458 Comments
User's avatar
Shey's avatar

Fuck this shit. Use all the goddamned words.

Expand full comment
Paul Vlachos's avatar

Don't let anyone tell you to delete your comment. This is NOT about taking the high road. And, PS, we took the high road with Obama and Biden and got sucker punched. And I am a big fan of theirs. But this is not a time for niceties.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

The time for bipartisanship, [strikeout] capitulation [/strikeout] cooperation and decorum has ended.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

It ended when Newt Gingrich made his marathon speeches in front of the congressional cameras when congress was out of session.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

We could go further back than that, to Nixon, or even further back to McCarthyism.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

I think not. Newt was the point at which the Elephants decided never to co-operate with Democrats and never to allow tax increases.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

That was what the Reagan Revolution was all about.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 30Edited
Comment removed
Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

Begone brain fog spam bot.

Expand full comment
Doctor Go's avatar

Quote from one of my favorite war movies, "The Guns of Navarone" (1961):

Mallory (Gregory Peck's character):" The only way to win a war is to be as nasty as the enemy."

Expand full comment
JDinTX's avatar

Not possible, but we could acknowledge that it’s not a political game.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

This is exactly the thing. Because they brought us down to this point.

Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

I heard recently on the Chuck Toddcast that Dems are losing people with tattoos.

PEOPLE WITH TATTOOS ARE VOTING FOR THE CHURCHY PARTY

We need to roughen up our image and calling people fucking stupid shithead motherfuckers is a good way to do it. (Feels good, too.)

I also advocate for bringing the r-word back into casual usage, as I believe nothing else seems to pack the rhetorical punch, and it describes something that currently needs describing, but I'm afraid to walk the walk on that one. Somebody else go first.

Expand full comment
Gaily's avatar

A tattoo “installed” at, say age 30, looks nothing like the original at age 65, even if one’s weight and musculature remains fairly unchanged. There’s no escaping what Father Time does to skin.

Expand full comment
Doug R's avatar

SNL had a great sketch-ad for tattoo removal with "Pretty Lady" morphing into "Pretty Sad" in a few decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBmvfW7WOUc

Expand full comment
Robert Thille's avatar

Mine is about 30-35 years old, and I’m only 57, not 65, but it looks as great as when it was new.

Expand full comment
Gene Frenkle's avatar

Everyone has tattoos. I drove Uber for a little while just to see what it was about and I lived near a huge military base. All of the younger service members, men and women, were throwing away their money on tattoos. I kept my mouth shut but if they did ask me I would tell them that every one of my buddies that got a tattoo later regretted it including one tattoo has a huge mistake that the “artist” just shrugged his shoulders about. I have to go to my grave knowing about that mistake because my friend would never have heard the end of the fact his tattoo is messed up from my other buddies.

Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

My "taking back" of the r-word does not render the original lyrics of the Black Eyed Peas song inoffensive, by the way. To call somebody that for deliberately inebriating themselves is different than calling somebody that for displaying similar levels of cognition and reasoning. But of course, just because the song is offensive doesn't mean it's, like, evil.

Still can't get over how low-hanging the fruit of the lyrical change was. What a coup.

Expand full comment
Stefan Paskell's avatar

It looks like you observe you were sucker punched by Obama. If that's what you are saying, I agree.

We will come to learn that Trump is a big part of Obama's legacy, along with Hillary and even Harris, and along with decreasing lifespan for Americans due in part, almost certainly, to the misleadingly vaunted ACA, i.e. Obamacare.

Look at the actual data, not a bunch of misled Democrats pining away for the "good old days".

Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

The election of Obama did lead to the election of Trump. Not really through anything Obama did, except for produce melanin. But yeah, there is a direct connection.

But Trump is not Obama's legacy. He is not undoing everything that Obama did, and Obama will have a legacy distinct from Trump. Dodd-Frank and the ACA are critical parts of our government, they are highly effective at what they aim to do (prevent bank failures and get people health insurance, respectively) and they are not going anywhere. That is Obama's legacy. That the country responded by electing Trump is our shame, not his.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Thank you! Well explained.

Expand full comment
Rosa Luxemburg's avatar

What? Trump is diametrically opposed to Obama and Hillary on just about everything from trade to the rule of law to human rights to the environment.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Right. The ACA has saved my spouse's life at least twice, now we would have bankrupt twice over without it! Someone (and not you) has been sipping the propaganda Flavor-Ade.

