be crucial as the judge seeks to determine whether the Trump administration flouted his authority.
Among elected Republicans, many celebrated the White House's defiance.
1
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) spent the day attacking the judge for being married to a Democratic donor,
writing, "The same Judge forcing illegal alien rapists onto your streets is married to a woman who has donated over ten thousand dollars to Democrat victory funds. No recusal in sight."
Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) reposted the opinion of right-wing shock-jock Mike Davis, who claimed the judiciary is "drunk on . . . stolen power" for daring to block the Trump administration.

Freshman Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas)
pledged to introduce articles of impeachment later this week against the judge who issued the order. And
early Tuesday morning, Trump endorsed the idea of impeaching the judge.
By Tuesday at midday, Chief Justice John Roberts had made a
rare public statement in direct response to these calls for impeachment: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
Republican operatives resorted to
literal whataboutism in their defenses of the administration's actions, which are bringing a constitutional crisis closer every day.