12 ms·

Without rule of law no other issue matters. You think you are a citizen today because you've always been a citizen, you have papers to prove it. It's never eve

Without rule of law no other issue matters. You think you are a citizen today because you've always been a citizen, you have papers to prove it. It's never even been questioned. What if those papers get destroyed? What if the officer interpreting your papers is employed by someone who doesn't like you because you're disobedient. Without rule of law your status as a citizen doesn't protect you. Without a functioning judiciary capable of providing consequences to those who violate rule of law, you have no one to appeal to. This administration complains about single judges restricting their actions. That should literally terrify you. The judges are not stopping the administration, they are ruling that the law is stopping the administration. When the administration says it is judges stopping it, it is claiming that there is no law, only the actions of loyal or disobedient men. We are in a constitutional crisis. We are effectively lawless. Right now, we cannot depend on the law to restrict powerful people's actions. We have no way to predict what is possible for someone with a gun who is loyal to the president to do without consequences and therefore no way to act as if the law protects us.

graycat 2y ago
> the law Would be nice!!! However, as is easy to see from recent, well known examples, the results of our legal system depend heavily on personal attitudes, predilections, and opinions of individual judges, lawyers, etc., and, net, "the law" is inconsistent, unpredictable, unreliable (some might say emotional and irrational), often too slow, too expensive, and a source not of justice or "the law" but of lawfare battles, war by special means. As in shooting wars, both sides lose. E.g., can see Dershowitz to Newsmax: Boasberg Should Be Held in Contempt at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-james-boasberg-illegal-alien/2025/04/16/id/1207195/ https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-james-boa... where Judge Boasberg and Emeritus Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz strongly disagree. For another example, one part of this Boasberg case had the SCOTUS rule 5-4 -- that is inconsistent and unpredictable. In math, physical science, and now often in biology and medical science, we have many examples of one things, clear, explicit, highly predictable -- the Pythagorean theorem, Einstein's Special Relativity, protein folding, Phase III trials, placebo controlled, randomized, double blind. But, in strong contrast, "the law" is unpredictable, in each case, no "one thing", closer to medieval ugly torture and nonsense than math, science, technology, etc. of 2025. The law profession should be ashamed. "Your Honor"? Not really. As I understand the situation, the SCOTUS is created by our Constitution, but the rest of our legal system, including Judge Boasberg, is the creation of and funded by Congress. So, Congress can cut off the funds and maybe just abolish Boasberg's court. My guess is that the media has raised attention, the voters want something better in our legal system, and soon Congress will make some changes. With also the POTUS, the legal system, "the law", currently widely less liked than a skunk at a garden party, can be turned inside out, fumigated, disinfected, bleached, scrubbed, washed, rinsed, hung out to dry, stitched, patched, ironed, folded, and used as, hmm, a seat cushion. Sorry 'bout that. As a startup founder, my view is, at any or all costs, to stay low, quiet, out of sight, and anonymous, have only an LLC and never a corporation, and be far from any entanglements with "the law".
- boroboro4 2y ago
  “The law” has ways of finding you when you least expect it. I have a friend who is in jail for last year for nothing-burger (in other country). I think perceiving laws at the US as unpredictable is just showing that you haven’t seen countries with truly dysfunctional judicial. Of course justice can be tricky. Of course courts can be flawed. It’s a spectrum, and we’re not at the worst spot in it so far (maybe apart from SC, SC is terrible). I’m not sure what’s a point of federal courts being creation of Congress (ie laws) and not creation of constitution. Most of the executive branch is creation of Congress too. The nicety of laws and courts you can (by yourself) go and read courts opinions and arguments and made your own judgements who’s at fault - executive branch ignoring laws and stressing the system with bad faith behavior, or courts deciding unjustly by reading laws wrongly. I did this for bunch of court opinions and don’t expect good faith from the administration anymore.
  - graycat 2y ago
    "administration"? I avoided that. I was commenting in general terms. "countries with truly dysfunctional judicial" I suspect that much of how people get along in such a country is just to pay enough to the right persons. As a joke, that would often be faster and cheaper than following the US system fully honestly. I'm reminded of the movie where, given a problem, someone could go to Vito and get a solution -- he had "all the judges and politicians in his pocket". The role of Congress: The SCOTUS is from the Constitution, and all the rest are from Congress. If Congress sees a problem with those courts, it can fix it right away -- impeach a judge, cut off their funds, abolish their court, etc. Just because our legal system is not the worst possible in the world does not mean that we should tolerate its faults.
system7rocks 2y ago
Right here. We are in a crisis.
reed1234 2y ago
It definitely seems to be heading that way but I think it's premature to label it a constitutional crisis. It's only one part of the picture. The Trump admin has abided by court orders before and continues to do so, though sometimes reluctantly. The judicial branch is still trying to resolve the conflict by ruling contempt of court. If this incident doesn't get resolved and the Supreme Court rules on it and Trump ignores that ruling, for example, maybe that would be a full blown constitutional crisis. I think scope matters too. That doesn't mean that the incident isn't concerning. But I think we should be careful to incite false panic which could cause distrust. Save that panic for the real constitutional crisis brewing.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  I like this reasoning. It is like suggesting that people ignore speed advisory signs because they’ll probably be able to slam on the brakes once they make contact with another car
