News

I keep pushing back on this sentiment because I think it's wrong.

Even if it is inevitable that he will win in court, it's still worth fighting every step of the way:

• It ties up their resources, including chewing up loyalists who burn out trying to defend the indefensible. It's no coincidence that the second Trump term is filled with people who are simply less competent at their jobs, compared to the people in the first Trump term.
• It forces them to actually make statements and stake out positions about what they're doing. No amount of journalism or activism could've gotten the Trump administration to admit that they got it wrong by deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, because that was the work of opposing lawyers and a tough judge. And even though they fired the lawyer who first conceded that point, Trump's own Solicitor General admitted it, too, to the Supreme Court.
• If the administration tears down the rule of law, that will have unintended consequences that harm them as well. You know how Trump blinked when it became clear that his ill-conceived tariffs were going to hurt his friends, and destroy his own popularity among the people whose approval he most craves? That dynamic will play out multiple times as he undermines the rule of law.
• Practically speaking, his contempt for the rule of law undermines his popularity and support from many of those he actually draws power from. He wants the financial world, the business world, the press, the film/art/literature/culture world, religious institutions, and the sports world to admire him and support him. Each time he breaks something, he has to deal with the backlash among his own supporters.

I'm not going to comply in advance. I'm fighting every step of the way, because even if he beats me every time, his unforced errors as he does so will still jeopardize his power.

Agreed. It's clear that our legal system doesn't have an answer for "vexatious litigants". I think we're far past the point where a panel of lawyers and judges need to look at any legal action he is taking and determine if it's sound legal theory before the lawsuit is accepted into the court.

Like suing CNN for a poll. That never even should have made it to a Judge's desk.

Frankly, I'd prefer if there was a wealth-based "deposit" required for appealing a ruling to a higher court, and I'd the case is ruled the same way or as meritless, the deposit is forfeited.

Sure, he's taken plenty of loses in that time. Don't get caught up in his narrative.