Trump vs. the Courts
The current clash between the Trump administration and the Federal courts is a boundary war. As I wrote sometime ago, such wars are inevitable due to the fact that the Constitution’s separation of powers reserves domains of authority for each branch, and outlines general principles identifying what those domains encompass, but under particular factual circumstances it is unclear where the boundary lies. Moreover, and crucially, these disputes cannot be resolved on a principled basis because there is inherently no ultimate arbiter between branches under the separation of powers.
Disputes are also inevitable because each branch wants to expand its domain at the expense of the others.
This all implies that conflicts like those currently raging between the executive and judicial branches are power games that will be decided by politics. The administration can exercise the Andrew Jackson option of refusing to enforce or adhere to court edicts. The cost of doing so is political. Thus, Trump’s decisions going forward will be driven by whether he deems that the substantive results of the refusal to recognize the judiciary’s boundary claims outweigh the political cost.
How this will play out is highly uncertain. This is due in part to the fact that there are so many disputes in play that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court, and there is a lot of unpredictability regarding the order in which cases will reach it, and the particulars of the decisions that are appealed to it.
This makes the game inherently dynamic, and how it evolves will depend on which cases reach the court first. Trump’s political and legal position will be stronger for some cases than others, and this will likely drive his strategy.
For example, the James E. Boasberg decision in the Alien Enemies Act regarding deporting Venezuelan and El Salvadoran illegal immigrants (and gang members) presents very good possibilities for Trump. Siding with Boasberg would require the Supreme Court to repudiate (or twist beyond recognition) a precedent, Ludecke v. Watkins, which ruled that the president’s power under the Act is almost unlimited. It also relates to matters that are clearly within the executive domain, namely national security and foreign policy.
Moreover, the politics on this are clearly on Trump’s side. A large majority of Americans want these thugs out of the country. The optics of being a judge who sides with foreign gang bangers notorious for the depredations they have wreaked on Americans are very, very bad, and politically Trump wins big by flouting such a jurist.
Meaning that Trump may indeed want to choose to fight this battle first. There is actually a political benefit of telling Boasberg to bugger off, and having this reach the Supreme Court early would put Roberts et al at a big disadvantage due to both the politics (and yes, the Supreme Court does follow election returns, as the old phrase goes) and the legal precedents.
This could be in fact why the administration chose to use the Enemy Alien Act the basis for its deportations, something that has puzzled some who argue that Trump could have deported on other grounds. But that Act clearly relates to a presidential power and the courts are in much greater danger of a boundary violation if they rule against him than would be the case if the deportations were justified on other authorities.
Other cases are far more problematic for Trump. Firing federal employees is less of a clear political win for Trump (though I think that it is still a net political positive), and the legal grounds are more dicey. Refusing to spend money or attempting to claw back money is also probably a net political win but legally chancier, in particular as this would involve the Court arbitrating a boundary dispute between the other two branches, whereas cases like the Alien Enemies involves a dispute between the executive and judiciary, and Trump can argue powerfully that the judiciary cannot decide what falls within its own domain without violating the separation of powers. Trump’s attempt to exert control over “independent” agencies is also legally riskier, and most Americans’ eyes probably glaze over on this issue.
The cost to the Supreme Court also depends on the particular matter before it. The court recognizes that there is a cost to it if the administration exercises the Andrew Jackson option, especially in a case where the public strongly favors the administration on the substance. Not only is its legitimacy contested, but its authority is proven chimerical. It does not want to choose to die on a politically indefensible hill.
(And maybe I should say the “Joe Biden option” instead of the Andy Jack option. After all, Biden clearly flouted the Supreme Court’s decision on student loans. In this regard it is worth noting that Roberts has been conspicuously silent about that even though he was quick to criticize Trump for attacking Boasberg).
There is also the distinct possibility that none of these cases will result in clean decisions that resolve, or attempt to resolve, the underlying issues. The Court can sidestep and fudge, or make decisions that may have a substantive result that benefits Trump but do not draw firm boundaries. Throwing out cases for lack of standing is a standard way of achieving a particular substantive result without coming to grips with the more fundamental issues. What fudges are available will depend in part on the legal arguments the administration makes.