Expand full comment
Rosa Luxemburg's avatar

What? Trump is diametrically opposed to Obama and Hillary on just about everything from trade to the rule of law to human rights to the environment.

Expand full comment
antoinette.uiterdijk's avatar

Life expectancy in the US is indeed falling, Covid-19 and drug-overdoses are two important contributors. Not the ACA.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

Don't you see? By supporting good policies while being "unlikeable" Democrats are fully responsible for all bad policies passed by Republicans.

(BTW you had a couple of duplicate replies there, if you wanna delete them.)

Expand full comment
antoinette.uiterdijk's avatar

Trying to wrap my small brain around this. Do you mean that many good policies were initiated by the Dems, who managed to alienate many voters with other issues, and by doing so opened the door for the Reps and the current horror show?

Expand full comment
Rosa Luxemburg's avatar

For example?

Expand full comment
Lois W. Halbert's avatar

So agree

Expand full comment
Lisa Sands's avatar

Absolutely.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Citizen Deux's avatar

Real presidents? I watched Valerie Jarrett issue orders to USGS scientist during the DWH event to shore up the cash grab for keeping Gulf states in Democrat hands. As for Biden, no sane person could defend him

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jun 1
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Citizen Deux's avatar

Studies? Love to see the citations, but they don’t exist. It is a fact that Biden was never in command of his faculties. The sooner the DNC admits this, the sooner they can rebuild. As far Jarrett, I guess you had to be there. Which I was.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jun 1
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

I am not saying that at all. If it came across that way, I apologize. But look at this clown car. You think rational conversation is going to change anything?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jun 1
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

But how do you engage in civil and rational debate with unhinged narcissistic sociopaths?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jun 1
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Thomas Patrick McGrane's avatar

I disagree. Always take the high road in life. An occasional outburst is normal. A regular embrace of the gutter stinks.

Expand full comment
Marliss Desens's avatar

Agreed that a "regular embrace of the gutter stinks." Overused shock words lose their power to affect us. That is why Paul Krugman's use of "shit" last night was dynamically effective; he saves the word for when it is really needed, and in this case it was.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

I disagree. Who said some words are “bad”? And besides that, when they go low, we go high…how did that work out? Sometimes you have to get into the gutter and punch some dicks (from a 5’2” female, lol, but always been feisty).

Expand full comment
Peter Hornbein's avatar

I fundamentally agree with you; however, Mr. McGrane raises an important point, one that I learned from 36 years of teaching in the classroom. If one's language is always "salty," the saltiness loses its tang.

In the classroom, if one is always yelling, the yelling quickly loses its impact. If one is always quiet and polite when controlling students, the sparing use of outbursts has an immediate and effective impact.

However, when not in the classroom, my favorite word is "fuck." It can be used in any situation to express any emotion.

Expand full comment
Paul Vlachos's avatar

We are not in the classroom here. We are in the trenches. We are awash in a sea of mis- and disinformation online from all sides. An occasional epithet or obscenity will do no harm and might, in fact, inspire others. This is a national emergency. We can't all be Churchill, FDR or Lincoln. We DO need to stick together, though - ALL OF US - and too much talk like this is corrosive. Let's focus on policy, issues and justice.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

And it's a great reminder of the imperative that we continue to Rise! Resist! ✊✊✊

The next nationwide rally is June 14, yes >that< June 14, be there or be square!

Let's ruin Chump's B'day. We need 3.5% or the population, or around 12,000,000 people to be present. So bring all your friends and families. Spread the word as far and wide as possible. Let's all get out there with a Howard Beale spirit and yell "We're as mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!".

https://www.nokings.org/

P.S. Stay the hell away from D.C.! Don't give him an excuse to declare martial law!

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆🎯Agree! The prissy hang up, on well deserved expletives, suggests an entity more worried about superficial crap, than saving our democracy. No one will make the expletive police use it, but they need to stop fucking policing others language, just think of us all as warriors and sailors who swear, if it makes it easier.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

I’m also a teacher (of English actually), and I understand your point as well. But sometimes the situation calls for some salt.

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

And acid.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

👆🎯👏👏👏😁

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

Under tRump, for many it has become casual punctuation.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

I regret that we have come to this point, actually, but we have apparently to this point.

Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

'If one's language is always "salty," the saltiness loses its tang.'

Nah, uptight people still get visibly upset or uncomfortable when you swear. Why are you participating in a discussion about whether swearing is at all, if you think people are swearing in a way that renders it less powerful? Just enjoy the lack of power, if that's the way you see things. Laugh at the futility of the foul-mouthed's pathetic attempt at emphasis.

Not saying it's a good thing to make people uncomfortable with your language but you can't have it both ways... either swearing is an effective and problematic way to communicate rhetorical aggression, or it isn't.

Anyway, as I said in another comment... swearing is good for some audiences, and not for others. It seems incredibly straightforward. Obviously "Daily Show" fans are going to enjoy cursing, and you can bet that most regular church goers will not. We want both of them to vote for us. So try to talk to one without the other hearing you... that's what the GOP does.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

It's entirely possible that us going high was the most effective tack in 2008 and 2012 but things changed in the Trump era.

2012-2013 was a MAJOR inflection point in the American (human, really) psyche, because it was when smartphone ownership reached a critical mass. And we had another one since with the pandemic. Neither seemed to make people nicer.

The difference in... elevation was never larger than it was in 2024 and it didn't work. So at the very least, going high isn't a BIG winner...

It also depends on the candidates. Maybe Michelle and Barack can go high because of their charisma, but if you're Kamala Harris you gotta get some dirt under your nails.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

I disagree. If they fight dirty to undermine democracy, we fight dirty back. They don’t respect democracy or any of us. They are trying to take everything.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

While it's true that a regular embrace of the gutter stinks - as the GOP has long demonstrated - always taking the high road, especially under current conditions, is tantamount to capitulation.

The time for "decorum" has long ended. When congressional Democrats displayed cute little lollipop signs at the "State of the Union" address, it was taking the high road - totally lame and accomplished nothing in the face of lies and malfeasance.

You don't bring a water pistol to a gun fight.

Expand full comment
Thomas Patrick McGrane's avatar

Yes, in many respects in an emotional state you are correct, but were a fight to ensue, our tolerance and wit versus weapons will be deserving of help from our allies should the need arise. You don't want to appear equally undeserving of friendship.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

We're in a fight now. We can choose to let the bully repeatedly punch us while we passively fail to respond, or we can choose to hit back any and every way we can.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

This is exactly it. Dudes, are we going to just tolerate bullies punching down while we are playing nice because frankly we are better humans? Or should we figure out some ways to punch up? Nicety is not solving these fucking problems.

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

An occasional profanity is the hallmark of an educated and refined individual.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

Never get into a mud-wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

It really, really, really, REALLY depends on the audience. How could anybody possibly pretend there is a single simple answer here, in either direction?

I say, if a message is going out somewhere parents and old people are going to be reading it, clean it up. If it's going out to your activists or college students or young podcast-loving bros, let it fly. You aren't going to be 100% precise but it's better than "one size fits all."

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

This is exactly the lesson I have tried to teach my children, nieces, nephew. There are times, places, situations. Like don’t scream “fuck!” in school or church. But if you need to say it at home, go ahead. It’s cathartic.

Expand full comment
Stefan Paskell's avatar

What is this "high road" of which you speak? Is it anything like "do the right thing"?

Chamberlain took the "high road" in Munich re his appeasement of Hitler and dishonoring his government's agreement with the Czechs. Lenin took the high road when he advocated withdrawing from WWI. England thought otherwise and continued the senseless slaughter. What the "high road" is, is completely subjective.

Trump and Musk think they're taking the high road. Most miscreants think they're taking the high road. Most sanctimonious folks also think this. It's a meaningless term unless it is specifically defined, and then it's unnecessary.

Expand full comment
Paul Vlachos's avatar

"This is not a time to be dismayed. This is punk rock time, this is what Joe Strummer trained you for."

~ Henry Rollins

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

I like a lot of Flogging Molly right now, lol.

Expand full comment
Jerry Campbell's avatar

Hey, Trump is more than worthy of an FU and any other bad shit you can muster. He is dastardly.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

Forget words. How about a guillotine?

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

I used to work for AT&T. I prefer the "reach out and touch someone" approach.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

Yeah, with a really sharp blade.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a .50 caliber sniper rifle.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

Point blank.

Expand full comment
Hanief's avatar

Are you saying he’s a deranged orange lunatic CUNT?!