- fjfaase 2y ago
  No, it is not small. I am really surprised that no one has been arrested yet who has been involved with this kipnapping of people. If Donald Trump is sanctioning this kipnapping, he is involved as well and should be arrested as well. That he has not been arrested yet, shows that he is above the law.
  - reed1234 2y ago
    That is the next step AFTER contempt of court.
    - garrettgarcia 2y ago
      Yes, first there will be two weeks of discovery and depositions, which the DOJ will try to appeal. Then there will be a contempt hearing for some bureaucrat, probably Neom or one of her subordinates. Then that will be appealed to the 4th circuit court of appeals. Then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court if the DOJ loses there.
anotherhue 2y ago
I weep for the loss dignity, of law, of belief that tomorrow brings. They are bound by your consent, you are not bound by their fear.
Galanwe 2y ago
The question is what do you do to prevent it? Complaining on social media is fine, but that won't solve the problem. As a European, I'm shocked at how complacent the public has been. I've lived in France and people do global strikes and widespread civil unrest for a change of retirement law. Yet in the US a dictatorship emerges and you have small demonstrations here and there and spicy comments on social media. That won't change things.
- rcpt 2y ago
  Change of retirement law directly impacts the population in a way they understand.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  Because a very large number of Americans are pro-dictatorship. This is not an a Manchurian-candidate scenario. This is a legitimately-elected leader doing exactly what he was elected to do.
  - kzrdude 2y ago
    A lot of them seem to be cheering him on as if they elected a king. The problem being of course that legally there is no person who can just issue edicts and have them become law, there is no legal way to elect a king.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      It doesn't have to be legal anymore, that's the whole point.
    - tim333 2y ago
      His approval rating is not doing very well.
      - kzrdude 2y ago
        For what they are doing, it should be much lower than what it is
_1tem 2y ago
Any law has only been as good as the people enforcing it, and this has always been the case in every country and every time period. You are delusional if you think that a piece of paper (i.e the “Law”) has any power whatsoever. When has “your status as citizen” ever protected you? Only when the people in power like you. Remember when the Obama administration ordered a extrajudicial killing of an American citizen by drone strike?
- n4r9 2y ago
  Are you talking about Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw... Obama approved a policy of targeted killing, which killed an American bystander when targeting an Egyptian citizen. That's very different to "ordered an extra judicial killing".
  - pjc50 2y ago
    That's still very much ordering a mob hit, not a judicial process. The Egyptian citizen didn't get due process either. So much of this stuff comes from the war on terror. It's all extended Guantanamo. The movie creation of a category of bad guys so bad that they can't be afforded court process and instead are murdered on the basis of secret "evidence".
    - n4r9 2y ago
      Totally. Obama authorising drone strikes was abhorrent. I just didn't like myflash13 downplaying the significance of Trump's actions by comparing them to a falsity. Especially when Trump himself bragged about the extrajudicial killings of a US activist on US soil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an...).
anal_reactor 2y ago
They don't care because voters do support this.
- mcphage 2y ago
  Overall, he’s not popular right now.
  - sn9 2y ago
    Only because he's tanking the economy with his tariffs in both the short- and long-term. Voters don't care otherwise, or they would never have elected him.
    - mcphage 2y ago
      Well, that’s the thing about a president who does literally everything wrong: everybody can point to a thing he does that makes them angry.
areoform 2y ago
American prosperity and American corporations exist on the basis of the rule of law. It's not just a human issue - it's a fundamental stability issue. If the POTUS and his associates can point to someone and just disappear them without any due process or recourse, then why can't they do the same with a "Chinese collaborator" corporation's executives? Or, heck the CEO. And then certain politicians can have those people reassign shares to them. A lot of Americans will say that I'm grasping at straws, or being far fetched. And they would be wrong. This is a thing that happens in authoritarian regimes that lack due process. Even when the people are one of the "elites." When you look at Trump point a finger and disappear people, ask how is Jack Ma doing lately? https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/china-alibaba-crackdown-jack-ma-b1817689.html https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/china-alibaba-crack... https://www.wired.com/story/jack-ma-isnt-back/ https://www.wired.com/story/jack-ma-isnt-back/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65084344 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65084344 https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5308604/alibaba-founder-jack-ma-returns-5-years-after-largely-disappearing-from-public-view https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5308604/alibaba-founder... More germanely, he disagreed with the regime. Fairly harmless criticism, The Financial Times reported that the disappearance may have been connected to a speech given at the annual People's Bank of China financial markets forum,[41] in which Ma criticized China's regulators and banks.[41] Ma described state banks as operating with a pawn shop mentality and criticized the Basel Accords as a "club for the elderly." In response, the authoritarians in charge decided to show Ma who was boss and behold, Ant Group made major changes to its ownership structure and corporate governance in January 2023.[42]: 261 That month, Ant Group announced a series of changes in shareholder voting rights, with Ma no longer the actual controller of Ant Group.[50] Ma's voting rights were reduced from 50% to 6%.[42]: 271 Following these changes, no single shareholder has a controlling stake in the company.[42]: 261 The company's board also added another independent director.