But where there’s a will, there’s a way. My guess is that the Court will look for escape hatches whenever possible, and that Trump will get a lot of hollow victories that do not establish the precedents he clearly seeks.
One likely outcome from all this is that the Court will eliminate, or at least substantially curtail, nationwide injunctions. Thomas and Alito said long ago that they should be eliminated. The onslaught of litigation against the Trump administration has led to an unprecedented use of such injunctions, almost exclusively by highly partisan judges, and in particular in the DC circuit which is clearly hard left.
These injunctions greatly raise the legal stakes, and make it far more likely that the matters will reach the Supreme Court. Simply out of a desire to reduce its involvement in such fraught matters the Court may well decide to eliminate or sharply circumscribe the scope of district courts’ injunctive authority.
In sum, by asserting his view of the domain of his powers under Section II of the Constitution, Trump is in conflict with courts that believe that this encroaches on their domain under Section III. Under the Constitution there is no independent authority who can arbitrate between them, so the ultimate outcome will require one to surrender to the assertions of the other, or come to some mutually unsatisfactory compromise, and do so on the basis of calculations of power and politics, rather than Constitutional principles. This game is very complex for myriad reasons, so predicting its outcome is very difficult. Given the stakes and risks, both sides have incentives to avoid a decisive outcome, meaning that these fights may end with whimpers, rather than bangs.
Would it be excessively naïf to suggest that now that Trumpians are in charge, at least nominally, of the intelligence agencies it might now be Trumpians who can threaten to publicise “the dirt” on SCOTUS justices? Mightn’t that influence decisions? Hell, the Trumpians might not even need to specify what “dirt” they have. A hint that they have it might suffice.
Am I suggesting that the highest ranking lawyers in the USA might be corruptible? Natch: you did spot the word “lawyers”?
Comment by dearieme — March 20, 2025 @ 3:54 pm
Excellent summary, thanks!
Comment by HibernoFrog — March 21, 2025 @ 4:16 am
It’s difficult for citizens of other countries with functioning legal systems to understand what the heck is going on here. In a functioning legal system, judges have something called jurisdiction, which is usually very limited. In the non-functioning American system, judges have unlimited jurisdiction. In a functioning legal system, a party not named as plaintiff or defendant in the proceedings and who wishes to join a suit, must first show standing, or an actionable right. In the non-functioning American legal system, any person may initiate a suit against any other person without first having to show standing. John Grisham built a very rewarding career writing about these fantastic anomalies.
Comment by Michael van der Riet — March 23, 2025 @ 3:05 pm
Brownstone Institute points out that the departments Trump is going after are all Executive Agencies. These include DoD, CIA, Homeland Security, Education, EPA, Energy, and so on and on.
So the President is the boss and Congress and the courts can just lump it.
Comment by philip — March 24, 2025 @ 1:51 pm
I keep telling people that the Constitution not only defines an elected monarchy, but that the monarch is granted powers more like those of James VI & I rather than George III.
If I were franker I might say Charles I rather than James but I don’t want to give them the wrong idea about how to treat their president. I am mindful that they have assassinated four of their monarchs already, and by no means the worst of the scoundrels.
Comment by dearieme — March 25, 2025 @ 9:44 am
@5 The president cannot legally pronounce a death sentence or any sentence of imprisonment. Nor can the president legally dissolve Congress, nor make any law by executive order. The president cannot legally cause to indict, except by rule of law through the DoJ.
Congress can indict the president, however (as we’ve all seen), and remove the occupant from office after trial and conviction.
The powers of regulatory bodies, such as the EPA (which should be shuttered), are set by Congress, not the president.
The analogy to a monarch is poor.
Regarding James VI&I, I was in England quite a while back visiting a friend who haled from the Scottish borderlands. We visited the Canterbury Cathedral, where, to the museum chair, she described the queen as Elizabeth II&I. The parsing of the royal was not well received.