Expand full comment
DrBDH's avatar

The National Curseword Reserve is limitless. Never think we’re out of fucks to give to the deserving.

Expand full comment
Geo Schmidt's avatar

Right on! Unprecedented times with ignorant, misanthropic, national leadership calls for using any word that helps the message. Refreshing that this column deals with truth, fact and critical thought. Thanks.

Expand full comment
Paul Vlachos's avatar

This started out as a discussion over somebody castigating someone else for using an obscenity. Most people here see that we are in a national fucking emergency. Our greatest crisis since not just the Civil War, but the revolution. And most people get behind this, but some are virtual signaling and arguing that we show civility towards the actual Nazis? I don’t fucking think so.

Expand full comment
Andrew Goldstein's avatar

Using all the goddamned words, i.e., venting, seems like mostly a way to feel better, although I suppose you could argue that the MAGA folks succeeded in getting us into all this shit by expressing their intense, often uncontrolled anger more forcefully than the rest of us.

Expand full comment
Thomas Patrick McGrane's avatar

Truth be told, yesterday, I myself used the S word twice. Once directly quoting Trump and then to characterize his thug followers. Other than that, I can't recall having used such a word in public comments before, so perhaps it was I that began this descent to the gutter merely by quoting Trump. Oh well. Let's not do it again and maintain the decorum here. Now turn off your mics to vent.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Just accept yourself and accept where we are in this country. It’s okay.

Expand full comment
Thomas Patrick McGrane's avatar

You're a predator. stop.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

I’m a predator? Fuck you. I’m a tiny female, some of the prey in this big bad world. Why are you being such an absolute bag of dicks? What is wrong with you?

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

And that original comment was trying to be nice. But you keep being such an insecure asshole for reasons I do not understand, and I am guessing it has more to do with you than me.

Expand full comment
Rena Stone's avatar

100-fucking-percent!

Expand full comment
Doug R's avatar

As a Teamster for decades I say fuck yeah.

Expand full comment
Ken Firestone's avatar

"Swearing is an art form. You can express yourself much more directly, much more exactly, much more succinctly, with properly used curse words."

Coleman A. Young, former mayor of Detroit

Expand full comment
Thomas Patrick McGrane's avatar

Respectfully, please delete your comment. You made your point well enough.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Respectfully, delete yourself. Who are you to tell me that I can’t have a voice?

Expand full comment
Jean Montanti's avatar

My reply to T.P. McGrane would have been "go fuck your sexist ass, please." He sounds like the product of too much Catholic school. All words have meaning and are less dangerous than bombs when used properly, and in the case of anything to do with Trump, anything goes.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Hey, thank you for that. I’m a fortyfuckingsix female going through menopause, and I’ll be good goddamned if I let anyone lecture me on acceptable words. First, do not take my words. They’re just about all I have left. And second, fuck off to misogynistic lecturing assholes.

Expand full comment
Jean Montanti's avatar

I'm 84 and well beyond menopause, and having anyone tell me how to speak. You don't need any excuse to express yourself any way you want. Just say how you feel. Trump does all the time, and no one complains to him, McGrane.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

They are the ones who took the gloves off. Now we do too. 🤷‍♀️

Expand full comment
Thomas Patrick McGrane's avatar

Calm down. You had your voice. I asked nicely, not demanding.

I expect intellect here.

Expand full comment
Jean Montanti's avatar

Why the fuck are you wasting everyone's time giving language advice when the world is on the edge of destruction. Keep your eye on the ball.

Expand full comment
Robot Bender's avatar

Amen. We don't need any more circular firing squads.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Good luck. If you would like it, show it.

Expand full comment
Michael Brooke's avatar

For some unaccountable reason I feel compelled to link to this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/27/cameron-calm-down-dear-sexist-put-down

Expand full comment
Jean Montanti's avatar

Thank you for this article.

Expand full comment
Shade Seeker's avatar

Respectfully, most of us would like to see the comment stay up. Democracy in action.

Expand full comment
Robert Goldsbury's avatar

What are talking about?!

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Well, we got off on a tangent about using “curse words”

Expand full comment
Howard Schwartz's avatar

Right, Trump deserves no less

Expand full comment
Jkaz's avatar

Paul you are the reason I joined Substack. Thank you for the tacos for lunch comment and the post modern Jukebox coda. It made this 78 year old feel good.

