Fair enough, illegitimate court, illegitimate decisions.
"We are living in a moment in which the system of legal, interpretive legitimacy has fatally broken down... Now it’s no longer operating at all. That throne is empty of anything that commands our allegiance or claims to legitimacy."
"We’re in a constitutional interregnum &...trying to restore constitutional government...courts are a tool. Federalism is a big, big tool the significance & importance of which is getting too little discussion...it’s really about public opinion. & that means it’s about politics."
I agree with your point in a lot of ways. We’re not waiting to see what the courts decide, we’re waiting to see when a critical mass of public opinion decides the courts have ceded there creditability.
Josh, I like this idea; it gives us permission to resist these travesties now, and then to correct them later. Some things I would correct:
- money is speech (the wealthy have a lot more free speech than I do!)
- President is above the law
- Federal right to make healthcare choices about one’s body
I've had very frustrating conversations with DC insiders about things like legal sanction on right wing terror (I'm in favor) where they just want to trot out some literalist view of supreme court decisions as if that was the Constitution, written in stone.
Thanks! Important but troubling point you make, now that I can read the whole thing. If we believe courts are acting outside the confines of the Constitution, then obeying their decisions is unnecessary? How do we make public opinion pre-eminent and prevailing, if elections are swayed or corrupted?
This Civic Sede Vacantism thing makes no sense to me since there are no laws or standards or anything the pope is answerable to or for.
Unlike the President whose position is entirely created and defined by law.
Putting some Latin in front of saying we don't like you is pretty weak.
This was very suggestive. A similar concept closer to home might be the constitutional theories behind congressional Reconstruction. They had to find a groundwork for reforming what was clearly a failed federal system.
Thank you. The duopoly is long overdue for a busting up, and what you said rings true.
It kinda reminds me of a top that is slowing down and wobbling outside its axis more and more. Our presidents have been more emboldened over time to color outside the lines. We are witnessing the final spin.
The United States can only be saved by the public at this point. Dems, particularly at the State level, need to be honing their narrative approach now and aggressively shoring up popular support for the US as a republic ahead of what SCOTUS is likely to do.
Is this potentially a way to ensure the actions from this admin aren't ever recognized as a legitimate precedent?
I've been grappling with something similar that I first saw raised by
@andycraig.bsky.social has raised w/r/t the 14th amendment. But please tell me if I'm wrong!
If there's even an attempt to rebuild post-Trump based on some semblance of legitimacy under the pre-Trump constitutional order, it will require some sort of doctrine analogous to that in Texas v. White to distinguish ordinary and legitimate govt actions from those illegitimized by Trump.
1\ This piece reminded me of 2010. I remember thinking in 2009-2010 that due to the great financial crises, enough pain had been experienced by the electorate that we'd see Obama get 1932-style majorities in the 2010 House and Senate elections.
2\ But the voters instead swung hard toward Republicans and I thought, oh, that wasn't enough pain! Without pain almost ubiquitously felt, we'll get no public opinion swing necessary to correct all of this. Fortunately and very unfortunately, I think that pain is on its way this time.
Excellent article! It comes down to this. Will 66.7% of voters become impacted practically and/or ideologically (I don't want a king!) enough that they vote (and march) for Dems in '26 in sufficient numbers to impeach/convict the king and his court? If not, c'est fini.
The logical upshot of this to me is that the D's should be tilling the earth, explaining how the current Supreme Court is no acting according to the Constitution, so the next D president can expand the size of the court and restore constitutional order.
Comments
"We are living in a moment in which the system of legal, interpretive legitimacy has fatally broken down... Now it’s no longer operating at all. That throne is empty of anything that commands our allegiance or claims to legitimacy."
This is precisely the wrong message, the wrong understanding of the situation we’re in."
Yes, don't participate in bs charades should be rule #1.
"We’re in a constitutional interregnum &...trying to restore constitutional government...courts are a tool. Federalism is a big, big tool the significance & importance of which is getting too little discussion...it’s really about public opinion. & that means it’s about politics."
But seriously: fuck off with your bullshit.
- money is speech (the wealthy have a lot more free speech than I do!)
- President is above the law
- Federal right to make healthcare choices about one’s body
Unlike the President whose position is entirely created and defined by law.
Putting some Latin in front of saying we don't like you is pretty weak.
It kinda reminds me of a top that is slowing down and wobbling outside its axis more and more. Our presidents have been more emboldened over time to color outside the lines. We are witnessing the final spin.
The United States can only be saved by the public at this point. Dems, particularly at the State level, need to be honing their narrative approach now and aggressively shoring up popular support for the US as a republic ahead of what SCOTUS is likely to do.
I've been grappling with something similar that I first saw raised by
@andycraig.bsky.social has raised w/r/t the 14th amendment. But please tell me if I'm wrong!
cont'd..