Comment by Pat Frank — March 25, 2025 @ 4:16 pm
“Elizabeth II&I.” It’s a favourite Scottish joke: just you wait, if Wullie of Wales becomes King William, Scots will refer to him as William IV & V. A well advised Royal House would avoid such jokes by sticking to names such as George or Charles or Thomas or Peter or … You really shouldn’t use William or Henry or Edward or Richard or Robert or David or Kenneth or Alexander or Donald …; or Cnut (not that you would, would you?) .
Of course it’d be open to William to announce that he’d reign as King Charles IV in honour of his dad.
Also to be avoided: John II (neither earlier John had a history you’d like to commemorate), ditto Mary III because of the uncomfortable histories of the two Mary Is, and it’s certainly best to avoid Oliver, eh?
Personally I’d love to see a King Arthur which would let madmen bleat for ages that he ought to be Arthur II.
As for “legally pronounce a death sentence or any sentence of imprisonment. Nor can the president legally dissolve Congress, nor make any law by executive order.” I hadn’t realised that George III was prone to such antics – have you any examples you can direct me to?
Comment by dearieme — March 26, 2025 @ 7:39 am
The Trump edicts attacking Big Law, taking away the security clearances etc, are another outcrop of the lawfare Trump faced. The Biden DOJ in concert with Big Law and state Democratic AGs coordinated an unconstitutional attack against Trump. He is reacting.
I think politically, people would be okay with Trump taking security clearances away. Ethically, it smacks of fascism.
Comment by Jeff Carter (@pointsnfigures1) — March 26, 2025 @ 8:18 am
I should also add to my above comment: I do think these lawyers who engage in lawfare against Trump, and the broader US truly do hate America. Hence, while my gut is very uncomfortable with taking away security clearances of law firms, I am pretty happy to see them squirm.
Comment by Jeff Carter (@pointsnfigures1) — March 26, 2025 @ 8:19 am
@7 Comparative judgment wouldn’t be restricted to George III, but includes monarchs as a category.
Interesting term, monarch, isn’t it. Single chief. Not an American president.
Comment by Pat Frank — March 26, 2025 @ 9:27 am
“Comparative judgment wouldn’t be restricted to George III”: oh yes it should, as that is the comparison I floated. After all it’s not an arbitrary comparison., is it?
Comment by dearieme — March 26, 2025 @ 10:47 am
@11, the comparison you floated was, “I keep telling people that the Constitution not only defines an elected monarchy, but that the monarch is granted powers more like those of James VI & I rather than George III.”
Your first reference is to monarch, per se. Then equated to James, and George set aside. So, the comparative judgment would not be restricted to George III on general and particular grounds, both.
The Scottish National Museum
https://www.nms.ac.uk/discover-catalogue/a-brief-history-of-james-vi-and-i
has this to say about James VI&I:
In his,”The True Law of Free Monarchies” James, “saw himself as one of God’s lieutenants on earth, and thus his power was the result of divine will, and not to be argued with.”
James VI&I has no correlation with the American presidency at all, none of whom may rule by personal fiat.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution has it that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any Office or public trust, meaning no president may ever legally claim to be, or to act, ex officio as god’s lieutenant.
Given that the monarch of the UK is also head of the Anglican Church, every British monarch since Henry VIII is immediately foreign to such a comparison on religious grounds alone; apart from the rule by fiat thing.
Comment by Pat Frank — March 26, 2025 @ 11:17 pm
“the American presidency at all, none of whom may rule by personal fiat”: don’t be absurd. Issuing Executive Orders is exactly that – rule by decree. And the only defence you have against that is a court system that seems pretty corrupt. Corrupt courts that automatically try to block Trump EOs must, I assume, have automatically waved through Biden EOs? The way the courts and Congress obliged FDR’s whims, for instance, makes clear that he ruled by personal fiat. Lincoln too did hair-raisingly unconstitutional things. Or how about Wilson slinging political opponents in jail on flimsy excuses: are you saying he was less than a monarch, and rather a badly-behaved monarch at that?