Expand full comment
Cissna, Ken's avatar

Just for fun, I think I’ll actually make tacos for lunch today.

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

I'm thinking TACO is going to stick :-)

Expand full comment
Koen Decoster's avatar

I was thinking of leaving an almost identically worded comment, including the PM Jukebox coda. I’m only 62, but working on that. 😏

Expand full comment
Sam Rogers's avatar

Well, I’m 83 and followed Paul to Substack when he left the NYT. He has always been one of my favorite opinion columnists, even though I’m roughly 10 years older than he is. Old dogs aren’t always the most stodgy and conservative. Paul, I wasn’t at all offended by your language this morning. Trump and the other bastards in his coterie deserve the harshest language we can throw at them. Keep the faith.

Expand full comment
Porlock's avatar

Thanks for this from a contemporary.

Expand full comment
Gordon's avatar

Did the same thing, although same age as PK, 10 yrs your jr. Bring the language - The times we live in call for it.

Expand full comment
Somewhere, Somehow's avatar

I’m having pulled chicken for dinner today.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

We're uniting with Congress and going with pulled pork.

Expand full comment
Monet Lion's avatar

Ditto from this 80 y/o crone.

Expand full comment
Nancy Lindsey's avatar

Likewise but 73

Expand full comment
Jennie H.'s avatar

Same.

Expand full comment
William L Rubink's avatar

Ditto

Expand full comment
Ken Zaner's avatar

I am 77 and liked it too. As usual I liked the music. I like radio head.

Expand full comment
Anne H's avatar

Still won't buy American or travel to the US.

Expand full comment
Essmeier's avatar

American here. No offense taken.

Expand full comment
Damon Kovelsky's avatar

Too many people are forgetting that SCOTUS gave Trump carte blanche as president. If this goes to the supreme court, I think they are more likely to uphold their own constructed ruling and not a differerent era's ruling.

And, too many of SCOTUS have given up on the Constitution.

Expand full comment
KSC's avatar

He may not be subject to criminal prosecution for his illegal conduct but that does not mean that all the actions he takes are constitutional. It’s a big difference.

Expand full comment
Richard Lee's avatar

Actually the SC stated (paraphrased) that a President cannot not be held accountable for actions which are within the bounds the President’s Constitutional powers. A President is not above the Constitution but constrained by those powers. If DTrump creates EOs which exceed the Constitutionally stated Presidential powers, he can be held criminally responsible and if necessary accountable for those actions. We, the people, need to hold DTrump to those standards by using the courts, Congressional action, or Constitutional Article Section 4 of impeachment. Failing those avenues the last remaining choices are becoming an unwilling passive observer or taking action based on massive public display of disapproval.

Expand full comment
Carter Berry's avatar

Not really what the SC ruled. They said president has immunity from “official” acts and they weren’t really clear about what that means. Many of Trump’s actions regarding the Jan 6th case were no doubt un-official acts but the SC never directly addressed it in the written opinion.

All of this tariff crap, deportations, etc will be claimed to be official acts.

Now if we ever get to investigate these crypto scams ….. that could be a way to get to Trump for unofficial financial crimes.

Expand full comment
Richard Lee's avatar

The tariff issue was stated to be outside official acts by federal court. Deportations of immigrants and US citizens without proper proof of judicial certification is illegal.

The issue of bitcoin isn’t illegal on its face - but selling access to the President for purposes of influencing executive decisions is.

Expand full comment
KSC's avatar

Richard, When it comes to the scope question I am dubious that the current conservative majority will rein him in vis-a-vis the criminal immunity inquiry…..that is the nature of the defense….yes what you did was unconstitutional but you are immune from criminal liability. My point is maybe too fine.. just see a distinction between the immunity determination and the underlying question of constitutionality. So, if the question of constitutionality is in front of the court in a non criminal suit, they will have to address the constitutional question.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

This is a great reminder of the imperative that we continue to Rise! Resist! ✊✊✊

The next nationwide rally is June 14, yes >that< June 14, be there or be square!

Let's ruin Chump's B'day. We need 3.5% or the population, or around 12,000,000 people to be present. So bring all your friends and families. Spread the word as far and wide as possible. Let's all get out there with a Howard Beale spirit and yell "We're as mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!".

https://www.nokings.org/

P.S. Stay the hell away from D.C.! Don't give him an excuse to declare martial law!

