Sunday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Saturday Male Beauty

 

Judges Warn on Deportations: Americans Could be Next

I suspect many in 1930's Germany shrugged off what was being done to Jews, gypsies, and gays by the Nazi regime believing it could/would never happen to them and chose to ignore the deprivation of rights of others before their eyes.  In time many came to regret their approval or at least acquiescence of the due process denied to those targeted because as the Nazi regime gained in power, all Germans became subject to potential seizure and worse. Compliancy and a belief "it can't happen to me" turned into a nightmare.  Fast forward to America in 2025 and we see undocumented immigrants being seized on the streets without judicial warrants and any form of legitimate hearing.  Worse yet, after being seized by Gestapo-like ICE agents, these individuals are made to disappear with families having no idea where their loved ones are and with no means to contact them.  Sadly, far to many Americans are shrugging it all off, much as German counterparts in 1930's Germany did, and no doubt thinking it can't happen to me.  Thankfully, judges appointed by both Democrat and Republican presidents - including Trump during his first regime - are sounding the alarm and issuing orders seeking to stop the total lack of due process, something promised to all persons in America by the U.S Constitution. Also, it must be noted, the Felon received votes from slightly more than  one-third of American voters (1/3 voted for Harris and 1/3 stayed home), so he has no mandate. A piece in Politico looks at the warning being issued by responsible jurists:

A fundamental promise by America’s founders — that no one should be punished by the state without a fair hearing — is under threat, a growing chorus of federal judges say.

That concept of “due process under law,” borrowed from the Magna Carta and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is most clearly imperiled for the immigrants President Donald Trump intends to summarily deport, they say, but U.S. citizens should be wary, too.

Across the country, judges appointed by presidents of both parties — including Trump himself — are escalating warnings about what they see as an erosion of due process caused by the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. What started with a focus on people Trump has deemed “terrorists” and “gang members” — despite their fierce denials — could easily expand to other groups, including Americans, these judges warn.

“When the courts say due process is important, we’re not unhinged, we’re not radicals,” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Washington, D.C.-based appointee of President Joe Biden, said at a recent hearing. “We are literally trying to enforce a process embodied in probably the most significant document with respect to peoples’ rights against tyrannical government oppression. That’s what we’re doing here. Okay?”

It’s a fight that judges are increasingly casting as existential, rooted in the 5th Amendment’s guarantee that “no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” The word “person,” courts have noted, makes no distinction between citizens or noncitizens. The Supreme Court has long held that this fundamental promise extends to immigrants in deportation proceedings. In a 1993 opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia called that principle “well-established.”

The daily skirmishing between the White House and judges has obscured a slow-moving, nearly unanimous crescendo: If the courts don’t protect the rights of the most vulnerable, everyone is at risk.

“If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?” wondered J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee to the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Wilkinson described an “incipient crisis” but also an opportunity to rally around the rule of law.

The Trump administration has resisted these odes to process as overwrought and unrealistic. Trump and his aides say voters elected him to cast out immigrants in the country illegally. That electoral mandate deserves virtually unlimited weight, they say.

Trump’s close adviser Stephen Miller has railed daily against what he’s called a “judicial coup” that has largely centered around rulings upholding due process rights of immigrants. Miller has scoffed at the notion that people Trump claims are terrorists — even if they deny it — must be allowed to contest their deportations, saying they only have the right to be deported. Miller suggested Friday that the White House was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus, the right of due process to challenge a person’s detention by the government.

FBI Director Kash Patel told senators Thursday he didn’t know whether hundreds of Venezuelans Trump deported to El Salvador in March required due process.

“What you’re saying is that every single one of the illegals that was sent down to El Salvador is supposed to be given due process,” Patel said in an exchange with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

“That’s what the Constitution says,” Merkley replied.

The Supreme Court has three times emphasized the right of due process for people queued up for deportation by the Trump administration, brushing back Trump’s efforts to hastily expel immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked 1798 law meant to speed deportations during wartime. The high court took the unusual step of issuing a 1 a.m. ruling last month halting a new round of Alien Enemies Act deportations until further notice.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order,” Wilkinson wrote last month. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Judges appointed by Trump have raised similar concerns.

In Maryland, a Trump-appointed judge scolded the administration for arguing against an effort to bring back another man who was sent to El Salvador in violation of a court-ordered settlement. The Justice Department argued that, if he were returned to the U.S., he’d surely be re-deported.

“Process is important. We don’t skip to the end and say, ‘We all know how this is going to end up,’” U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher said.