[42]: 261 The Chinese government spoke positively of Ant Group's changes, including describing them as improvements in transparency and accountability "improvements in transparency and accountability" —> they forced him to sell his voting shares and forcibly removed him from his company. Do you want the US to follow in these footsteps? This isn't a slippery slope. It's a Slip 'N Slide. Ma's not the first person they did this to. China is not the first country to do this either. And yes, none of them imagined it would happen to them until it happened to them. The reason why the US is a bastion of technological progress, startups and capitalism is because the freedom to do business is underwritten by fundamental personal freedoms. If you lose that, then you will lose all of the wealth that system created. Why would you want to be a founder in a world where you can show obedience to the party, rise up the ranks, and just... grab shares from the next big startup? Wet your beak a little. Get a cut. It might not happen now. It might not happen in a year. Or three. But it will happen. For the night is long and the knives are ever sharp.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rich_sasha 2y ago
Indeed - but isn't the court decision, as per TFA, a step in the right direction? Courts are slow but if they grind in the right direction, they get there. Americans don't have much experience of this kind of tug of war (good for you). So far Trump hasn't faced any difficulties yet. Courts haven't kicked in, economy is steady, no external shocks and the tariff stuff hasn't percolated down to Main Street. It's easy to be a populist. The hard stuff starts when the combined noose of court action, domestic discontent and external shocks really starts to bite, and there's still hope courts will retain their independence.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  If they move so slowly that they take over four years to deal with an insurrection attempt, then they are effectively not working as intended
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Don't forget that a NY court directly enabled this by convicting the President of misuse of campaign funds and then applying zero sentence.
  - rich_sasha 2y ago
    I can see why you say so, and it is a concern, equally if you assume that courts are slow and work eventually, that's what it will look like on the happy trajectory of law being enforced. If you assume US is now irredeemably fucked forever, you might as well stop venting. But nothing actually is forever. Much, much worse Soviet rule in Europe lasted 45 years. I still hold out that populism in the US will be over much sooner.
    - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      I think it will take a lot more than the judiciary to depose Trump. If they can't meaningfully penalise him for the insurrection when he wasn't president, then they're even more powerless now that he is.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bufferoverflow 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- boroboro4 2y ago
  Take a look on historical numbers (https://usafacts.org/articles/what-can-the-data-tell-us-about-unauthorized-immigration/ https://usafacts.org/articles/what-can-the-data-tell-us-abou...). You’ll find out what was happening during Biden administration is what was happening on average in 90s and beginning of 2000s. Somehow you don’t label this as criminal act of Bush administration? Somehow it wasn’t as huge of a problem back then as it’s labeled now? Think about why? In fact it was during Obama times when illegal immigration got to the low levels. Don’t get me wrong, I do think Biden administration should’ve done better job at protecting the border. But the solution and fix for this isn’t abandoning due process rights and turning authoritarian. This solution is much much worse than problem at hands we have.
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    The illegal migration under Bush was half of the levels of under Biden https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20240127_EPC149.png https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20240127_EPC... And yes, under Obama it got low, and that's great. He was called Deporter-in-Chief for a reason. > But the solution and fix for this isn’t abandoning due process rights and turning authoritarian Again, where were you with this "due process" when Biden manufactured this crime on a massive scale to create more dem voters? The process is pretty straightforward. You can't prove your legal status, you get deported. Sure, occasionally you will have some injustice when dealing with hundreds of thousands of criminals. None of that would've happened if Biden didn't manufacture this crime in the first place. It's all on him.
    - boroboro4 2y ago
      I think government should follow laws. And it especially should follow constitution and protect rights of the people: - first of all the government shouldn't be able to send people to foreign gulag at all, period. I learnt that it's a gray area for (already) convicted people so far, but I think it's just plain wrong - however if government sends someone to foreign gulag it should be under proper due process (the one outlined for criminal cases). Don't confuse sending people to foreign gulag with deportation, it's not - deportation should be also happening only with due process, but this one can be relaxed, as it is right now - immigration judges exist separately from Article III courts The danger of what's happening right now is very clear, anyone (regardless to their citizenship) can be taken off the streets and send to foreign prison. This is mindblowingly bad, and nothing can justify that in lawful state. The government already (under Biden) was successfully deporting around 1M people a year. While it will take some time to go through the backlog and bring things back to normal, it doesn't require as dire actions as the current administration take. And the fact that Biden wave was comparable to historical ones does prove this successfully. Your claim about dem voters is obviously false - most of these people have 10s of years before they naturalize (if ever), and even after this both immigrants and latino voters tend to lean republican. Also being in the US illegally isn't a crime. So you calling these people hundreds of thousands of criminals is nothing but scapegoating. I disapprove Biden's handling of illegal immigration, but I also lived in authoritarian state. And living in a country where you afraid of the government, don't trust laws anymore and accept corruption is way worse than having some Mexican guy doing low income jobs in your city.

