3 ms·

That would be for a court to decide later. Meanwhile, they'll languish in a hot and humid prison somewhere. Preferably Alligator Alcatraz. Even if some court de

That would be for a court to decide later. Meanwhile, they'll languish in a hot and humid prison somewhere. Preferably Alligator Alcatraz. Even if some court decided then it would immediately be appealed and precedent from the current Executive Branch shows that court orders don't need to necessarily be obeyed anytime soon.

dpark 11mo ago
“I don’t care about the law as long as the lawbreakers are on my side.”
- s5300 11mo ago
  [dead]
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  We’ve already crossed this bridge. Unilaterally disarming doesn’t make sense if the next MAGA President just chips away at the system again.
  - dpark 11mo ago
    Sorry, does “disarming” here mean “not engaging in illegal authoritarian action”? I’m not sure what system is being protected in the scenario where everyone is openly and illegally authoritarian. I hope that if Democrats get back into power they will invest in stabilizing democracy and the rule of law, not just attempting to run the same authoritarian playbook for their own benefit.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > does “disarming” here mean “not engaging in illegal authoritarian action”? Nothing discussed is black-and-white illegal. SCOTUS has made that clear. > hope that if Democrats get back into power they will invest in stabilizing democracy and the rule of law Me too. The first step in that has to be setting the precedent that if you side with an autocrat, you lose your wealth and freedom.
    - danaris 11mo ago
      Just to emphasize what the sibling comment said: You call the described actions "illegal", but under the law of the land as it stands today, nothing the President does is illegal if he can make even a vague claim to be doing it as an official act of the Office of President. To be clear, this is wrong, terrifying, and needs to be overturned, but it is the law of the land, since the SCOTUS decision that made it so. Assuming we can get to a place where Democrats hold power in our government once again, until we can get the absolute mess that the Republicans have made cleaned up in its entirety, it would be not merely irresponsible, but catastrophic for the Democrats to fail to use every tool at their disposal, including things that are only legal because the Republicans thought they would never have to give up power, in order to achieve that end. The alternative is to fall back into fascism, which should be seen as unacceptable by absolutely anyone with a conscience.
      - rsynnott 11mo ago
        Alternatively, the US could look at a new, stronger constitution. Like, presumably no-one really _intended_ that the US constitution would make the president an unaccountable dictator; if the Supreme Court has done that under the auspices of the constitution, it's clearly not fit for purpose and should be amended or replaced. Other countries do this _all the time_. Ireland had amended its constitution more times in a century than the US has in 250 years (and even then, the US ones are pretty front loaded). France is on its fifth republic.
        dpark 11mo ago
        I agree with this. Though this would require getting a lot of people to stop imagining that the founding fathers created a perfect document. There’s a very weird belief that the founding documents (and the founding fathers) are essentially infallible and that governing in accordance with these is the best possible option. Of course this leads to “originalist” jurisprudence which seems to consist of finding ways to pretend that whatever the judge believes is exactly what the founding fathers intended.
        rsynnott 11mo ago
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]

dpark 11mo ago

“I don’t care about the law as long as the lawbreakers are on my side.”

s5300 11mo ago
[dead]
JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
We’ve already crossed this bridge. Unilaterally disarming doesn’t make sense if the next MAGA President just chips away at the system again.
- dpark 11mo ago
  Sorry, does “disarming” here mean “not engaging in illegal authoritarian action”? I’m not sure what system is being protected in the scenario where everyone is openly and illegally authoritarian. I hope that if Democrats get back into power they will invest in stabilizing democracy and the rule of law, not just attempting to run the same authoritarian playbook for their own benefit.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > does “disarming” here mean “not engaging in illegal authoritarian action”? Nothing discussed is black-and-white illegal. SCOTUS has made that clear. > hope that if Democrats get back into power they will invest in stabilizing democracy and the rule of law Me too. The first step in that has to be setting the precedent that if you side with an autocrat, you lose your wealth and freedom.
  - danaris 11mo ago
    Just to emphasize what the sibling comment said: You call the described actions "illegal", but under the law of the land as it stands today, nothing the President does is illegal if he can make even a vague claim to be doing it as an official act of the Office of President. To be clear, this is wrong, terrifying, and needs to be overturned, but it is the law of the land, since the SCOTUS decision that made it so. Assuming we can get to a place where Democrats hold power in our government once again, until we can get the absolute mess that the Republicans have made cleaned up in its entirety, it would be not merely irresponsible, but catastrophic for the Democrats to fail to use every tool at their disposal, including things that are only legal because the Republicans thought they would never have to give up power, in order to achieve that end. The alternative is to fall back into fascism, which should be seen as unacceptable by absolutely anyone with a conscience.
    - rsynnott 11mo ago
      Alternatively, the US could look at a new, stronger constitution. Like, presumably no-one really _intended_ that the US constitution would make the president an unaccountable dictator; if the Supreme Court has done that under the auspices of the constitution, it's clearly not fit for purpose and should be amended or replaced. Other countries do this _all the time_. Ireland had amended its constitution more times in a century than the US has in 250 years (and even then, the US ones are pretty front loaded). France is on its fifth republic.
      - dpark 11mo ago
        I agree with this. Though this would require getting a lot of people to stop imagining that the founding fathers created a perfect document. There’s a very weird belief that the founding documents (and the founding fathers) are essentially infallible and that governing in accordance with these is the best possible option. Of course this leads to “originalist” jurisprudence which seems to consist of finding ways to pretend that whatever the judge believes is exactly what the founding fathers intended.
        rsynnott 11mo ago
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]