Expand full comment
Matthew Brown's avatar

The SCOTUS did not exempt his followers from criminal prosecution for carrying out blatantly illegal orders, AFAIK.

Expand full comment
KSC's avatar

The problem there is that Trump still wields the pardon power for federal crimes. However, the landscape of federal civil rights suits under Biven remains open…although pitted with the landmines of qualified immunity. And there is always state courts.

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

He will just pardon them.

Expand full comment
Matthew Brown's avatar

He cannot pardon them for convictions in state courts.

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

That is true enough, but they would have to violate state laws and you know they would fight like hell to have the charges tried in a federal court.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

I'd say none of the actions he takes are constitutional. And in most cases, deliberately so.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

But if nobody is keeping the balance of power, it doesn’t matter anymore. The Constitution is out the window.

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

It is funny that when I was a kid in the 60s, the republicans were up in arms about federal judges 'legislating from the bench', but now that they have a super majority they are happily legislating from the bench. They have happily watched as tRump has turned our Constitutional Republic into a massive joke.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

Hypocrisy is their calling card.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Many of us are not forgetting. We are watching in horror.

Expand full comment
Paula RB's avatar

You’re completely wrong. Gave him immunity in criminal cases. Totally different.

Expand full comment
Damon Kovelsky's avatar

I wish and hope I am, but the Roberts court has demonstrated unprecidented(to my knowledge) willingness to defer to a Republican presidency.

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

Plated him in Gold.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

Ironically, they justify it with claims of "original intent", which, of course, they also interpret any which way they damned please.

Expand full comment
LarryG's avatar

Yes, the rest of the world, will just have to wait anxiously for the SCOTUS to deliver the blind and impartial verdict of Lady Justice (sarcasm), before we can truely know if the current financial plan of the USA is illegal. (the ROW already knows...)

Expand full comment
RCThweatt's avatar

When lawsuits were filed in a number of states, including Colorado (Anderson case) to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,Fed Soc split on the issue, with Judge Luttig and George Conway emphatically for, and Mukasey and Calabresi (who was first for) against.

There is no such split in this matter. Calabresi and Mukasey filed amici in the V.O.S. Selections case. Another suit is backed by none other than Leonard Leo, the creator of this Supreme Court. The far right wants to use Trump as its instrument, not be used by him, is my take.

Expand full comment
Lee Peters's avatar

“The far right wants to use Trump as its instrument, not be used by him, is my take.”

Exactly, which is why the attorneys for the business plaintiffs in this tariff case were “conservatives”. When Trump did something that hurt them (tariffs) instead of just the people they hate, they finally decided he had behaved unconstitutionally and headed to court.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

Just in: an appeals court has reversed the decision.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/29/us/trump-news

Expand full comment
Rainer Dynszis's avatar

Oh dear. All of a sudden, a different musical coda:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5TD9qQF6fQ

Expand full comment
Rebeca Schiller's avatar

This is why we read your posts, Paul. They show an intelligent man who’s not afraid to use profanity when he sees this country in the hands of a fuck up who doesn’t give a shit about anything except lining his pockets.

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

Ha Ha ha is that Jojo?

Expand full comment
matclone's avatar

The "emergency" graph was priceless. Thank you for your explanation of the legal process on this issue, and for your humor.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Why can’t this motherfucker just die of cheeseburger yet? Seriously.

Expand full comment
Overwhelmed's avatar

Then we are stuck with Vance and Johnson.. ugh.

Expand full comment
Tom's avatar

Johnson doesn't automatically become Veep. Vance can choose someone else.

However, if both Trump AND Vance were to be simultaneously impeached, Johnson would become prez via the line of succession.

Personally, I think that's a great idea. Johnson has the charisma of a lizard and a commensurate following. He would be entirely ineffective and a great reason to vote blue in '28.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

Hogwash! Lizards are infinitely more charismatic than Jackass Johnson will ever be.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

Johnson is a weasel eying the chickens.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

To put it charitably.

Expand full comment
Pragmatic Folly's avatar

I dunno... he has that fanatical look in his eyes. Flee the theocratic fish.

