February 11: Talking Feds with the Contrarians, Jen Rubin interviews Norm Eisen on what transpired in a Rhode Island courtroom yesterday, and we learn of our "word of the week" we may as well banish.
While the rapport between the parties is nice, and one can never deny the additional emphasis and emotion given through the spoken word, I can read faster than I can listen. I'd appreciate transcripts as well (even if merely summarized).
Ditto! It helps me tremendously and gives my eyes a much needed rest, although I do look at the videos as well as rest my eyes or take care of somethings. Having these videos to replay and the transcript you include is a perfect combination.
For slightly different circumstances, another alternative is an American March of 1000 Robes. Poland used it when their separation of powers was at risk. The judges marched purely non-partisanly, only for the rule of law. Polish judges were backed up by judges from all over Europe.
For America, recruit 20 judges from every state, including Trump appointees. Fly them to Washington. Have them march in their robes backed up by lawyers and citizens for numbers. Judges have the organization necessary, the temperament to be absolutely peaceful, and the travel money. Good fricking luck to anyone who wants to turn footage of a judge getting beaten up into an argument that anti-Trumpists are the lawless ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSgIUeyGIc
The Democrats need to draft, publicize, and run on: an updated “Declaration of Independence” from King Donald, and gerrymandered Republican Rule! It will catch fire, and lead them to victory! “When in the course of human events, it becomes incumbent upon the citizens of these United States of America to throw off the yoke of Tyranny……we do hereby declare that we will recover our Independence, and Democracy….and restore our Constitutional system of Checks and Balances of 3 equal branches of government….when we are next freely elected to offices of Representatives of the People of these United States.”
There——that’s a start. Who wants to add to that? Have at it! Can’t hurt! Maybe it’ll catch on?
I have the misfortune to be represented in Congress by Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC). I contacted his office to demand action to end Elon Musk's ransacking of the executive branch. A week later, I received a form letter that included the following paragraph:
As you know, President Trump announced the creation of DOGE following his election in November 2024. The creation of this organization is similar to other government efficiency agencies that have been created during previous administrations. Presidents Obama established a comparable effort, the Government Accountability and Transparency Board, to cut waste and improve government performance.
Of course, this is pure MAGAt gaslighting, combined with dangerous conflation. To suggest that what is going on with the Muskovites is comparable in any way to advisory committees or groups set up in the past is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that confuses casual political observers and attempts to normalize the current extraordinary crisis we now face.
Jen, you may want to include "department" and "agencies" among the words that now have Orwellian effect in your ongoing efforts to explain how euphemisms are being used to excuse what is ongoing, particularly since "DOGE" is neither.
The NLRB filed a letter with the Fifth Circuit indicating it would not address SpaceX’s challenge to the agency’s constitutionality. SpaceX’s primary argument is that the Board’s structure is unconstitutional because it limits the removal of ALJs and Board members. As of today, no interested parties have stepped in to address SpaceX’s constitutional arguments in the NLRB’s stead.
The Utah Senate passed a House bill on Thursday that would outlaw public sector collective bargaining. Once signed by the governor, it will usher in one of the country’s most severe and restrictive rollbacks of union rights in recent memory. .
Jen and Norm, as the incredible people you are, I'd like to hear what you think about the idea of our Supreme Court possibility ordering a new election. I think this is how they could do it:
Ever since the Supreme Court made new law (Presidential immunity), my thinking has been they could also reverse their decision and, considering the administration's lawlessness, they could also order a new election. In other words, they could make good use of their "creative ability!"
As I see it, if Trump and Vance, et al, who are saying they intend to order the Department of Justice to stop the U.S. Marshal Service from enforcing the law; they have become rogue. That being said, the Supreme Court could base a new election's justification on the long-established intent of the Constitution (“of the people, by the people and for the people,” that is, Congress) and the founding fathers' belief in the Rule of Law.
The Supreme Court could support their reasoning based on the requirement that the Executive Branch is obligated, under the Constitution, and under its sworn Oath of Office, to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law, without reservation; and as required by the Constitution, to pay all obligations incurred by Congress
...and thus, under the Constitution, and using their powers as the Supreme Court, dispatch a rogue Republican-controlled Congress and, first-time-in-our-history, rogue Presidency.
