The second example is much more vague. If the Supreme Court betrays the Constitution in service to a fascist, it's still a subjective call to say it's tyranny since they were all legally elected or appointed. Either way, we are headed toward both. - ThreadSky

brandonfriedman.bsky.social • 2 days ago

The second example is much more vague. If the Supreme Court betrays the Constitution in service to a fascist, it's still a subjective call to say it's tyranny since they were all legally elected or appointed.

Either way, we are headed toward both.

Comments

fagankara.bsky.social•2 days ago

Doesn’t it nullify the constitution if the government ignores it? Are states still bound to the indestructible union if the branches of government all betray the constitution?

senategabe.bsky.social•2 days ago

Also Trump was not democratically elected. He's literally disqualified under the constitution we passed that is notoriously the most difficult to change in the world.

senategabe.bsky.social•2 days ago

Like he's not a legitimate President period. And he can get removed by our Congress for high crimes and misdemeanors, something that every single second they ignore is a complete debasement to their oaths.

senategabe.bsky.social•2 days ago

It actually really really bugs me that people say he is democratically elected.

So what? Everytime someone gets under a majority of a vote about something we can just ignore the constitution? How does that make literally any sense?

brandonfriedman.bsky.social•2 days ago

The reason this line is so crucial to determine is because once a presidential administration is definitively deemed by the courts to be operating in an extra-constitutional manner — and not a second before — then sworn government officials have an obligation under the Constitution to end it.

ellober2.bsky.social•2 days ago

This seems like overthinking it. Trump has repeatedly and expressly made apparent his complete indifference to the constitution and other laws, starting within days of swearing to uphold both. He's operating extraconstitutionally now even if the courts stop him.

mejomelissa.bsky.social•2 days ago

Good questions. No final court orders yet, & the Trump/Musk/Maga regime will push as hard as they can on TROs & PIs while appealing everything. Courts move deliberately. (That’s why conservative AUSAs Sassoon & Scotten resigning loudly matters; SCOTUS & federalist society judges will hear them!)

mejomelissa.bsky.social•2 days ago

Also, I appreciate analyses from Anne Applebaum, who has lived and chronicled Poland’s descent into competitive authoritarianism (or “illiberal democracy”). Poland has fought its way back towards democracy; we can too.

How Regime Change Happens In America https://one.npr.org/i/1232435542:1266693326

claireadida.bsky.social•2 days ago

📌

ginsol.bsky.social•2 days ago

I feel like we’re wading through a lake of molasses to finally get there …it’s taking far too long.

peter415.bsky.social•2 days ago

There may not be any left by then.

brandonfriedman.bsky.social•2 days ago

Just a few of the carefree, light-hearted things on my mind as I drink a cup of tea.

senategabe.bsky.social•2 days ago

Dude, Alito literally waved an insurrection flag. Thomas takes bribes from billionaire.

There is literally nothing legal about that.

senategabe.bsky.social•2 days ago

Like very obviously both of them should be in prison. It's not even a remotely close call. Judges constitutionally can be removed for not having good BEHAVIOR.

senategabe.bsky.social•2 days ago

Article III Section I. Clear as day.

ddmaxwelljr.bsky.social•2 days ago

Just a data point: everything the Nazis did in Germany was legal. I am really not sure that adherence to the law as written or to the rule of law generally is the best metric. The rule of law, despite what some legal philosophers might argue, is not inherently moral.

ddmaxwelljr.bsky.social•2 days ago

I just think that judging whether this government has crossed into tyranny by whether its acts are “constitutional” is deeply problematic. It might be helpful to define what we mean when we use the term “tyranny.”

ddmaxwelljr.bsky.social•2 days ago

In my view, tyranny is only tangentially related to adherence to a body of law, and in fact may get its power from the law itself.

ddmaxwelljr.bsky.social•2 days ago

Say, for example, the president invokes the insurrection act (which is very broadly written in the discretion given to the executive) and orders AD troops to put down protests. Technically within the law. So tyranny or nah? Just one example.

ddmaxwelljr.bsky.social•2 days ago

Real world example is taking immigrants to Gitmo. Arguably legal, so tyranny or no? I just don’t think what the law says about anything helps you draw a line between legit government and tyranny.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply