4 ms·

It is tempting, given the success that kingly political approaches have seen of late, to adopt those strategies: to fight "your tyrant" with "my tyrant", and to

It is tempting, given the success that kingly political approaches have seen of late, to adopt those strategies: to fight "your tyrant" with "my tyrant", and to fight your untruth with my untruth, eschewing skepticism. What if the Constitution, as interpreted by the current SCOTUS, really is a suicide pact? We can only hope that Paine's approach will win out instead.

jauntywundrkind 1y ago
That'd be a vaguely interesting point, if I—searching my heart—I could find any evidence of this going both way. Congress has never folded power to a president like this before. The Supreme Court has never faced such backlash from district courts (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-crisis-supreme-court-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-cris...). Scientists & researchers have never been up in arms about us health policy or what is being done. Colleges and universities have never been policed by a president, confronted with loyalty pacts.
- Avicebron 1y ago
  The economic policies from the 70s until nowish were new as well
- rectang 1y ago
  To cite one example: aggressive gerrymandering has required a response in the form of California Prop 50. I'm hoping that we can all find our way to competitive districts together, rather than permanently sorting into districts that are the province of one party or another, eliminating free elections in practice. But thanks to SCOTUS interpreting any amount of political gerrymandering as permissible, we may have in fact fallen into an irreparable hole in the US Constitution. Even if some of us are disinclined towards tyranny, we may be faced with a choice: accept that we are shunted towards it by forces beyond our control, or roll over and accept tyrannical rule by others. I continue to hope that it will not come to that and that we can fight our way out of this situation using Paine's methods.
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    I think there are multiple irreparable holes in the US Constitution. That doesn't mean tyranny is inevitable, though, it just means we need to start fresh (which is what they did when they came up with the Constitution anyway).
    - rectang 1y ago
      Amending the Constitution to fix such holes is impractical when it would require the approval of states whose hold on perpetual minority rule would be threatened. So then we're looking at a constitutional convention. Can you imagine our current crop of politicians cooperating to negotiate something which improves on the current Constitution? I'd expect a prisoner's dilemma with a defect-defect outcome and the winner taking all of the diminished spoils. I think we're stuck with what we've got and we have to hope that enough voters are persuadable, allowing us to emerge from the hole.
      - BrenBarn 1y ago
        If we could persuade enough voters to get out of the hole, why can't we persuade enough to fix the hole (and the other holes)?
thom 1y ago
The falcon listens credulously to far too many falconers.

jauntywundrkind 1y ago

That'd be a vaguely interesting point, if I—searching my heart—I could find any evidence of this going both way. Congress has never folded power to a president like this before. The Supreme Court has never faced such backlash from district courts (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-crisis-supreme-court-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-cris...). Scientists & researchers have never been up in arms about us health policy or what is being done. Colleges and universities have never been policed by a president, confronted with loyalty pacts.

Avicebron 1y ago
The economic policies from the 70s until nowish were new as well
rectang 1y ago
To cite one example: aggressive gerrymandering has required a response in the form of California Prop 50. I'm hoping that we can all find our way to competitive districts together, rather than permanently sorting into districts that are the province of one party or another, eliminating free elections in practice. But thanks to SCOTUS interpreting any amount of political gerrymandering as permissible, we may have in fact fallen into an irreparable hole in the US Constitution. Even if some of us are disinclined towards tyranny, we may be faced with a choice: accept that we are shunted towards it by forces beyond our control, or roll over and accept tyrannical rule by others. I continue to hope that it will not come to that and that we can fight our way out of this situation using Paine's methods.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  I think there are multiple irreparable holes in the US Constitution. That doesn't mean tyranny is inevitable, though, it just means we need to start fresh (which is what they did when they came up with the Constitution anyway).
  - rectang 1y ago
    Amending the Constitution to fix such holes is impractical when it would require the approval of states whose hold on perpetual minority rule would be threatened. So then we're looking at a constitutional convention. Can you imagine our current crop of politicians cooperating to negotiate something which improves on the current Constitution? I'd expect a prisoner's dilemma with a defect-defect outcome and the winner taking all of the diminished spoils. I think we're stuck with what we've got and we have to hope that enough voters are persuadable, allowing us to emerge from the hole.
    - BrenBarn 1y ago
      If we could persuade enough voters to get out of the hole, why can't we persuade enough to fix the hole (and the other holes)?

thom 1y ago

The falcon listens credulously to far too many falconers.