Hey! You missed important news in the morning roundup. Several days ago the executive branch (whoever is in charge there) suggested that Palestine be dissolved and Palestinians be moved elsewhere. I was sure that I heard they were thinking of either the western half of Kansas or the state of Arkansas as a new homeland. I also heard (I thought) that Egypt and Jordan were going to provide transportation for all the Palestinians. Anyways, today I notice that Jordan's King Abdullah is visiting the white house. Any guesses whether he travels to Kansas??? I'll bet ICE could help settle the Palestinians. Just don't let the Lutherans help (apparently they rob the refugee funds????).
All voters whose eyes are bigger than their gut, spoiled rotten on the cornucopia of American riches, who thought they wanted a big fat change in our federal government can go eat this supersized trump burger and puke-it up, re-eat it, again&again&again, until it’s rendered to the historic failed feces that it represents, then eat it again.
It’s called coprophagy and it’s the new Republican diet for the next 4yrs. Those of us who didn’t order this shitshow unfortunately have to bear witness to their death secondary to steatorrheic malnutrition.
I need an answer to this question: Trump and Elon are the showmen (smoke). Who is the puppeteer pulling the strings? What is being covered up by the real puppeteer?
Your “Words and Phrases” is excellent. I wish there were a way to “gift” articles for others. This one has such good talking points for the pro-democracy people.
And all of this upheaval—withholding funds intended for farmers in Iowa or the sick in Mobile or the disaster victims in South Carolina—is in service of what? A stronger nation, a fairer economy? Cures for diseases? NOPE! To fund SpaceX and to give billionaires ANOTHER tax cut.
Another word that has changed meaning, which I would stop using, is "cuts." News reporters and Republican politicians who have substituted the general word "cuts" for the specific word "impoundments" are being profoundly deceptive.
It used to be that the two parties battled over "cuts" to a program. Were the "cuts" cutting something essential to a program we all agreed on? Were the "cuts" instead trimming away waste, fraud, and abuse? Was the program itself something voters and Congress generally liked (probably no cuts) or mostly disliked (the program might even be eliminated)? Etc.
None of this was illegal. It was a common type of policy dispute. Saying that a new president wanted to make a lot of "cuts" but other people disagreed with the "cuts" was a routine thing, even if the stakes were high.
The word I have not heard once in recent on-air commentary is "impoundment," which is what's actually going on now, and which is illegal. The story is that Richard Nixon deliberately wouldn't distribute money to areas that didn't support him, even though the Congress had agreed to spend it, an action called "impoundment." This may have been illegal when Nixon did it (I don't know the background), but to make sure it would never happen again, the Congress passed an "anti-impoundment" law making it clear this was against the law.
Unlike "cuts" in general, "impoundment" is illegal. It also doesn't allow any opportunity for both sides to make their case or for Congress to control the decision. Accurately saying that many of the court cases involve something very unusual and illegal called "impoundment" would signal that this is not a routine story and would cause far more concern.
Thank you so much for the policy of allowing subscribers to give one-month free subscriptions. I have now introduced five friends to The Contrarian and they all find it as helpful as I do.
Jen and Norm, thank you so much for this video. I always appreciate each one. Norm, your report and reflections today give me hope. Thank you immensely for the legal work you are doing.
It takes too long to watch videos. Please transcribe.
There is a Transcribe button under the video.
While the rapport between the parties is nice, and one can never deny the additional emphasis and emotion given through the spoken word, I can read faster than I can listen. I'd appreciate transcripts as well (even if merely summarized).
I agree. I like the website but don't have time to sit through a bunch of podcasts.
I don’t have the patience to listen to podcasts. It’s easy to read in depth or skim and scan the available transcripts now.
Funny name, Ivan! I give you credit!
(says someone who is just insane!) (grin)
what, you left the tufaart alone ??
I often just listen while doing other things.