What I mean by your President having more rights than, say, George III is the lack of some of our checks and balances in your system. For instance George III controlled the Royal Navy but not the British Army – that was Parliament’s. Your chap controls all the armed forces. A bit more division of powers there might have saved the American Empire from your forever wars over the past few decades. Nor did George have huge, lawless spy organisations bullying the population to compare with the FBI or CIA. On which point, maybe rather than a King I should compare your President to a Tsar, with Trump rather like one of the more enlightened ones and the recent Dems rather less enlightened ones? Though the recent geriatric ruling class invites comparison with the latter days of the USSR.
Comment by dearieme — March 27, 2025 @ 9:41 am
@13 Executive orders are not “rule by decree.” They affect only government agencies. They do not make law.
Moreover, your entire argument is a straw man that falsely and implicitly equates periodic abuse to legal bounds.
FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court, for which he should have been impeached. The fault there lay with a partisan Congress. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Desperate times, desperate measures.
You didn’t equate the American president to “say, George III” but to James I&VI. Shifting one’s ground is inadmissible. The comparison was revealed poor merely by inspection.
Your comment about the king not controlling the British Army as some advantage is ludicrous in light of the foreign military adventures of the British East India Company.
Comparing the times of George III to modern excrescences is the height of argument by non-sequitur.
The so-called American empire was created saving the UK and Western Europe from first the Germans and later the Soviet Union, all at American expense. Your dismissal covers your debt.
Do you truly believe MI5 and MI6 are better actors than the FBI and CIA? Especially today, when your government and police are actively betraying the British in favor of Muslim and African illegals?
At least, in the U.S., the “geriatric” rulers who were voted in are putting an end to those excesses.
Both the US and the UK have been betrayed by an enemy within, namely useful-idiot progressives and globalist elites acting in concert. In the U.S, they have been embraced by the Democratic Party since Barack Obama engineered its capture by neo-Com progressives.
The US may now succeed in defeating them. I’d suggest you pay most urgent attention to doing the same in the UK. Otherwise the future of the British is poverty, Islam, and slavery.
Comment by Pat Frank — March 28, 2025 @ 1:11 pm
“At least, in the U.S., the “geriatric” rulers who were voted in are putting an end to those excesses”
What Biden, Feinstein, McConnell, Pelosi? Only Trump of the old buggers has any merits at all. Whether they outweigh his defects we shall have to wait and see.
“the British East India Company”: now you are simply being silly. The troops of the EIC were not part of the British Army. The clue is in the word “Company”.
“Do you truly believe MI5 and MI6 are better actors than the FBI and CIA?” I can’t know: their business is secret. But nobody – absolutely nobody – thinks they assassinated our sole assassinated Prime Minister, nor that they have tried to assassinate any of our monarchs, nor any of our leading politicians competing for office. They have no Trump’s ear in their record.
Did the CIA take part in the murder of JFK? Maybe. Lots of your countrymen suspect so. RFK? Ditto. Did the FBI murder MLK? Ditto.
Did the FBI stage the coup that overthrew Nixon? The last argument that I saw against that said, effectively “Of course not – it was the CIA.”
As for the lawless power of the Executive, how about the BAFT massacring those poor wretches at Waco? Hells bells, they didn’t even bother to disguise the fact.
Comment by dearieme — March 29, 2025 @ 12:45 pm
@15 – we’ve already had Trump’s first term. His talents are evident, prevailing against the most vicious attacks against a sitting president in the history of the Republic.
The EIC could not have operated without the willing acceptance of the Crown. And Victoria did not repudiate the gains or her glory.
Assassination – perhaps the difference is that U.K. PMs do not attempt to disband MI6.
I do agree that the FBI and the CIA were thoroughly corrupted. We’ll see how well John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel clean them up under Trump. One can hope that all comes out and that the perps (Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Clinton, among others) are jailed. The Epstein client list is unlikely to want British names.
