4 ms·

No, absolutely not. Trump would federalize the national guard as did Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson and charge the governors with treason. You advocate for d

No, absolutely not. Trump would federalize the national guard as did Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson and charge the governors with treason. You advocate for de facto succession of the states - we settled that matter with blood last time. The next time will be far worse. The rule of law does not prohibit bad arrests nor can it. The rule of law provides the opportunity for remedy after the fact.

fzeroracer 1y ago
When the federal government is actively hostile towards the states then the only recourse is going to be secession. > The rule of law does not prohibit bad arrests nor can it. The rule of law provides the opportunity for remedy after the fact. In a world where you and I could be renditioned to a foreign country and thrown into slave labor by the government simply acting fast enough as to maneuver around the court then there is no rule of law and there is no remedy.
- prepend 1y ago
  That’s not really a viable recourse as it will result in that state being force ably retained in the union. I think a better remedy is to work within the laws of the country and to elect different federal representatives (president, senator, house representatives). Secession would definitely be worse for any state attempting it.
whoknowsidont 1y ago
How are you or anyone else going to remedy anything when you're half a world away, with no access to anyone let alone _anything_ outside your death camp? Absolutely yes. This needs to stop right here, and the consequences for violating the rule of law, for violating due process, for violating human rights, must be real.
- kansface 1y ago
  You advance civil war as the remedy for the hypothetical. I’m squarely with Lincoln on the matter.
  - whoknowsidont 1y ago
    This is a real news story with a real arrest on a real judge. There is no hypothetical here.
    - kansface 1y ago
      Yes, but the judge has not been shipped to El Salvador in the middle of the night. Resolving the matter in court _is due process_.
      - whoknowsidont 1y ago
        They're not resolving it in court. You can issue summons, which is NORMALLY what happens when these kind of issues arise. The "Cash for Children" judges got summons for Christ's sake. Pam Bondi mere hours ago stated they would go after more judges like this. This isn't normal or right. You're clearly not interested in good-faith discussion, good bye.

fzeroracer 1y ago

When the federal government is actively hostile towards the states then the only recourse is going to be secession. > The rule of law does not prohibit bad arrests nor can it. The rule of law provides the opportunity for remedy after the fact. In a world where you and I could be renditioned to a foreign country and thrown into slave labor by the government simply acting fast enough as to maneuver around the court then there is no rule of law and there is no remedy.

prepend 1y ago
That’s not really a viable recourse as it will result in that state being force ably retained in the union. I think a better remedy is to work within the laws of the country and to elect different federal representatives (president, senator, house representatives). Secession would definitely be worse for any state attempting it.

whoknowsidont 1y ago

How are you or anyone else going to remedy anything when you're half a world away, with no access to anyone let alone _anything_ outside your death camp? Absolutely yes. This needs to stop right here, and the consequences for violating the rule of law, for violating due process, for violating human rights, must be real.

kansface 1y ago
You advance civil war as the remedy for the hypothetical. I’m squarely with Lincoln on the matter.
- whoknowsidont 1y ago
  This is a real news story with a real arrest on a real judge. There is no hypothetical here.
  - kansface 1y ago
    Yes, but the judge has not been shipped to El Salvador in the middle of the night. Resolving the matter in court _is due process_.
    - whoknowsidont 1y ago
      They're not resolving it in court. You can issue summons, which is NORMALLY what happens when these kind of issues arise. The "Cash for Children" judges got summons for Christ's sake. Pam Bondi mere hours ago stated they would go after more judges like this. This isn't normal or right. You're clearly not interested in good-faith discussion, good bye.