Ditto! It helps me tremendously and gives my eyes a much needed rest, although I do look at the videos as well as rest my eyes or take care of somethings. Having these videos to replay and the transcript you include is a perfect combination.
Here's some ideas on how to enforce court orders:
https://kathleenweber.substack.com/p/joyce-and-george-go-nuts
And here's a second idea:
For slightly different circumstances, another alternative is an American March of 1000 Robes. Poland used it when their separation of powers was at risk. The judges marched purely non-partisanly, only for the rule of law. Polish judges were backed up by judges from all over Europe.
For America, recruit 20 judges from every state, including Trump appointees. Fly them to Washington. Have them march in their robes backed up by lawyers and citizens for numbers. Judges have the organization necessary, the temperament to be absolutely peaceful, and the travel money. Good fricking luck to anyone who wants to turn footage of a judge getting beaten up into an argument that anti-Trumpists are the lawless ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSgIUeyGIc
GREAT idea!
Thank you!
The Democrats need to draft, publicize, and run on: an updated “Declaration of Independence” from King Donald, and gerrymandered Republican Rule! It will catch fire, and lead them to victory! “When in the course of human events, it becomes incumbent upon the citizens of these United States of America to throw off the yoke of Tyranny……we do hereby declare that we will recover our Independence, and Democracy….and restore our Constitutional system of Checks and Balances of 3 equal branches of government….when we are next freely elected to offices of Representatives of the People of these United States.”
There——that’s a start. Who wants to add to that? Have at it! Can’t hurt! Maybe it’ll catch on?
Thanks!
Good Luck to us ALL!
That is a terrific idea. I still recall how much attention was given to “Contract with America.” One suggestion—I would say King Donelon.
Perhaps begin with “KKKing tUSk,” or could be “KKK US” as an acronym?
Thank you for all you’re doing to help us keep our democracy alive and thriving. I hope you’re getting to sleep sometime.❤️
I have the misfortune to be represented in Congress by Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC). I contacted his office to demand action to end Elon Musk's ransacking of the executive branch. A week later, I received a form letter that included the following paragraph:
As you know, President Trump announced the creation of DOGE following his election in November 2024. The creation of this organization is similar to other government efficiency agencies that have been created during previous administrations. Presidents Obama established a comparable effort, the Government Accountability and Transparency Board, to cut waste and improve government performance.
Of course, this is pure MAGAt gaslighting, combined with dangerous conflation. To suggest that what is going on with the Muskovites is comparable in any way to advisory committees or groups set up in the past is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that confuses casual political observers and attempts to normalize the current extraordinary crisis we now face.
Jen, you may want to include "department" and "agencies" among the words that now have Orwellian effect in your ongoing efforts to explain how euphemisms are being used to excuse what is ongoing, particularly since "DOGE" is neither.
You are not alone in not being represented by your Representative. It is impossible to vote against them if they have opponent in the ballot.
So long collective bargaining?
The NLRB filed a letter with the Fifth Circuit indicating it would not address SpaceX’s challenge to the agency’s constitutionality. SpaceX’s primary argument is that the Board’s structure is unconstitutional because it limits the removal of ALJs and Board members. As of today, no interested parties have stepped in to address SpaceX’s constitutional arguments in the NLRB’s stead.
The Utah Senate passed a House bill on Thursday that would outlaw public sector collective bargaining. Once signed by the governor, it will usher in one of the country’s most severe and restrictive rollbacks of union rights in recent memory. .
Jen and Norm, as the incredible people you are, I'd like to hear what you think about the idea of our Supreme Court possibility ordering a new election. I think this is how they could do it:
Ever since the Supreme Court made new law (Presidential immunity), my thinking has been they could also reverse their decision and, considering the administration's lawlessness, they could also order a new election. In other words, they could make good use of their "creative ability!"
As I see it, if Trump and Vance, et al, who are saying they intend to order the Department of Justice to stop the U.S. Marshal Service from enforcing the law; they have become rogue. That being said, the Supreme Court could base a new election's justification on the long-established intent of the Constitution (“of the people, by the people and for the people,” that is, Congress) and the founding fathers' belief in the Rule of Law.
