Brothers Judd Blog

If two New Hampshire men aren't a match for the Devil, we might as well give the country back to the Indians. -Stephen Vincent Benet (1898-1943)

Cheeto Jesus

It's a RICO case

CONSERVATISM IS NOT TRUMPIST:

The Roberts Court vs. the Trump Court: Why Trump lost big in the Supreme Court cases he cared the most about (Damon Root | 7.7.2026, reason)


Take the tariffs case: Trump wanted unilateral executive control over something that the Constitution simply does not place in the hands of the president. Once upon a time, when Joe Biden was president, or earlier, when Barack Obama was president, Republicans were vocally opposed to that sort of executive overreach. But then Trump came along, and most of the GOP abandoned its previous position or just kept quiet.

The chief justice, however, did not abandon his previous position. To his credit, Roberts ruled against Trump’s unilateral tariff scheme for the same legal reasons why he ruled against Biden’s unilateral student debt cancellation scheme.

In other words, in the tariffs case, the Roberts Court stuck to its professed principles (something that does not always happen, to be sure). If there is any sign of the Trump Court lurking in that case, it is to be found in the dissent only.

A similar thing happened in the birthright citizenship case. At issue there was something that conservatives and Republicans claim to value: the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Yet Trump wanted the Supreme Court to adopt a legal theory that would have done a grave injustice to the text and history of the Constitution. Once again, however, and once again to his credit, the chief justice declined Trump’s unconstitutional invitation.

Cheeto Jesus

WHEN THE POINT OF YOUR WAR IS OIL, YOU ARE THE VULNERABLE PARTY:

All the ways Iran beat Trump into submission (Jim Lamson and Matthew Moran, June 17, 2026,Asia Times)

Iran absorbed all the punishment inflicted by its attackers. And, crucially, it retained the capacity to retaliate with missile and drone strikes on Israel and US bases in the Gulf. Iran also attacked energy and other infrastructure in Arab Gulf states. This undermined the stated US goal of protecting its regional allies and upended their reputation as havens of stability.

Iran’s attacks also signaled clearly that in this regional conflict, support for the US was a liability rather than an asset. In addition to all this, Iran caused havoc by closing the Strait of Hormuz to commercial vessels. This cut off a critical global supply artery for oil, gas and fertilizer with disastrous consequences for energy and food supply around the globe.

All the while, Iran has forced Israel, the US and the Gulf states to burn through critical, expensive and slow-to-replenish munitions, another vulnerability that emerged for Tehran to exploit.

In terms of escalation, Iran has threatened to further increase economic costs. It has threatened to expand attacks on Israeli and Gulf energy and infrastructure targets and to target undersea cables in the Strait of Hormuz.

And it has threatened to push its Axis of Resistance partners in Yemen, the Houthis, to disrupt the Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea.

Cheeto Jesus One Economy to Rule Them All

AS IF HE WAS SECRETLY TRYING TO DISCREDIT THE ECONOMICS OF THE lEFT:

The triple toll of Trump’s terrible tariffs: Ultimately, American workers and consumers suffer three different ways. (Tom Schaller, May 25, 2026, Public Notice)

Yes, tariff receipts temporarily ended up in Washington. But those taxes were paid indirectly, via increased retail prices, by every American who bought imported goods or products made from imported components. Yale Budget Lab estimated the price tag per American at $2,400 per year, which is almost how long tariffs were in effect until the Supreme Court’s February 20 decision. Because it’s nearly impossible for individual citizens to compute how much they paid in tariffs, no less apply for reimbursements, most will get nothing.

Cheeto Jesus

ALWAYS BET ON THE dEEP sTATE:

How the Supreme Court Defeated Trump: A conservative court watcher explains why the president has failed to bend the judicial branch to his (Hosted by Ross Douthat, 4/16/26, NY Times)

Isgur: There’s very little that Donald Trump has done — in fact, I’m hard pressed to think of anything — that is wholly unique. What Donald Trump has done is turned the amp up to 11 on places that his predecessors had built on in the past.


On the one hand, we can go back to Obama’s “pen and phone” moment.

Archival clip of Barack Obama: I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.

In a lot of ways, you can see Trump using a much bigger pen and a much bigger phone and really having done all of government by executive action.