Expand full comment
DJ Chicago Cook's avatar

But no one is getting intimidated by Vance - it's a GOP power struggle. Vance doesn't have the blackmail chops nor does he wield the base into attack mode. It would be better with Vance (famous last words 🙄)

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

That might actually be the case. I hope it is. Neither Couchboy Hillbilly nor Jackass Johnson wield the nationwide influence (albeit restricted to MAGAnuts) that Trumpkopf does.

Expand full comment
Overwhelmed's avatar

I hope that is true. But I believe that, in addition to Peter Thiel, a lot of big money would get behind Vance because it is clear that he is easy to buy.

Expand full comment
DJ Chicago Cook's avatar

I would bet that Thiel is on the Musk side of the fight, which means that Vance is not going to step into it. Musk and Thiel have a very unpopular position, and a lot of trouble pushing Vance into power. Their only hope is that Trump gets sick.

Expand full comment
Overwhelmed's avatar

Good point.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

I think…well, that fucker with mascara and the Keebler Elf suck too. But maybe more expendable?

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

Definitely Bush league.

Expand full comment
Essmeier's avatar

Vance and Johnson don't control the MAGA cult. They're just Republicans.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

I remember people making the same sort of comment about Pence in the first DonnyJon rodeo. In my opinion, we would've been much better off under Pence then, and probably would be better off under Vance now.

Expand full comment
Rainer Dynszis's avatar

Without a shade of doubt, if Trump were to kick the bucket, the world's supply of champagne would be sold out in minutes. Even I would take a holiday from my sobriety to celebrate that moment.

But what then? There would still be a critical mass of toxic troglodytes who, like The Professor wrote, "may insist that they’re pro-American, but what they mean by “America” is a land of bigotry where your identity is determined by blood and soil, a land of closed borders and closed minds."

And by virtue of an ossified Constitution, combined with a thoroughly corrupt SCOTUS and its deleterious rulings, they will remain the ones who decide about the future of the US.

Expand full comment
Bradley Mayer's avatar

JD Vance would be the hangover. Vance is even more evil in that he knows exactly what he is doing. Shady is a protégé of Peter Thiel, a supporter of outright autocracy and an actual Techbro fascist capitalist.

Expand full comment
michelle oayda's avatar

Unfortunately only the good die young

Expand full comment
Sean's avatar

I want him to live and see it all come crashing down. I don't want him to die until he knows his name will be synonymous with failure for eternity. Not that he knows what synonymous means.

Expand full comment
Rainer Dynszis's avatar

In other words, you want him to live forever??

I mean, seriously. This is a being who bankrupted six CASINOS (!!!) without getting disabused of the notion that he's a business genius.

Do you seriously think that anything can make him accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong?

Expand full comment
Sean's avatar

He won't accept responsibility, but maybe a 30% approval rating, dump truck full of articles calling him a loser and some kind of public humiliation may break through his psyche a bit.

Even if he won't accept that responsibility, maybe he'll be aware of what his reputation is when it's in tatters.

Expand full comment
Juan Rivera's avatar

Tacos for breakfast indeed 🌮

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
May 29
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Rainer Dynszis's avatar

No it doesn't prove that TACO was already priced in. More likely is that the market didn't expect Trump to suddenly start obeying court orders after he flouted so many before.

Expand full comment
Jeffrey L Kaufman's avatar

There are some other key issues in this court decision, very important in terms of the longer arc of Supreme Court thinking. The Trade Court overtly invoked the Major Questions doctrine, as though it is settled law. This then puts quite the challenge to the conservative justices, notably Gorsuch, who has expounded on the theory behind the Founders' structure of the government, that Congress has a duty to debate and legislate, which they can't duck. The Trade Court also noted that how Trump declared emergencies was deficient, because it involves reporting to Congress, which must take its own actions, and there is a periodic affirmation that is necessary from all parties about the emergency. Regarding the tariffs aimed to help control fentanyl, there are also problems, because there is no direct linkage between the goal of reducing drug availability here and the use of a more global international tariff, which the law requires. For those interested in reading the opinion, see https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf. The bottom line is that this situation is a fundamental problem of separation of powers, and Congress will be forced to act, or there will be no tariffs.

Another key point: This is the mouse that roared. VOS Selections, the lead plaintiff, is a New York-based wine importer. They and the co-plaintiffs are small companies that have established the damages to their businesses from the tariffs with success. The Mouse That Roared is the classic satire by Leonard Wibberley, a worthwhile quick read, made into a play and then a fine movie with Peter Sellars and Jean Seberg.

