[rayiner]

I’m smart enough to understand that norms only work when they’re a two-way street. If the constitution is alive and “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law, then it’s alive for both sides, and the Trump administration should go looking for what emanations they can find in the penumbras of Article II.

[mindslight]

Just to be clear here, by "both sides" you mean both professional political machines - the bureaucratic authoritarians of the Democratic party and the autocratic authoritarians of the Republican party - with both succeeding at getting the Supplicated Council to write justifications that undermine individual liberty. This is the dynamic you're arguing in favor of escalating.

Personally I wasn't a huge fan of the bureaucratic authoritarians either, but at least they brought us a measure of relative stability instead of, well, this (gestures vaguely around).

[rayiner]

No, by “both sides” I mean legal liberals and legal conservatives, which doesn’t quite match up with the parties. But first to address your point about “individual liberty.” The constitution is a framework for a republican federal government, designed to operate in conjunction with state governments that had inherited the plenary powers of the British parliament. The constitution envisions that individuals have certain liberties, but also that the government can constrain people from doing what they want in other ways. “More individual liberty” doesn’t automatically mean “more constitutional.”

The difference between legal liberals and legal conservatives is their views of whose ideas define the scope of individual liberty versus government power. For example, whose ideas do you turn to to decide whether blue laws are an infringement of religious liberty, or within the legitimate scope of state power to regulate the “public health, welfare, and morals?” Legal liberals believe in a “living constitution.” They not only believe that contemporary ideas can inform the meaning of the constitution, but believe in certain privileged sources of those ideas. So, in their view, blue laws can be unconstitutional based on modern political philosophy, even if the founding generation regarded them as consistent with individual liberty, and contemporary voters support retaining them.

In my view, legal liberals should be held to their own standard. If the meaning of the constitution can be informed by contemporary ideas, Stephen Miller is just as valid a source of such ideas as the Harvard Law faculty.

[woopsn]

Is the fact of it being legally cumbersome to acquire a machine gun the best support you can give to this idea of sending perps to El Salvador, "for what they are doing [property damage] to Elon Musk and Tesla"?

[rayiner]

They are both just legal questions. I don’t regard getting the wrong answer to one of those questions as being any different from getting the wrong answer to the other question.

[woopsn]

I don't believe you, in the sense that I am certain you are lying and do not support both rifle and straw bans etc as well as arbitrary rendition of people to a third world prison. John Yoo had a theory in any case, skewed and kept secret as it was -- what's weird about MAGA's "law" is it's pure shitposting all the way into the courtroom. They don't even care when they're disbarred.

[yubblegum]

Both of these machines are greased by the same lubricant & manufacturer. Agree re. ambiance but personally the sinister aspect was barely disguised.

[jwilber]

What’s your viewpoint on Americans being sent to el Salvadoran prisons because they keyed a Ford?

[rayiner]

I take Trump seriously but not literally. El Salvador is probably a stretch too far. But Trump’s attorneys should channel their inner Alvin Bragg and see if they can bring terrorism charges.