graycat 2y ago

> the law Would be nice!!! However, as is easy to see from recent, well known examples, the results of our legal system depend heavily on personal attitudes, predilections, and opinions of individual judges, lawyers, etc., and, net, "the law" is inconsistent, unpredictable, unreliable (some might say emotional and irrational), often too slow, too expensive, and a source not of justice or "the law" but of lawfare battles, war by special means. As in shooting wars, both sides lose. E.g., can see Dershowitz to Newsmax: Boasberg Should Be Held in Contempt at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-james-boasberg-illegal-alien/2025/04/16/id/1207195/ https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-james-boa... where Judge Boasberg and Emeritus Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz strongly disagree. For another example, one part of this Boasberg case had the SCOTUS rule 5-4 -- that is inconsistent and unpredictable. In math, physical science, and now often in biology and medical science, we have many examples of one things, clear, explicit, highly predictable -- the Pythagorean theorem, Einstein's Special Relativity, protein folding, Phase III trials, placebo controlled, randomized, double blind. But, in strong contrast, "the law" is unpredictable, in each case, no "one thing", closer to medieval ugly torture and nonsense than math, science, technology, etc. of 2025. The law profession should be ashamed. "Your Honor"? Not really. As I understand the situation, the SCOTUS is created by our Constitution, but the rest of our legal system, including Judge Boasberg, is the creation of and funded by Congress. So, Congress can cut off the funds and maybe just abolish Boasberg's court. My guess is that the media has raised attention, the voters want something better in our legal system, and soon Congress will make some changes. With also the POTUS, the legal system, "the law", currently widely less liked than a skunk at a garden party, can be turned inside out, fumigated, disinfected, bleached, scrubbed, washed, rinsed, hung out to dry, stitched, patched, ironed, folded, and used as, hmm, a seat cushion. Sorry 'bout that. As a startup founder, my view is, at any or all costs, to stay low, quiet, out of sight, and anonymous, have only an LLC and never a corporation, and be far from any entanglements with "the law".