Expand full comment
antoinette.uiterdijk's avatar

Jean Seberg. So talented and her life ruined by US Government.

https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2016/spring/statement/the-secret-lives-jean-seberg

Expand full comment
Rikeijin's avatar

The court order can be accessed here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.56.0.pdf

The court announced that “within 10 calendar days necessary administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction shall issue.”

This means that Trump has 10 days to seek intervention from a higher court.

Besides Section 232, Section 301 may be cited to impose tariffs.

The tariffs storm is not over yet.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center/trump-tariff-tracker/

Expand full comment
Marliss Desens's avatar

A lawyer responded last night that Trump can appeal for this particular court to rule on the issue en banc, which means all of the judges rather than these three judges who made up this panel. If he loses here, his next stop is the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment
Rikeijin's avatar

update:

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-trade-tariff-strategy-pivot-bfe11596

"A federal appeals court has temporarily put on hold a ruling that voided President Trump’s tariffs while it considers the administration’s challenge to the lower-court decision. "

"The Federal Circuit, an intermediate appeals court in Washington, D.C., asked a group of companies that challenged the tariffs to file a written brief before June 5 laying out their arguments. The court instructed the Justice Department to reply to that brief by June 9. "

Expand full comment
Sanjeev's avatar

Now we hope that this daily Dog & Pony show of tariffs will come to an end. This on-off-on-off-up-down-up-down tariff announcements was also a nice insider trading scheme for Trump minions.

This is what i wrote about in my article few days ago.

"Another thing that is needed in ‘cleaning up’ process is at least some curtailing of the executive powers of American Presidency. These executive powers were not a problem before but with thorough abuse of executive authority, Trump has maligned the whole concept of executive power. The Presidents in past used executive powers with responsibility & restraint - even the worst of the Presidents had some sense of restraint unlike Donald Trump.

President’s unilateral authority to practically declare a trade war against the world is gross abuse of executive authority. In fact, the world needs to be convinced that America will not abuse its power arbitrarily. In terms of economy, a robust process of declaring a ‘national emergency’ is needed which should include congressional deliberation and central bank’s technocratic opinion on given situation. Just declaring ‘national emergency’ on farcical premise (fentanyl, size of trade deficit etc) can plunge America into unnecessary trade wars."

https://3rdworldecon.substack.com/p/how-can-america-restore-its-credibility

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Have you met the Botox lady who has habeas corpus entirely backwards?

Expand full comment
Light Warder's avatar

Pam’s angry elevens can’t be smoothed-out by clostridium. She’ll need the full orange&black jumpsuit they wear down in CECOT.

Expand full comment
Maureen Spitz's avatar

Actually, I think you might be referring to dog-killer and cruel, ignorant poseur Kristi Noem. One of the worst idiots ever foisted on our government. Parading in front of wrongly imprisoned men with her $50,000 Rolex. Thoroughly disgusting.

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

That'd how I took Shey's comment also. Cricket's revenge!

Expand full comment
Leigh Horne's avatar

Not only the putative "They," who created financial, judicial and congressional oversight, never imagine they would have to deal with a person like Trump (and, is he a person in the usual sense of that word?), but none of us have. This has been obvious almost from the beginning, and ought to be a wake up call. Systems of all sorts, including the law are presently ill-equipped to resist the actions of Apex Preditors. And with AI upon us and many of its developers having revealed themselves as being in that class, we had better give up our comfortable illusions about how guardrails 'ought' to work. These guys eat guardrails for dinner.

Expand full comment
Marco Lara's avatar

Following the ruling by the Court of International Trade, a responsible administration would suspend the contested tariffs while the appeal proceeds. Continuing to enforce tariffs deemed illegal risks further harm to U.S. businesses and the broader economy. Importers are left in limbo—uncertain about what duties will apply—creating paralysis in the supply chain and driving shortages. This chaos is the direct result of recklessly imposed and poorly considered trade policies.

Expand full comment
Shey's avatar

Nice musical coda once again. 👍

Expand full comment
Greg Bildson's avatar

"paperclip factory" - nice touch. I hope AGI goes easy on you.

Expand full comment
Greg's avatar

Surely people will be trying to claw back the tariffs already paid. This will be tied up in litigation for years. Such a waste of time and effort and still they will continue to destroy our economy.

Expand full comment