Why does Trump deserve Hitlerian comparisons? This, for one.

Throw out every pejorative you've ever read pertaining to Donald J. Trump. Throw them all out. Each is second-rate in the insult department. Because Herr Marx, writing about Napoleon III, conceived unequivocal perfection in the abuse of the impeccably abuse-worthy when describing the first president and last monarch of France: "a grotesque mediocrity."

Unforgivably I had forgotten that little gem tucked away in Karl's vast collection of masterful putdowns of the ego-bloated ruling class. It was years ago when I first tripped through his 1852 work, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, in whose preface lies that particular perfection. (Not my usual light reading; it was during grad school.) Had Trump been anything to speak of in those days I would have made a note of it; he was, instead, then limited to his role as a two-bit swindler and third-rate real estate phony.

He excelled above others, however, in the category of first-rate jackassery, which, Q,E.D., roughly half the American electorate found charming. Thus did Trump fashion a new career in swindling not only his comrades but your everyday rube with a voter registration card. There is nothing, I gather, that America's politically blinkered find more pleasing than a fellow mediocrity.

It was that quality of mind he demonstrated with uncommon courage in his commencement address at the University of Alabama. This was two nights ago, the same night that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was in Puerto Rico warning her colleagues about the "elephant in the room." Meanwhile, in Tuscaloosa, while trumpeting his disdain for "illegal aliens," that very beast was putting on a bipedal stampede: "The courts are trying to stop me from doing the job that I was elected to do.... Judges are interfering, supposedly based on due process. But how can you give due process to people who came into our country illegally?"

The jaw drops. How? My dear, thinking-deprived, exceptionally ill-schooled Mr. Trump: The courts are not "interfering" with your dazzling splendidness because of some supposed right of due process. Their rulings are nestled in the U.S. Constitution, you imbecile, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; respectively, 1791 and again in 1868, nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Something else middle schoolers learn is that, regarding the job to which you were "elected to do," the Constitution imparts no power to shred it.

Even Mr. Lincoln (this sentence belongs in the above paragraph, but I couldn't bring myself to citing presidential excellence in such syntactical proximity to a grotesque mediocrity) was reprimanded by the Supreme Court for having unilaterally suspended habeas corpus in the time of a bloody civil war. Doing so is permissible during times of rebellion or invasion, but only with congressional approval, said the court. Barring a final Amendment declaring the death of the U.S. Constitution, no other self-contained entry permits Article II to murder the other six.

I shall concede, graciously, I think, this much to Trump. The aggressive vacuity he displayed at the Crimson Tide still didn't match that of the regime's very own Frank Nitti, Stephen Miller.

Wednesday before last he decloaked on Sean Hannity's show and traveling circus to enlighten the above-mentioned rubes on just what this country's "communist left-wing judges" are doing. Which is this: They're allowing a "clear and present danger to the national security of this country" — that being the undocumented, whom he called "terrorists" — to roam willy-nilly in this land of the free. Continued Miller, either every American sides with Trump on unconstitutional deportations, or we let this "radical-left judiciary shut down the machinery of our national security apparatus." Just a trifle extreme, don't you think?

Earlier I noted that Supreme Court Justice Jackson delivered a warning about Trump & Co. this week. "It seems as though every time I read the news or turn on the television these days, I see the affronts," the "relentless attacks and disregard and disparagement that judges around the country .. are facing on a daily basis," she said. "The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity." Above all, "the threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law."

Nothing among Justice Jackson's remarks was overstated, hysterical, or in any way unfounded. Indeed her address to legal colleagues was what someday might be recalled as historic words — foolishly ignored. Far too many did just that 92 years ago, which leads to my abject astonishment at those who allege comparing Trump to Hitler is unwarranted, overstated hystery.

The latter "took early measures to prevent victims [of Nazi abuse from seeking] restoration of their legal rights. Hitler recognized that lawyers and judges could pose impediments to his grandiose plans" (my emphasis). Thus did he proceed "to override the rights guaranteed in the constitution." This embryonic history of Nazi Germany reads like a fucking playbook for the grotesque mediocrity that is Trump — and he's taking notes, page by page, paragraph by paragraph.

I don't mind others ignoring history at their own risk. But I resent like hell their risking my own life, liberty and property, such as it is. Former U.S. attorney Harry Litman wrote recently that an "NPR poll found that 85% of Americans believe that Trump needs to obey a ruling of the Supreme Court.... It may be that such a formidable level of public opposition will stay Trump’s hand."

It may be. But it won't be.