I'm just kidding: they are just as ugly and evil as before. But it is amusing to see how some still do not understand what has happened. Case in point: Maine's Democratic Governor Janet Mills got into a war of words with President Trump over Maine's refusal to block biological males from competing in women's sports after Trump threatened to cut off federal funds to the state. Maine's response, according to the Daily Mail, was one of defiance.
In a Friday statement, Mills said her state 'will not be intimidated by the president's threats.'
'If the president attempts to unilaterally deprive Maine school children of the benefit of federal funding, my administration and the attorney general will take all appropriate and necessary legal action to restore that funding and the academic opportunity it provides,' she said, Maine Morning Star reported.
The state's AG said any funding linkage would be 'illegal and in direct violation of federal court orders.'
'Fortunately, the rule of law still applies in this country, and I will do everything in my power to defend Maine's laws and block efforts by the president to bully and threaten us,' AG Aaron Frey said, calling it 'disturbing that President Trump would use children as pawns in advancing his political agenda.'
It's true that the President Trump might not be able to cut off all funding to the state, but that doesn't mean that the federal government can't pull some of the funding.
As I've noted before, what the federal government can't accomplish directly, it often can accomplish indirectly through provision of federal funds which, always, come with strings attached. It is a carrot and stick approach to financing. As eloquently explained in this essay on "Fiscal Federalism":
... The national government’s primary means of influencing state governments is giving money to states in the form of grants-in-aid. Grants-in-aid have a long history in the United States, dating back to the Confederation period. The nation’s leaders originally designed them to help fund agriculture, land grant colleges, and farm-related education. They grew to encompass many other types of funding such as public housing, urban development, and school lunch programs.
States often need funding from the federal government to implement projects and programs for citizens, but with federal funding comes the requirement of federal regulation. To use a common metaphor, the national government uses the need for fiscal assistance as both a carrot and a stick. The carrot is the federal dollars needed by the state, which come in the form of grants-in-aid. As citizens’ needs expand, the states look to the national government to assist in meeting the financial aspects of fulfilling those needs. The stick comes in the form of regulation and compliance with federal mandates to receive the money or to continue to obtain grants-in-aid. Regulations such as minimum wage, speed limits, and handicap accessibility are examples of “sticks,” or mandates, that states must comply with to receive the national funds.
States can choose to reject the regulations, but then they reject the funds as well. ...
In the past, Maine probably could have relied on a liberal federal bureaucracy to shield Maine from the use of the "stick" by making sure funds continued to flow. But with the bureaucracy in fear of losing their jobs, this may not be an option.
What Maine is proposing to do is resort to the courts to force the federal government to continue providing funds. But even here, the traditional paradigm might be breaking down because of the Democrats and Leftists continual use of lawfare and the stick of fiscal federalism.
Richard Fernandez writes in his piece entitled "The Arrival of Kash Patel":
It's important to follow the rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" before it becomes "do unto others as they did unto you." What prevents justice from degenerating into vengeance is the law. The law theoretically protects all parties in society. To the extent one side burns it down is the extent that they should fear the uninhibited return stroke.
But, as he explains, what has cut down the laws that would have protected Democrats has been lawfare.
... The worst aspect of lawfare is that it undermined the neutrality of the law itself by turning it into a political tool. The activists who promoted lawfare undermined their own protections—and everyone else's. Lawfare occurs when supposedly impartial institutions are deliberately ideologized, infiltrated, and weaponized. Examples abound in "international law" and the open installation of partisan district attorneys. Once trusted, now they are not. The resulting collapse of impartiality leaves only revenge as a tool.
Everyone is potentially at the mercy of his enemies once his grip on power is lost. ...
Democrats rightly should fear a "return stroke," as Fernandez terms it, because it is long overdue. The Democrats and Leftist used federal regulations, the federal bureaucracy, and the courts, to push their agendas and programs over the objections of not just political opponents but the will of the people. But now the shoe is on the other foot, as the saying goes.
In the case of the bureaucracy, the Democrats engineered their own loss of control by using the courts to gut the restrictions on removing certain appointees. Back in 2021, newly minted President Biden decided to fire all of Trump's appointees, including those to nonpartisan boards. One of those fired was Sean Spicer, who had been appointed as a member of the Naval Academy Visitor’s Board.
... In September 2021, with only three months left in his Congressionally-defined term, Biden sent Spicer an email notifying him that he’d been fired. He thought, well, that’s that.
It turned out that Joe Biden made history by firing all Trump’s appointees to nonpartisan service academy boards before their statutory three-year terms ended. It was unprecedented. It had never happened before.
Then Spicer got a call from America First Legal. They asked him to join a lawsuit intended to force Biden to argue he has the absolute authority to fire anyone in the Executive Branch, including appointees to boards with statutory terms.
The District Court dismissed the case, interpreting the statute in a way that allowed Biden to fire Spicer despite this three-year term. They appealed. In the meantime, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled, in a parallel case (Severino v. Biden), that a presidential appointee in a similar position was removable at will by the President.
And it was done.
* * *
While corporate media was busy calling Biden’s historic 2021 firings a routine housecleaning, President Trump’s legal teams were already laying a legal landscape for his second term. Spicer’s case wasn’t about getting his job back—it was about setting a legal precedent to let Trump clean house on day one of his second term.
Biden fired Spicer, AFL sued, and the far-left DC courts predictably ruled Biden could fire termed federal employees at will. Now Trump can fire them at will, too.
And as for Maine? The same regulations that have allowed agencies to force local and state governments to allow transgender males participate in sports formally reserved for girls and women will be used now to force other local and state governments such as Maine to ban transgender males from female sports. It is better than they deserve.
Keep in mind, however, that notwithstanding the caterwauling of the Left, Trump is not seeking revenge (well, maybe just a little bit) but a return to the center, to moderation. Trump historically was a moderate Democrat. He is truly an example of someone who did not leave the Democrat party, but was left by the Democrat party as it lurched ever leftward. In fact, it would not surprise me if at least half of Trump's base are made up of the type of people that even just 20 years ago would have been Democrat. Trump is the best the Democrats could hope for when the pendulum began to swing the other way. It could have been much worse for the Leftist and their allies.