The Supreme Court could support their reasoning based on the requirement that the Executive Branch is obligated, under the Constitution, and under its sworn Oath of Office, to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law, without reservation; and as required by the Constitution, to pay all obligations incurred by Congress
...and thus, under the Constitution, and using their powers as the Supreme Court, dispatch a rogue Republican-controlled Congress and, first-time-in-our-history, rogue Presidency.
What do you think?
Hey! You missed important news in the morning roundup. Several days ago the executive branch (whoever is in charge there) suggested that Palestine be dissolved and Palestinians be moved elsewhere. I was sure that I heard they were thinking of either the western half of Kansas or the state of Arkansas as a new homeland. I also heard (I thought) that Egypt and Jordan were going to provide transportation for all the Palestinians. Anyways, today I notice that Jordan's King Abdullah is visiting the white house. Any guesses whether he travels to Kansas??? I'll bet ICE could help settle the Palestinians. Just don't let the Lutherans help (apparently they rob the refugee funds????).
All voters whose eyes are bigger than their gut, spoiled rotten on the cornucopia of American riches, who thought they wanted a big fat change in our federal government can go eat this supersized trump burger and puke-it up, re-eat it, again&again&again, until it’s rendered to the historic failed feces that it represents, then eat it again.
It’s called coprophagy and it’s the new Republican diet for the next 4yrs. Those of us who didn’t order this shitshow unfortunately have to bear witness to their death secondary to steatorrheic malnutrition.
I need an answer to this question: Trump and Elon are the showmen (smoke). Who is the puppeteer pulling the strings? What is being covered up by the real puppeteer?
Perhaps a couple powerhouses in EurAsia?
Your “Words and Phrases” is excellent. I wish there were a way to “gift” articles for others. This one has such good talking points for the pro-democracy people.
And all of this upheaval—withholding funds intended for farmers in Iowa or the sick in Mobile or the disaster victims in South Carolina—is in service of what? A stronger nation, a fairer economy? Cures for diseases? NOPE! To fund SpaceX and to give billionaires ANOTHER tax cut.
To allow large agribusinesses to buy up the farmer's land for pennies on the dollar, thus wiping out small farmers.
Heart breaking, but, I fear, all too true. And there likely are too few small farmers to sound alarms.
Another word that has changed meaning, which I would stop using, is "cuts." News reporters and Republican politicians who have substituted the general word "cuts" for the specific word "impoundments" are being profoundly deceptive.
It used to be that the two parties battled over "cuts" to a program. Were the "cuts" cutting something essential to a program we all agreed on? Were the "cuts" instead trimming away waste, fraud, and abuse? Was the program itself something voters and Congress generally liked (probably no cuts) or mostly disliked (the program might even be eliminated)? Etc.
None of this was illegal. It was a common type of policy dispute. Saying that a new president wanted to make a lot of "cuts" but other people disagreed with the "cuts" was a routine thing, even if the stakes were high.
The word I have not heard once in recent on-air commentary is "impoundment," which is what's actually going on now, and which is illegal. The story is that Richard Nixon deliberately wouldn't distribute money to areas that didn't support him, even though the Congress had agreed to spend it, an action called "impoundment." This may have been illegal when Nixon did it (I don't know the background), but to make sure it would never happen again, the Congress passed an "anti-impoundment" law making it clear this was against the law.
Unlike "cuts" in general, "impoundment" is illegal. It also doesn't allow any opportunity for both sides to make their case or for Congress to control the decision. Accurately saying that many of the court cases involve something very unusual and illegal called "impoundment" would signal that this is not a routine story and would cause far more concern.
Robbing the Stagecoach/train. It’s been done for centuries.
"Impoundments?" How about stealing. CKB
Thank you so much for the policy of allowing subscribers to give one-month free subscriptions. I have now introduced five friends to The Contrarian and they all find it as helpful as I do.
Jen and Norm, thank you so much for this video. I always appreciate each one. Norm, your report and reflections today give me hope. Thank you immensely for the legal work you are doing.
What would enforcement of these court orders look like if the administration does not accept their ruling?