Another day, another Supreme injustice, and the big-boy commentariat is still blind

Acting as the nation's highest officeholding disease, the lifelong-grifting, jury-adjudged sexually abusing, multiple-felony-convicted, twice-impeached extortionist-seditionist has habitually violated the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' due process; tossed aside a 147-year-old act of Congress barring the military from acting as a domestic police force ...

pardoned or sentence-commuted 1,500 fanatical and in-part violent loyalists who attempted to overthrow a U.S. government; labeled peaceful protesters of his government "insurrectionists"; called the First Amendment's free press an "enemy of the people"; sought the delegitimization of the federal judiciary that rules against him in accord with constitutional law; converted the White House into an indefatigable falsehoods factory ...

purged the executive branch of knowledgeable public servants and replaced them with clueless suck-ups, lawless cronies and outright lunatics; devoted his second "term" to the persecution of political opponents; packed the Supreme Court with sympathetic authoritarians who also toss aside long-standing acts of Congress and the Constitution's explicit wording ...

all of which the New York Times, in a morning "analysis," grossly mischaracterizes as manifestations of an "imperial presidency" — a phrase whose 1973 neologist, the eminent scholar Arthur Schlesinger Jr., would today pitch into Leon Trotsky's dustbin of history. The description became an antique overnight last November, often confused with January of late. The Times' own logic defies its gentle packaging.

Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows.... But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century.... The present era is very different.... [The incumbent] has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall.

Not even the similarly enabled despot of superior speaking ability initially had a Reichstag in his control as does America's martinet who goes on to read his coconspiring Supreme Court's rare disagreements of highest legal authority as mere suggestions. To be dismissed. Otherwise the Court's latest compliant decision, "barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal" — the Times' may reasoning is a prodigious mystery — "comes as other constraints" on his power "have also eroded."

I submit this scarcely radical resolution: Having considered that all constitutionally identified constraints on the Oval Office thug have eroded to the stage of consummate nonexistence, his properly identified position is that of a full-fledged dictatorship — an official obscenity way beyond the NY Times' euphemistic "imperial presidency," a position held for roughly a century by genuine U.S. presidents.

Indeed we're plagued by and stuck with not even a reasonably intelligent, somewhat-schooled dictator. The high court's decision of yesterday? He triumphantly claimed the decision would (read: will) allow him to lynch the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship, born of an original sin yet recognized in its maturity as universally parented.

His Insufferable Unlearnedness, however, delivered this would-be-funny-if-only... lecture to his subjects: "If you look at the end of the Civil War, the 1800s, it was a very turbulent time. If you take the end day, was it 1869? Or whatever. But you take that exact day, that’s when the case was filed. And the case ended shortly thereafter. This had to do with the babies of slaves, very obviously."

What's obvious beyond question is that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment's wording, "All persons born ... in the United States ... are citizens of the United States," emerged from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, passed emphatically over President Andrew Johnson's veto: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power ... are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

Except for the misfortunate, jurisdictionally selected victims of the Court's cruel, unfathomable 6-3 Friday decision to limit federal magistrates' power to issue nationwide injunctions against tyrannous orders — even though such orders affect nationwide unconstitutionalities of unmistakable clarity — the ruling was an insignificance relative to the much bigger, far grimmer picture of the altogether ghastly authoritarian state before us.

Gang of Six Amy Barrett wrote — what, whimsically?: "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must." Never have a chronology error and self-contradiction so hideously surfaced in a Supreme Court justice's opinion. Her federal court just ruled that it possesses no such power in this manslaughtered constitutional republic, and its dictator mustn't at all follow the law. He doesn't. And he won't. Because that's what dictators do.