Meanwhile, the UK is graced by a government, police force, and social services that stood by for 20+ years permitting rape gangs to operate everywhere and virtually untouched. And with the knowing silence of the national government. Today, Brits are being jailed for speech crimes while Keir Starmer intends that there’s now one law for British males and another for everyone else.
As for Waco, the U.K. can see and raise with Irish atrocities and the lovely history of Maze Prison. Who’s the lawless executive there?
Comment by Pat Frank — March 29, 2025 @ 9:50 pm
SP: Glad you put “independent” agencies in quotes – but don’t see how president’s control of them is legally risky. Agencies’ admin is 2-prone: appointees of the current president and career civil servants. Thru the former the president extends full control. If we had 4 branches of government – the fourth one being career bureaucracy – then direct presidential control of the latter might be questioned. But we don’t, so the I don’t see how the notion of independent agencies is even legal.
Pat F.: Neo-Coms should be a meme! Longer versions, instead of progressives, I’d use the LF (liberal fascists, per J. Goldberg term)
Comment by Tatyana — March 30, 2025 @ 11:37 am
Longer name for them should be: Neo-Com LFs
Comment by Tatyana — March 30, 2025 @ 11:39 am
“with Irish atrocities”: perhaps. What do you have in mind? The Scullabogue incident?
Comment by dearieme — March 30, 2025 @ 12:35 pm
Here’s a view of what’s been going on in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmd0E8NH_lA
I did my graduate work at Stanford University. It’s become a criminal organization, if not guilty of outright treason against the Constitution.
Comment by Pat Frank — March 31, 2025 @ 2:31 pm
Hey Craig, fancy blogging about Japan, South Korea and China (you know, your bestest, most loyal allies, and the US’s sworn enemy) plans to coordinate their tariff response to Liberation Day*. You know you want to!
All we need for a full house is for Saudi and Iran to announce a rapprochement, confirming the US’s complete fall from grace. And all in a 100 days, give or take.
* Keeping with the Asian theme, I’d suggest Year Zero would be more pertain.
@ Pat, you still working at SLAC? It would be kind of ironic if you got kicked out due to Govt-mandated cuts, no? (guessing your head is well and truly above the parapet there)
Comment by David Mercer — April 1, 2025 @ 2:47 pm
Wow just checked Wiki – almost 50 years to the day when Pol Pot did his thang. Must be a sign…
Comment by David Mercer — April 1, 2025 @ 4:23 pm
@21 the national labs are likely to do well under Trump’s administration. I’ve sailed through three prior layoffs at SLAC, thanks for your concern.
I’d ordinarily snark back at you, but the UK is in such dire straits that there’s no remaining space even for cynical humor.
You’re British, David. Why hasn’t the impending loss of the land of William Shakespeare and John Locke to Muhammad and Sharia focused your attention?
Does it not bother you that British males are now officially designated a government-oppressed population in their own country?
Need the hot coffee be thrown in your face before you smell it? Because it’s coming.
Comment by Pat Frank — April 2, 2025 @ 2:50 pm
Now then, Prof, what about the tariff pearl-clutching? I’m generally agin’ tariffs myself but am struck that people who never seem to mention other countries’ tariffs, nor their non-tariff trade barriers, are all shrieking about this.
I imagine the point is to blame Trump when the inevitable stock market collapse and recession come along – they’ve surely been overdue for a year or two now and would presumably happen even if Trump’s economic policies consisted solely of being photographed cuddling lambs in springtime.
I think Trump is a chancer but I also think many of his opponents are chancers too, just not as good at it – and typically thumping crooks into the bargain. Trump may be your last opportunity to revert to being a republic rather than a failing empire. If, however, there were much chance of that happening the Dems would presumably shoot him. Again.
Comment by dearieme — April 3, 2025 @ 5:16 am
Hang on! What if Trump too thinks that stock market collapse and recession are overdue and seeks to bring them about now, while there’s still time to recover before the next presidential election? But wouldn’t that cost the Republicans in the congressional elections that come sooner? Oh this 4D chess is too difficult for me.
