I was asking Jarhyn specifically because he is so vocally opposed to moderate Democrats.
But I'll still reply, of course:
At this point, the generalized rights of minorities.
I would amend that to individual rights, rather than "rights of minorities". The way this has been interpreted by the "modern American liberalism"™ for more than half of century is in terms of group rights, not individual rights. This has led to "us vs. them" type of thinking, which has balkanized our society, potentially causing irreparable harm.
If the focus had been on individuals, it would have been far better received. After all, everybody is part of a minority in some contexts. But by focusing on groups, you are pitting black vs. white, gay vs. straight, women vs. men, and people on the receiving end of these jabs feel increasingly marginalized and ripe for takeover by somebody like Trump.
We aren't certain about Due Process at the moment, because they are only impacting illegals,
I am all for due process, but again, once you identify illegal aliens as a group good Dems should support, it goes well beyond that, into "no human is illegal" and "no deportations" nonsense.
but when the POTUS and the SoS are talking about sending US "criminals" to a foreign prison... you can't not take that seriously.
Yes, that is bad, but we have to realize that Trump was backlash to decades of neglect of the issue, that led to millions of illegals flooding the US. I remember the Dem primary debates in 2019, where most candidates were one-upping each other who would be more permissive toward so-called "asylum seekers".
Beyond that, it is less about individual rights and more about how the clock is being turned back by SCOTUS with the likes of Roper-Bright and Dobbs and the whole President be immune to "all sortz of shitz".
On the contrary, we need to goo back to actual liberalism of individual rights. The focus on groups over the individual, which has dominated liberalism for decades, was a misstep. It degenerated into groups being pitted against each other.
Take abortion, since you mention Dobbs. You often hear "right to choose", but why should this right be limited to abortion? If the "right to choose" and "right to privacy" had been taken seriously as individual rights, as opposed to applying solely and exclusively to select groups the left likes (e.g. women seeking abortions or gays) then it should apply to other people. For example, consensual sex work - if "right to privacy" and "right to choose what to do with one's body" are affirmed as principles, I do not see how a ban on sex work can be defended from a liberal perspective. But that could not be allowed, because SWERFy feminists are a powerful group on the left, and they think all sex work is exploitative. So, the "right to choose", but only as long as some busybody approves of the choice, and not as an individual right.
As to Loper-Bright, an argument could be made that Chevron gave too much deference to regulatory agencies in interpreting laws. Overreaches in the past often lead to pendulum swinging too far the other way.
Can't be waging war, but these things matter!
I agree, even if we often disagree about where how things that matter should be decided.