boroboro4 2y ago
“The law” has ways of finding you when you least expect it. I have a friend who is in jail for last year for nothing-burger (in other country). I think perceiving laws at the US as unpredictable is just showing that you haven’t seen countries with truly dysfunctional judicial. Of course justice can be tricky. Of course courts can be flawed. It’s a spectrum, and we’re not at the worst spot in it so far (maybe apart from SC, SC is terrible). I’m not sure what’s a point of federal courts being creation of Congress (ie laws) and not creation of constitution. Most of the executive branch is creation of Congress too. The nicety of laws and courts you can (by yourself) go and read courts opinions and arguments and made your own judgements who’s at fault - executive branch ignoring laws and stressing the system with bad faith behavior, or courts deciding unjustly by reading laws wrongly. I did this for bunch of court opinions and don’t expect good faith from the administration anymore.
- graycat 2y ago
  "administration"? I avoided that. I was commenting in general terms. "countries with truly dysfunctional judicial" I suspect that much of how people get along in such a country is just to pay enough to the right persons. As a joke, that would often be faster and cheaper than following the US system fully honestly. I'm reminded of the movie where, given a problem, someone could go to Vito and get a solution -- he had "all the judges and politicians in his pocket". The role of Congress: The SCOTUS is from the Constitution, and all the rest are from Congress. If Congress sees a problem with those courts, it can fix it right away -- impeach a judge, cut off their funds, abolish their court, etc. Just because our legal system is not the worst possible in the world does not mean that we should tolerate its faults.

system7rocks 2y ago

Right here. We are in a crisis.

reed1234 2y ago

It definitely seems to be heading that way but I think it's premature to label it a constitutional crisis. It's only one part of the picture. The Trump admin has abided by court orders before and continues to do so, though sometimes reluctantly. The judicial branch is still trying to resolve the conflict by ruling contempt of court. If this incident doesn't get resolved and the Supreme Court rules on it and Trump ignores that ruling, for example, maybe that would be a full blown constitutional crisis. I think scope matters too. That doesn't mean that the incident isn't concerning. But I think we should be careful to incite false panic which could cause distrust. Save that panic for the real constitutional crisis brewing.

jrflowers 2y ago
I like this reasoning. It is like suggesting that people ignore speed advisory signs because they’ll probably be able to slam on the brakes once they make contact with another car
fjfaase 2y ago
No, it is not small. I am really surprised that no one has been arrested yet who has been involved with this kipnapping of people. If Donald Trump is sanctioning this kipnapping, he is involved as well and should be arrested as well. That he has not been arrested yet, shows that he is above the law.
- reed1234 2y ago
  That is the next step AFTER contempt of court.
  - garrettgarcia 2y ago
    Yes, first there will be two weeks of discovery and depositions, which the DOJ will try to appeal. Then there will be a contempt hearing for some bureaucrat, probably Neom or one of her subordinates. Then that will be appealed to the 4th circuit court of appeals. Then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court if the DOJ loses there.

anotherhue 2y ago

I weep for the loss dignity, of law, of belief that tomorrow brings. They are bound by your consent, you are not bound by their fear.

Galanwe 2y ago

The question is what do you do to prevent it? Complaining on social media is fine, but that won't solve the problem. As a European, I'm shocked at how complacent the public has been. I've lived in France and people do global strikes and widespread civil unrest for a change of retirement law. Yet in the US a dictatorship emerges and you have small demonstrations here and there and spicy comments on social media. That won't change things.

rcpt 2y ago
Change of retirement law directly impacts the population in a way they understand.
sandworm101 2y ago
Because a very large number of Americans are pro-dictatorship. This is not an a Manchurian-candidate scenario. This is a legitimately-elected leader doing exactly what he was elected to do.
- kzrdude 2y ago
  A lot of them seem to be cheering him on as if they elected a king. The problem being of course that legally there is no person who can just issue edicts and have them become law, there is no legal way to elect a king.
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    It doesn't have to be legal anymore, that's the whole point.
  - tim333 2y ago
    His approval rating is not doing very well.
    - kzrdude 2y ago
      For what they are doing, it should be much lower than what it is