And U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee based in Louisiana, described a “strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process” in the case of a two-year-old sent to Honduras.

“Of course, due process makes it harder for the government to do what it wants,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law. “That’s the whole point — to make sure that the government is acting in accord with the law.”

“When someone’s most basic right of freedom is taken away, that person is entitled to at least some minimal process; otherwise, we all are at risk to be detained — and perhaps deported — because someone in the government thinks we are not supposed to be here,” Vilardo wrote.

The Trump administration had argued that the court had no role in weighing in on its purported procedural violations, in part because the outcome was likely to be Ceesay’s deportation anyway.

“The government’s suggestion … is downright frightening,” Vilardo added. “Procedure is not mere puffery, a gesture that is irrelevant so long as the result is correct.”

Across the country, judges grappling with due process concerns returned repeatedly to one central premise. If immigrants can be summarily labeled gang members or terrorists and deported, delivered to any country without warning, detained without a hearing or stripped of their ability to attend college in the United States, it could happen to U.S. citizens, too.

“If the government contends that it has the ability to take someone it thinks is a noncitizen off the street without any process whatsoever — without any guarantee even that the person is who the government claims he is — then what is to stop the government from detaining someone who really is a citizen, even perhaps a sitting judge?” Vilardo wrote in the Ceesay case.

Wilkinson’s colleague on the 4th Circuit, Obama appointee Stephanie Thacker, agreed.

“If due process is of no moment,” she wrote, “what is stopping the Government from removing and refusing to return a lawful permanent resident or even a natural born citizen?”

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Friday Male Beauty

 

Trump’s Inevitable Betrayal of His Supporters

Given that lied tens of thousands of times during his first regime, one has to wonder why those who voted for him in 2024 foolishly believed his promises during the 2024 campaign.  Once a liar, always a liar, yet many seemed to either (i) hear only what they wanted to hear and ignored the contradictions of statements he made to other elements of the base or (ii) embrace his racism and misogynic promises of what he'd do to those they deemed "other."  Not surprisingly, many now find themselves disappointed if not outright betrayed now that prices have not come down - instead they have gone up - Israel has seemingly been given a green light to remove Palestinians from Gaza, and the Felon's tariffs are driving the economy towards recession. All of this was foretold and obvious to anyone who grasped the reality that the Felon's goals were to escaped prosecution and, of course, use the White House as a means to further enrich himself. In truth, he cared - and continues to car - nothing for his MAGA base other than duping them into voting for him.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at the broken promises and betrayal many in the MAGA block now face.  Here are highlights:

On Sunday, Donald Trump went on TV and told Americans that their children should make do with less. “They don’t need to have 30 dolls; they can have three,” the president said on Meet the Press. “They don’t need to have 250 pencils; they can have five.” Critics were quick to point out the irony of America’s avatar of excess telling others to tighten their belt. But the problem with Trump’s remark goes beyond the optics. It’s that his argument for austerity contradicts his campaign commitments—and exposes the limits of his transactional approach to politics.

Throughout his 2024 run, the president promised Americans a return to the prosperity of his pre-COVID first term. “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods,” he told a Montana rally in August. “They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast,” he declared days later in North Carolina. But at the same time, Trump also promised to impose steep tariffs on consumer goods—dubbing tariff one of “the most beautiful words I’ve ever heard”—even though the levies would effectively serve as a tax on everyday Americans.

These two pledges could not be reconciled, and once elected, Trump was forced to choose between them. The results have disillusioned many of those who voted for him. Trump’s approval on the economy has plunged since he announced his “Liberation Day.” A former strength has become a weakness.

Trump does not face this problem on just the economy. On issue after issue, whether domestic policy or foreign affairs, the president made incompatible assurances to rival camps on the campaign trail—to business bigwigs and working-class factory hands, anti-war isolationists and anti-Iran hawks. Now that Trump is in office, the bill for these guarantees is coming due, and he is making decisions that will inevitably alienate one of his constituencies. Some of the supporters who are not getting what they were promised are beginning to feel ripped off . . . .

Take the tariffs and the tech titans. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has done much to ingratiate himself with Trump. He donated $1 million to the president’s inauguration fund and attended the event in person. He overhauled The Washington Post ostensibly to appeal more to conservatives and reportedly paid $40 million to license and distribute a streaming documentary about the first lady, Melania Trump. None of that insulated Amazon’s business when Trump’s tariffs arrived.