In another lens, you could go all the way back to the progressive era, to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, where they think Congress is a bunch of dumb-dumbs coming from wherever, saying: What if we did government by experts in the executive branch? And instead of having Congress decide this, we’ll have the smartest people, because there are right and wrong answers. And instead of representative democracy that’s so passé, we will basically have this constitutional revolution and move power from Congress over to the executive branch?

In another sense, Trump is the end point of this hundred-year experiment that we’ve been running, of, “Meh, let’s just have the presidency do it all.”

Douthat: So it’s the endpoint. Where are we ending? What has Trump actually succeeded in claiming, and where have his claims fallen short or not achieved as much as it looked like they might?

Isgur: I say it’s an endpoint because it has so obviously failed. He has failed to implement any of his major policy initiatives through executive order in any realistic sense. Think about the Alien Enemies Act, federalizing the National Guard, worldwide tariffs, birthright citizenship. These are the main pillars of Donald Trump’s policy presidency, the substantive aspects of it. And they’ve all failed, with the exception of birthright citizenship, which is going to [fail].

In a few years it will be like Donald never existed.

Identitarianism It's a RICO case

MITCH CHOSE CONSERVATIVES, NOT TRUMPISTS:

The Long Odds of Undoing Birthright Citizenship (Ruth Marcus, April 1, 2026, The New Yorker)

The legal website Just Security maintains a “litigation tracker,” chronicling all the lawsuits filed against the second Trump Administration. On Wednesday morning, that tally stood at a hefty seven hundred and thirty-four, with cases ranging from the President’s immigration policies to his dismantling of disfavored agencies to his effort to punish law firms to his ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports. Each of these is important in its own way, but none more so than the challenge taken up on Wednesday by the Supreme Court, to the legality of Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Issued in the first hours of his first day back in office, the order is Donald Trump’s bid to abolish the long-standing rule that, with narrow exceptions, citizenship attaches automatically to those born on U.S. soil. By executive fiat, Trump would eliminate the guarantee of birthright citizenship for children whose parents are in the country without legal authorization or on a temporary basis—a position once considered so fringe that he shied away from it during his first term. His edict contravenes the language of the Constitution, the high court’s own rulings, legislation passed by Congress, and the consistent practice of previous Presidents. As Trump himself seems to recognize, it is difficult to imagine that the Supreme Court—even this Supreme Court, with its conservative super-majority—will let this order stand, and the tenor of the two-hour-plus oral argument seemed to bear that out. If the questions from the conservative Justices offer a reliable guide to their thinking, the mystery is not so much whether Trump will lose but how resoundingly.

Cheeto Jesus

DONALD WHO?:

Europeans Are Angry at Trump, but Often Forgiving of Americans: A generation ago, foreign fury over the Iraq invasion often blurred into anti-Americanism. Now, some Europeans seem ready to distinguish between the president and the American people. (Jason Horowitz, March 27, 2026, NY Times)

“Trump is beyond the pale,” said Jesús Tello, 75, a conservative voter who diagnosed the U.S. president as a “pathological narcissist” who did not care about the consequences of his actions and only saw enemies. But his dim view of the American president did not, Mr. Tello said, extend to all the Americans who had the “bad luck” of living with Mr. Trump.

“Americans are always welcome,” he said.

This too shall pass.

It's a RICO case

ALWAYS BET ON THE DEEP STATE:

Another Big Loss for the Little Bully (Joyce Vance, Mar 02, 2026, Civil Discourse)

This morning, the Erin Mulvaney and C. Ryan Barber at the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department plans to “abandon its defense of the president’s executive orders sanctioning several law firms.” Until now, the administration had been pursuing the cases it suffered early losses in.

Perhaps someone in the Solicitor General’s office pointed out that the cases were inevitably doomed to failure and suggested dropping them while the news cycle is focused on Iran. After the administration’s loss in the tariffs case, the president may have a newfound concern over the sting of losses like this. So far, four different federal judges have held the orders are unconstitutional. While one of those judges was appointed by Barack Obama and another by Joe Biden, two of them were appointed by George W. Bush— bad math for the administration.

Next Page »

You Missed

One Economy to Rule Them All

DELTA BLUES:

Republican Liberty

SHE’D HAVE BEEN A CONSERVATIVE ON THE WARREN/BURGER COURT:

Long War

THE rIGHT IS THE lEFT:

Environment

RUNNING THE GAUNTLET:

Copyright © All rights reserved | Blogus by Themeansar.