3 ms·
I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substan
by andrewla 29d ago
I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substantial deference on matters of national security.
The invalidation comes from the fact that this is clearly retaliatory behavior for speech; and the evidence for this is fairly strong since the administration has made public statements to that effect.
The evidence being weak means that it is clear that there is no reasonable belief that the cause of action is anything but an attempt to apply a penalty for the use of protected speech.
- superxpro12 29d ago[flagged]
- rogerrogerr 29d ago[flagged]
- bloppe 29d agoDemocrats tend to pass more legislation
- ecocentrik 29d agoPolitics is frequently a game of semantic drift. The application of labels with unclear meaning to further dilute meaning or extend it for the purpose of engagement, legal reclassification... it's not engineering and you can't expect well defined terms from people who want power without accountability.
- jacobolus 28d agoPolitics doesn't work if a significant part of the leadership is constantly acting in bad faith, and behaving essentially sociopathically. Voters' and citizens' (and some judges') willingness to support sociopathic behavior by leaders is a profound failing at their basic social duties, and is deeply shameful.
- LordDragonfang 28d ago> Politics doesn't work if a significant part of the leadership is constantly acting in bad faith, and behaving essentially sociopathically. Not to be too contrarian, but I'm certain there are many people who would claim that's the only way it has ever worked (poorly)
- jacobolus 28d agoPeople always feel like that to a certain extent, but both quantitatively and qualitatively there have been very dramatic shifts in the past few decades in the USA.
- pvab3 29d agoIt happens in a lot of ways. People call things violence, terrorism, matters of public health, or war to justify whatever it is they want.
- claytongulick 29d agoCongress ceding it's authority to the executive branch is an issue of national concern, has been going on for decades, and is definitely not limited to one specific party [1], though I do agree that the current administration has been testing the limits of executive power more than any other that I can recall in my lifetime. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-time-tear-executive-branchs-blank-check https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-...
- XorNot 28d agoThe current administration is the final nail in the coffin of presidential-style governments versus the parliamentary system. Separating the legislature and the executive has no useful purpose: if the president is going to defacto enact law should be handled by the legislature, then there's no reason they shouldn't just be the head of the legislature and forced to actually whip the votes to do so.
- shimman 28d agoThe US president was always designed to be like this. It's like people are deliberately forgetting anti-federalists were not only a thing, they warned about these exact same problems over 200 years ago.
- XorNot 28d agoAnd built the system as it is anyway: with no practical way to prevent this from happening. And we see it over and over again in other presidential style systems, the US is just the largest one left to fall.
- shimman 28d agoYou say no practical way, I say system working exactly as designed. Many people who wrote the constitution were actively disdainful of "the democracy" problem. They openly hated that citizens were practicing local politics in towns across Massachusetts while thinking that plantation slave owners in Virginia, that were equivalent to oligarchs (and ruled as such too), were a more "noble" form of government. They used Shays' Rebellion as a pretext to push for constitutional reform. The constitution is explicitly written to prevent change. It's why change is so hard to implement and requires actual courage (see America's second founding). One of the first official acts George Washington did was sign the fugitive slave act then tried to deputize his nephew in the treasury department to kidnap a free woman who was his former slave, Ona Judge, because Washington didn't want to argue in a public court why she was his property. Great video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhxivf0gmj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhxivf0gmj8 Many of the founders were rotten ghouls (Alexander Hamilton's favorite form of government was a monarchy), you need to read what they exactly think because they designed a government where about less than 2% of the US population could vote and design a system where the only house that commoner's could be elected into would be the weakest. They openly wrote about all of this too, it's not anything new. When they wrote about freedom they weren't talking about 95% of society, they were talking about a very specific type of people that excluded many. The rot has always been there, it's why there is an allure of truth when conservatives say they just want to return to the founding. Look at what the founding actually entails, there is nothing unamerican about white national colonialism. That's why we mustn't look to the past to build a better future.
- ok123456 29d ago"National security matters" was never in good faith. As a concept, it's used as an escape hatch whenever it wants to avoid public scrutiny.
- throwitaway222 29d agoI dislike it when people claim speech is violence. Like if you're trying to have a conversation on what should be or not - then people claim that it's a violent act to talk about.
