The funds have already been obligated — and Trump’s attempt to block the dollars gives blue states standing to file _another_ suit against the administration’s extralegal rampage.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
But I have to say: lawsuits are fine, but a lawsuit-based campaign to get the courts to say “no” only goes so far against people determined to smash through legal limits.
Stopping the lawlessness depends on moving past litigation-centered liberalism.
Against Republicans who loathe notions of consent — personal, legal, electoral, or otherwise — “no” is insufficient. Saying “no” has to precede a mobilization to _force_ the right to stop.
A courtroom blitz is fine — as a strategy to buy more time for that mobilization. But it can’t succeed alone.
The liberalism of law briefs and courtrooms, on other words, has to yield — even if that’s uncomfortable for J.D.s (like me!) accustomed to a clinical approach. What’s needed is a liberalism of raw power, however we can cobble that together.
I’d argue that we might need something beyond liberalism because liberalism is tied to private industry and unequal accumulation so it is no longer able to cobble together raw power we need to forestall fascism
I wouldn’t take issue with that. Just using the colloquial ‘liberalism’ in the U.S. political concept instead of more precise terms of art, because I’ve bourbon. 😇
Comments
Stopping the lawlessness depends on moving past litigation-centered liberalism.
A courtroom blitz is fine — as a strategy to buy more time for that mobilization. But it can’t succeed alone.