_1tem 2y ago

Any law has only been as good as the people enforcing it, and this has always been the case in every country and every time period. You are delusional if you think that a piece of paper (i.e the “Law”) has any power whatsoever. When has “your status as citizen” ever protected you? Only when the people in power like you. Remember when the Obama administration ordered a extrajudicial killing of an American citizen by drone strike?

n4r9 2y ago
Are you talking about Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw... Obama approved a policy of targeted killing, which killed an American bystander when targeting an Egyptian citizen. That's very different to "ordered an extra judicial killing".
- pjc50 2y ago
  That's still very much ordering a mob hit, not a judicial process. The Egyptian citizen didn't get due process either. So much of this stuff comes from the war on terror. It's all extended Guantanamo. The movie creation of a category of bad guys so bad that they can't be afforded court process and instead are murdered on the basis of secret "evidence".
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Totally. Obama authorising drone strikes was abhorrent. I just didn't like myflash13 downplaying the significance of Trump's actions by comparing them to a falsity. Especially when Trump himself bragged about the extrajudicial killings of a US activist on US soil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an...).

anal_reactor 2y ago

They don't care because voters do support this.

mcphage 2y ago
Overall, he’s not popular right now.
- sn9 2y ago
  Only because he's tanking the economy with his tariffs in both the short- and long-term. Voters don't care otherwise, or they would never have elected him.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    Well, that’s the thing about a president who does literally everything wrong: everybody can point to a thing he does that makes them angry.

areoform 2y ago

American prosperity and American corporations exist on the basis of the rule of law. It's not just a human issue - it's a fundamental stability issue. If the POTUS and his associates can point to someone and just disappear them without any due process or recourse, then why can't they do the same with a "Chinese collaborator" corporation's executives? Or, heck the CEO. And then certain politicians can have those people reassign shares to them. A lot of Americans will say that I'm grasping at straws, or being far fetched. And they would be wrong. This is a thing that happens in authoritarian regimes that lack due process. Even when the people are one of the "elites." When you look at Trump point a finger and disappear people, ask how is Jack Ma doing lately? https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/china-alibaba-crackdown-jack-ma-b1817689.html https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/china-alibaba-crack... https://www.wired.com/story/jack-ma-isnt-back/ https://www.wired.com/story/jack-ma-isnt-back/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65084344 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65084344 https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5308604/alibaba-founder-jack-ma-returns-5-years-after-largely-disappearing-from-public-view https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5308604/alibaba-founder... More germanely, he disagreed with the regime. Fairly harmless criticism, The Financial Times reported that the disappearance may have been connected to a speech given at the annual People's Bank of China financial markets forum,[41] in which Ma criticized China's regulators and banks.[41] Ma described state banks as operating with a pawn shop mentality and criticized the Basel Accords as a "club for the elderly." In response, the authoritarians in charge decided to show Ma who was boss and behold, Ant Group made major changes to its ownership structure and corporate governance in January 2023.[42]: 261 That month, Ant Group announced a series of changes in shareholder voting rights, with Ma no longer the actual controller of Ant Group.[50] Ma's voting rights were reduced from 50% to 6%.[42]: 271 Following these changes, no single shareholder has a controlling stake in the company.[42]: 261 The company's board also added another independent director.[42]: 261 The Chinese government spoke positively of Ant Group's changes, including describing them as improvements in transparency and accountability "improvements in transparency and accountability" —> they forced him to sell his voting shares and forcibly removed him from his company. Do you want the US to follow in these footsteps? This isn't a slippery slope. It's a Slip 'N Slide. Ma's not the first person they did this to. China is not the first country to do this either. And yes, none of them imagined it would happen to them until it happened to them. The reason why the US is a bastion of technological progress, startups and capitalism is because the freedom to do business is underwritten by fundamental personal freedoms. If you lose that, then you will lose all of the wealth that system created. Why would you want to be a founder in a world where you can show obedience to the party, rise up the ranks, and just... grab shares from the next big startup? Wet your beak a little. Get a cut. It might not happen now. It might not happen in a year. Or three. But it will happen. For the night is long and the knives are ever sharp.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rich_sasha 2y ago