- senderista 29d agoThe point of that is to justify actual violence to suppress speech.
- edoceo 28d ago[flagged]
- chihuahua 28d ago"Speech is violence" is very popular with the campus groups that want to ban speakers they disagree with. I'm not sure if it's still going on, but a few years ago the same crowd kept insisting that "silence is violence" which is even more ludicrous - if you're not parroting their critical race theory talking points at every opportunity, YOU are committing an act of violence.
- throwaway85825 29d agoIn the 40s the government took control of the whole economy in the name of national security, in the 1860s the government suspended the constitution in the name of national security. None of this is new.
- seizethecheese 29d ago"In the 40s" and "in the 1860s" here are obfuscations of "during WWII" and "during the civil war". Extraordinary actions in the name of national security during a literal civil war or during a time of total war are to be expected. The comparison to other times is not meaningful.
- tremon 29d agoIsn't this exactly what the war on terror was for? To always be able to claim that the US is currently at war?
- seizethecheese 29d agoIt seems like it was to be able to not be encumbered by civil rights while attempting to solve the problem of terrorism militarily.
- blitzar 29d agothe war on terror is/was as real as the war on drugs and the war on christmas
- shimman 28d agoSomeone must tell the 200,000+ dead Iraqi civilians that the war was fake.
- LordDragonfang 28d agoStrictly speaking, it was, since we never actually declared war on Iraq. Which only makes the whole tragedy a more egregious violation.
- feshbach 29d ago[flagged]
- jibal 28d agoA prime example is that the Trump regime overthrew all California environmental regulations regarding oil drilling by Sable in the name of national security: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/08/trump-intervened-to-revive-a-fraught-santa-barbara-oil-pipeline-but-why/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/08/trump-intervene...
- _3u10 28d agoNational security excuses enjoy widespread bipartisan support. Want to execute a citizen without trial? National security. Want to execute his child without trial? National security.
- msandford 28d ago[flagged]
- _3u10 28d ago[flagged]
- lern_too_spel 28d agoObjectively, the courts ruled for Obama and against Trump. You can read the rulings to understand why.
- LordDragonfang 28d agoGP already explicitly called it bipartisan, and it was bipartisan well before Obama (though if we're pointing fingers at a modern president for accelerating the abuse of "national security", it really should be Dubya).
- msandford 28d agoIt was literally Obama who did the things mentioned that had bipartisan support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
- analog8374 28d agoRemember covid? We all fell into lockstep with great eagerness. Suddenly everybody agreed on what's good and bad, who's good and bad. And why. So don't go pointing fingers. Attend to the 2x4 in your own eye because it's happening to you right now.
- leonidasrup 28d agoRestriction on the movement of people, animals, and goods which is intended to prevent the spread of disease or pests is much older then COVID. " The word quarantine comes from quarantena or quarantaine, meaning "forty days", used in the Venetian language in the 14th and 15th centuries and also in France. The word is designated in the period during which all ships were required to be isolated before passengers and crew could go ashore during the Black Death plague." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine
- analog8374 28d agoIf the past has taught us anything it's that we can contrive a logically-consistent, authoritatively-founded rationale to support literally anything.
- omgwtfbyobbq 29d agoThere are 5th amendment issues too IIRC.
- jonas21 28d agoWell, I guess it's good that corporations have free speech protections under the First Amendment. I often see it argued here that they shouldn't.
- hn_acc1 28d agoThey arguably have more free speech rights than the average person with citizens united..
- jonas21 28d agoHow so?
- iwontberude 28d agoBecause corps can donate unlimited money to super pacs while regular people have to pay for medical expenses (in addition to inflation, DOGEd government programs, gambling addictions, AI layoffs, etc) that keep them from having a political voice commensurate to institutions and financial whales. Regular people are basically subsidizing the same corporations that are taking away their representation.
- grackasthebig 28d agoMoney affords direct access and reach while the average person gets a queue You and I get an email box often full to communicate with officials over Rich people call and text them
- 1718627440 26d agoYou and me can also walk into their office.
- hn_acc1 22d agoHow many people can afford to take a day off work if they don't have flex hours?