Other pro-Trump sectors have experienced similar whiplash. In 2024, oil and gas interests gave an estimated $75 million to elect Trump. In his stump speech as a candidate, Trump promised to end what he called “the Biden-Harris war on American energy,” and led crowds in chants of “Drill, baby, drill.” But the tariffs Trump has imposed as president have crippled the industry by hiking costs of components while cratering the price of oil amid an anticipated economic downturn.

In other words, by pursuing populist protectionism over free trade, Trump has already betrayed some of his most powerful backers. Few will be sympathetic to the travails of the CEOs, but their workers and customers are also footing the bill for Trump’s economic self-sabotage, and many of them voted for Trump believing he would lower prices, not raise them. Given that Trump regained the White House with the smallest electoral margin since Nixon in 1968, these are supporters he and his party can ill afford to lose.

Trump is trapped in the same web of his own making when it comes to international affairs. On the campaign trail, the president promised “a stop to the endless wars and a return to peace in the Middle East,” attracting disaffected Arab and Muslim voters in swing states such as Michigan. But he also told pro-Israel voters that “you have a big protector in me,” . . . .

Much as he was compelled to choose between tariffs and trade, Trump has had to choose between these two diametrically opposed positions since entering office. He helped broker a token cease-fire in Gaza, but then allowed it to expire, all while removing Joe Biden’s sanctions on violent Israeli settlers and restrictions on arms shipments to Israel. The president also proposed emptying Gaza of Palestinians and turning the land into an American-run resort, and began revoking the visas and green cards of pro-Palestinian foreign nationals.

Unsurprisingly, many of Trump’s Gaza war voters have noticed that they’ve been stiffed. Days before the November election, Trump visited Dearborn, Michigan, where he vowed to establish “peace in the Middle East.” He was greeted there by Faye Nemer, the head of the Middle East and North African American Chamber of Commerce and an unapologetic supporter. She has since labeled his Middle East positions “extremely concerning to the community,” and she’s not alone.

Even as Trump has lost pro-Palestinian and dovish voters, he has been stoking concern among more hawkish ones. Over the past month, the president has moved toward a new nuclear deal with Iran that is reportedly similar to the one brokered by Barack Obama, which Trump discarded in 2018. . . . . the reality is that whichever way Trump goes on the subject—whether for war or peace—he will upset a key constituency. Some circles cannot be squared.

These disappointments were entirely predictable. Because Trump lacks many core convictions, voters from entirely opposite backgrounds convinced themselves that he would act in their interest as president—and he was happy to indulge their fantasies in exchange for their support by teasing tantalizing prizes to people across divides. But Trump’s transactionalism has limits, because even presidents who have few beliefs still need to act, and those actions have consequences for the world and for the politician’s coalition.

Today, some 100 days into his second term, Trump’s approval rating stands at a historic low, imperiling his party’s chances in the midterms, as more and more of the president’s backers realize that his impossible promises were never meant to be kept.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Thursday Male Beauty

 

A "Gay Scandal" Engulfs the Virginia GOP

If nothing else, the Virginia political scene is rarely dull, particularly since with off year state elections, we have elections every single year.  It can be exhausting, but nothing is more entertaining than seeing the Virginia Republican Party engage in a circular firing squad.  Which seemingly is where the Virginia GOP finds itself.  The party's gubernatorial nominee is Winsome Sears who, in my view id batshit crazy and a lover of the Felon.  That no one else has come forward suggests that the thinking is that the Democrats will in November, so why put one's self through the meat grinder of a general election.  Indeed, the incumbent Republican attorney general is not running for governor as is the norm but rather is running for re-election.  But it is the Lt. governor slot where the true drama can be found as the putative nominee, John Reid an openly gay radio personality in Richmond has a "gay scandal" swirling around him yet has managed to beat back attempts by Virginia's hapless GOP governor, Glenn Youngkin, to force him out of the race. Surprisingly, some of the usually rabidly anti-gay Virginia GOP base has rallied to Reid's defense and accused Youngkin of being part of the "establishment."  A piece in the New York Times looks at the contretemps  Here are excerpts:

When Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia found out that Republican research had linked the G.O.P.’s nominee for lieutenant governor to a blog featuring photos of naked men, he tried to save his party from an embarrassing situation.

Mr. Youngkin called the candidate, John Reid, a longtime conservative talk radio host in Richmond, and told him he needed to abandon his campaign because the website was certain to be discovered and would tank the party’s entire ticket. “I need you to drop out,” Mr. Youngkin said, according to two people briefed on the call.