Indeed - but isn't the court decision, as per TFA, a step in the right direction? Courts are slow but if they grind in the right direction, they get there. Americans don't have much experience of this kind of tug of war (good for you). So far Trump hasn't faced any difficulties yet. Courts haven't kicked in, economy is steady, no external shocks and the tariff stuff hasn't percolated down to Main Street. It's easy to be a populist. The hard stuff starts when the combined noose of court action, domestic discontent and external shocks really starts to bite, and there's still hope courts will retain their independence.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
If they move so slowly that they take over four years to deal with an insurrection attempt, then they are effectively not working as intended
- pjc50 2y ago
  Don't forget that a NY court directly enabled this by convicting the President of misuse of campaign funds and then applying zero sentence.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  I can see why you say so, and it is a concern, equally if you assume that courts are slow and work eventually, that's what it will look like on the happy trajectory of law being enforced. If you assume US is now irredeemably fucked forever, you might as well stop venting. But nothing actually is forever. Much, much worse Soviet rule in Europe lasted 45 years. I still hold out that populism in the US will be over much sooner.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    I think it will take a lot more than the judiciary to depose Trump. If they can't meaningfully penalise him for the insurrection when he wasn't president, then they're even more powerless now that he is.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bufferoverflow 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
boroboro4 2y ago
Take a look on historical numbers (https://usafacts.org/articles/what-can-the-data-tell-us-about-unauthorized-immigration/ https://usafacts.org/articles/what-can-the-data-tell-us-abou...). You’ll find out what was happening during Biden administration is what was happening on average in 90s and beginning of 2000s. Somehow you don’t label this as criminal act of Bush administration? Somehow it wasn’t as huge of a problem back then as it’s labeled now? Think about why? In fact it was during Obama times when illegal immigration got to the low levels. Don’t get me wrong, I do think Biden administration should’ve done better job at protecting the border. But the solution and fix for this isn’t abandoning due process rights and turning authoritarian. This solution is much much worse than problem at hands we have.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  The illegal migration under Bush was half of the levels of under Biden https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20240127_EPC149.png https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20240127_EPC... And yes, under Obama it got low, and that's great. He was called Deporter-in-Chief for a reason. > But the solution and fix for this isn’t abandoning due process rights and turning authoritarian Again, where were you with this "due process" when Biden manufactured this crime on a massive scale to create more dem voters? The process is pretty straightforward. You can't prove your legal status, you get deported. Sure, occasionally you will have some injustice when dealing with hundreds of thousands of criminals. None of that would've happened if Biden didn't manufacture this crime in the first place. It's all on him.
  - boroboro4 2y ago
    I think government should follow laws. And it especially should follow constitution and protect rights of the people: - first of all the government shouldn't be able to send people to foreign gulag at all, period. I learnt that it's a gray area for (already) convicted people so far, but I think it's just plain wrong - however if government sends someone to foreign gulag it should be under proper due process (the one outlined for criminal cases). Don't confuse sending people to foreign gulag with deportation, it's not - deportation should be also happening only with due process, but this one can be relaxed, as it is right now - immigration judges exist separately from Article III courts The danger of what's happening right now is very clear, anyone (regardless to their citizenship) can be taken off the streets and send to foreign prison. This is mindblowingly bad, and nothing can justify that in lawful state. The government already (under Biden) was successfully deporting around 1M people a year. While it will take some time to go through the backlog and bring things back to normal, it doesn't require as dire actions as the current administration take. And the fact that Biden wave was comparable to historical ones does prove this successfully. Your claim about dem voters is obviously false - most of these people have 10s of years before they naturalize (if ever), and even after this both immigrants and latino voters tend to lean republican. Also being in the US illegally isn't a crime. So you calling these people hundreds of thousands of criminals is nothing but scapegoating. I disapprove Biden's handling of illegal immigration, but I also lived in authoritarian state. And living in a country where you afraid of the government, don't trust laws anymore and accept corruption is way worse than having some Mexican guy doing low income jobs in your city.