Comment by dearieme — April 3, 2025 @ 5:23 am
@Pat: LOL that reads like it was written by someone who has never travelled to the UK, or if they did they wilfully ignored the very evidence before their eyes.
Comment by David Mercer — April 3, 2025 @ 10:48 am
@26 reads like ideological blindness. But then, you always read that way.
London was 37% British in 2022, down from 60% in 2001.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/blogs/the-census-and-modern-britain/
At the exponential rate the British population of London is falling, London may be 19% British by 2050, and 5% in 2100. Meanwhile, British children are presently about 2/3 of the national school-age population.
By 2100, British may be a minority in what was their own country. One can surmise the traditional British culture of individual freedom and intellectual excellence will likely not survive the transition, either.
But then one can surmise that you, self-admittedly serene in the face of rape-gangs, will hail your new diverse brotherhood. Whether they will hail you is the mortal question. Maybe you can convert and disguise yourself in an Abaya.
Comment by Pat Frank — April 3, 2025 @ 11:20 am
Pat, you didn’t answer his question.
Comment by [email protected] — April 3, 2025 @ 11:36 am
is that really what the source says: “London was 37% British in 2022, down from 60% in 2001.”
maybe read it again, and pay attention this time?
Comment by [email protected] — April 3, 2025 @ 11:38 am
“Hey Craig, fancy blogging about Japan, South Korea and China (you know, your bestest, most loyal allies, and the US’s sworn enemy) plans to coordinate their tariff response to Liberation Day*. You know you want to!”
Tariffs, a stock market in turmoil, GDP growth going negative, global trade collapsing, pfff who cares? I’m looking forward Craig insights when he finds another kid’s movie to criticize.
It’s reverse TDS. I asked here a few weeks or so ago, what sort of mental gymnastics Craig would go through to start defending cuddling up to Russia and Putin. I was semi-joking, assuming that he was steadfast in his convictions and that his knowledge and erudition would allow him to criticize Trump. But he couldn’t bring himself to do it and instead we got an anti-Zelensky diatribe.
I came here initially out of interest in the Prof’s technical work in commodities trading and respect it, and have stayed to get a counterbalance to the TDS which dominates so much of the US media. But reverse TDS is just as bad and the Prof clearly has a serious dose.
I’m now actually expecting some sort of defense of Trump’s tariffs or at least a diversion – “look at these people criticizing Trump, they’re awful!”. I watch Trump give his “Liberation Day” speech and I’ve never seen a more stupid presentation given by an adult in my life. I kinda think Trump would be a fun guy to hang with which is definitely not the case for most politicians, but I also recognize that he’s a grade-A moron. Craig refuses to recognize this apparently and will go to bat to defend everything he does.
Comment by derriz — April 3, 2025 @ 12:24 pm
@27 Ideological blindness? In my day job I’ve seen way more of the UK’s various ‘underclasses’ than your average Brit, more than enough to have a pretty firm grasp on the lie of our land. I doubt you could say likewise. Anyhow, reading that article who knows whether Islam will ultimately become our religion of choice – from the looks of it Hindu or Sikhism or Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy could have an equal chance.
Also, once again you demonstrate the depth of your ignorance. An abaya doesn’t cover the face.
@ Libte: I doubt he’s been here, and if he has it was only for the shortest of visits. His viewpoints are basically unfiltered Stephen Yaxley-Twistleton-Bankrupt-Felon-Lennon.
Comment by David Mercer — April 3, 2025 @ 3:59 pm
@31 ‘lay of the land, please.
It’s not difficult to get knowledgeable commentary on events in England. England is crashing down around your ears, courtesy of a traitorous political elite and a cowardly constabulary far more willing to arrest British for speech crimes than Asians for rape, and you are frivolously dismissive of that status quo. You’re clearly a reality denialist, David.