Then a funny thing happened. Mr. Reid did not quit. Instead, he posted a five-minute video to social media noting that he is gay and explaining that he had watched pornography and had one-night stands in the past. The Republican base in Virginia quickly rallied around him.

The episode has illustrated the post-shame nature of Trump-era politics in a state where one recent governor . . . . . was convicted on corruption charges (which the Supreme Court subsequently threw out); and, just two years ago, a state legislative candidate stayed in her race even after the emergence of live-streamed videos of her having sex with her husband.

It also revealed a stunning lack of political juice from Mr. Youngkin, who has been considered a potential Republican presidential candidate since the day he won election as governor in 2021. A wealthy former private equity executive, he is widely credited with saving Virginia Republicans from oblivion and, since his victory, has rebuilt and funded much of the state party.

The contretemps comes as Democrats are heavily favored to win the November election for governor of Virginia, one of this year’s marquee races. Only once since 1977 have Virginia voters elected a governor of the same party as the president.

Virginia Democrats are especially optimistic this year because Mr. Trump is highly unpopular in the state, which has borne the brunt of federal government layoffs. Mr. Youngkin, who cannot run again because of term limits, is backing Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears as his Republican successor — but she has raised less than half as much money as the Democratic nominee, former Representative Abigail Spanberger.

The controversy has divided Virginia Republicans and further dented their hopes. When Mr. Youngkin maneuvered to push out Mr. Reid, the party’s MAGA base quickly labeled the governor an establishment stooge.

“It’s five to one,” said John Fredericks, a right-wing talk radio host who has a daily show syndicated across Virginia. “They want Reid to stay in the race. They think the establishment is trying to screw him. Who cares about penises on Tumblr? No one cares.”

The trouble in Virginia began late last month when Mr. Reid’s lone opponent in the Republican primary contest for lieutenant governor dropped out after undergoing heart surgery.

The Republican State Leadership Committee, the arm of the party that helps fund candidates for lieutenant governor, then produced a basic research document on Mr. Reid. It included the Tumblr blog, which had the same username he used on other social media sites and has since been deleted. The Washington Post described its contents as “ranging from explicit photos of male genitalia to images typical of a racy underwear ad.”

Mr. Reid,  . . . .denied being the author of the Tumblr. . . . In an extraordinary move, he posted his five minute explanation of the situation and vowed to remain in the race — while standing in front of portraits of Mr. Youngkin and Ms. Earle-Sears. He said he had attended drag shows in Richmond but called the Tumblr a “fake account” and said the idea that it belonged to him was “a total, fabricated internet lie.”

“Have I seen porn? Yes,” he said. “Have I had one-night stands? Are my exes still in love with me? No. What more can I possibly tell you? Why am I the candidate who has to answer these questions? It’s because I am openly gay, and I have never bowed down to the establishment and I will not.”

Ms. Earle-Sears has kept her distance from Mr. Reid. A Christian conservative, she wrote a note by hand last year to declare herself “morally opposed” to legislation signed by Mr. Youngkin that prohibited Virginia officials from denying a marriage license because of sex, gender or race.

“We have a tendency to litigate our primaries in Virginia all the way to the general election,” said John Whitbeck, a former chairman of the Virginia Republican Party. “This is yet another example of how we shoot ourselves in the foot in the party.”

There is no shortage of Republicans taking aim at one another’s feet. Mr. Reid’s lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter to Mr. Youngkin’s longtime political adviser, who had sought to engineer Mr. Reid’s departure from the race. The adviser subsequently stepped aside from his post. The two sides have traded accusatory letters, leaked recordings of meetings to the Richmond news media and floated threats of new damaging information on Mr. Reid.

“This situation has clearly spiraled beyond what anyone intended,” said Tim Anderson, a former Virginia state legislator who is aiding Mr. Reid’s campaign. “This should have never become a public spectacle, and he should have been given the opportunity to privately meet with stakeholders to find resolution or to show his defenses before he was asked to resign.”

Mr. Youngkin, for his part, told reporters in Richmond last week that staying in the race was “John Reid’s decision” after being asked if he would campaign with Mr. Reid.

“He has clearly made up his mind that he’s going to stay in,” Mr. Youngkin said. “And so he is the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor. And I think the debate can stop there, because that’s the answer.”

Mr. Youngkin declined an interview request and is now backing Mr. Reid’s campaign. “The governor is supporting the G.O.P. ticket,” said Becca Glover, Mr. Youngkin’s spokeswoman. “We are moving forward.”

Thursday Morning Male Beauty