An abaya is a male garment. You can hide your face with the requisite bushy beard. If you transform yourself early enough, you may avoid the violent suspicion levied against those forced to convert.
libte is apparently a shut-in and certainly an armchair progressive. From experience, I’ve learned his ideas are not worth the conversation. Nevertheless, “London is currently 37 per cent white British, down from 45 per cent in 2011 and 60 per cent in 2001.”
Those points are well-fit with a simple exponential: British Fraction = 5.0024e+19 x e^(-0.022933xyear); R^2 = 0.983, which implies 19% British Londoners by 2050 and 6% in 2100.
Comment by Pat Frank — April 3, 2025 @ 4:45 pm
The lay of the land is that girl you knew at High School. The lie of the land is correct.
Comment by dearieme — April 3, 2025 @ 5:47 pm
“the lie of the land. idiom UK (US the lay of the land)”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie-of-the-land
You may have your things your way.
Comment by Pat Frank — April 3, 2025 @ 6:16 pm
@27 London was 37% British in 2022, down from 60% in 2001.
@32 London is currently 37 per cent white British, down from 45 per cent in 2011 and 60 per cent in 2001.
these two statements are not the same, doofus.
Also it is established you have never even set foot in the UK, darling.
Comment by [email protected] — April 3, 2025 @ 6:47 pm
@32 You do yourself no favours by doubling down on your ignorance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaya
Also, given the recent Chinese diaspora to the UK from HK, I reckon there’s a reasonable probability future generations could be speaking Mandarin and be adherents to Confucianism. Meanwhile, in the US your ilk could be sporting sombreros, joining MS13, and paying their dues to some corrupt cartel kingpin (so not much change there then). Anyhow, who really cares? We’ll all be dead by then.
@Derriz: I think Craig is having a hard time at the moment – his entire profession must be in turmoil, the very foundations of their dull science having just been ripped asunder. I can imagine him, Gollum-like, tucked away in his uni office, muttering: “Nooo master, it’s too big!! I cannot possibly polish a Trumpian t*rd of this magnitude!!!”
Comment by David Mercer — April 4, 2025 @ 10:44 am
@36 You, in turn, do yourself no favor by foolishly relying on Wikipedia.
_______________Abayas for Men
Here: https://nouralhouda.com.au/collections/men-abaya
Also: https://mouftahelchark.com/collections/mens-abayas
Also: https://orient499.com/collections/mens-abayas
The rest of your commentary – a low quality imitation of your typically vacuous snark – indicates a poverty of mind.
Unlike you and your nihilistic darkness, I live the Enlightenment vision of humanity with ever more complete science, ever greater wisdom, ever wider scope, and a future among the stars.
Comment by Pat Frank — April 4, 2025 @ 4:15 pm
Riiight. Well you’ll definitely be dead by then. Have to say though, that gave me a good laugh. Another one for the archive.
Here’s another British idiom for you to get your head around: “a sandwich short of a picnic”.
PS Still radio silence from Craig. What gives?
Comment by David Mercer — April 5, 2025 @ 1:18 am
Oh, and I’ll see your random websites and raise you a Cambridge Dictionary definition (as previously referenced by you): https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/abaya
Comment by David Mercer — April 5, 2025 @ 1:22 am
@38 Another idiom specifically apropos to your empty japery: the laughter of idiots.
@39 Evidence tests the theory, David. Observables show the Cambridge Dictionary is wrong.
Here’s another: https://hikmahboutique.com.au/collections/all-thobes?page=3
And another: https://dsbooks.com.au/collections/mens-abayas
When you tire of village laughter, perhaps you can tender Cambridge the correction.
Comment by Pat Frank — April 5, 2025 @ 8:20 am
Word of advice – never go to Vegas: you’ll impoverish yourself even more if you gamble as you argue. Always know when to fold when you’re playing a sh*tty hand.
Comment by David Mercer — April 6, 2025 @ 2:53 am
@41 Profound advice indeed, from one having lost and in denial.
Comment by Pat Frank — April 6, 2025 @ 9:43 am
How come you never visited the UK, Pat?
Comment by [email protected] — April 7, 2025 @ 1:23 pm