this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025

146 points (97.4% liked)

politics

24944 readers

3281 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

146

Why federal courts are unlikely to save democracy from Trump’s and Musk’s attacks (theconversation.com)

submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Saw it phrased best by some opinion piece: "Because the courts don't have a standing army to enforce orders, they have no recourse."

Which is fucking terrifying. Something that I've not really considered before I suppose.

[+] AntelopeRoom@lemm.ee 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The founders didn't even want to give the country a standing army. What precedent is there, contemporary or modern, where the judicial has its own direct enforcement arm?

In theory, police fill this role...it's kind of in the name "law enforcement." But in practice they are something else, they can be captured and corrupted like anyone else.

In theory, the military swears an oath to defend the Constitution. The Secretary of the Navy could decide, for instance, to order a military coup, storm the White House with Marines, and arrest Trump, Musk, et al. But this is extremely risky, both in tactical terms and in public image. At the end of the day, The People elected Trump, and they would be dishonoring that essential choice. Unless Trump does something like send B-52s to carpet bomb Los Angeles, the military will be determined to stay apolitical.

You're all looking for some play-by-play guidebook or ruleset in breaking the rules. You will not find one, it is an oxymoron. The founders risked arrest and death by hanging by setting this country in motion, they were not following the rules either. I obviously won't extol their moral character in whole, but they knew that the divine right of kings was wrong and that representative government was the future, and they acted upon these beliefs.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Quench the Tree of Liberty.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 5 months ago

The tree, it yearns for blood. We should acquiesce.

There's no joy in it, but it most likely is going to be the only way...

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

In theory, this is what the "unorganized militia" is for. A.k.a. you and me and every other able-bodied adult male.

[–] baronvonj@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago

Maybe just put the US Marshals under the judiciary. It seems obvious that a Marshal who refuses to execute a warrant because his boss said not to should in turn be subject to contempt and arrested by a law-abiding Marshal. But in reality we'll end up with the same issue that Congress has: no jail to hold people in.

[–] WatDabney@fedia.io 34 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Broadly, it's because Musk and Trump are both psychopaths. That's the real foundation for everything else - the simple fact that we've allowed ourselves to be ruled by people who are obviously profoundly mentally ill.

As a direct consequence of their profound mental illness, they have no honor, no integrity, no principles, no morals, no ethics and no comcern for anyone or anything other than themselves.

So the only thing that could possibly stop them is force, and the federal courts have no way of applying that force.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Our institutions were built on good faith, because making laws with actual consequences that affect the people in power has never been a policy priority.

The recent supreme court coronation of the executive branch was just the bow on top.

[–] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 1 points 5 months ago

None of that matters as long as the rich make money.

[+] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

[deleted]

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Bro, they gave us the guidance. They fought a revolutionary war to be free from government tyranny. Trump and the oligarchs are leaving us no other option besides a new revolution.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Man, I don't want a new revolution. Take a pass on a new constitution. Freaking out at the change all around me. Pick up my guitar I don't play, also couldn't yesterday. Then I dust off my knees, but hey... we wont get fooled again.

Yeah, I don't know I just wrote the first sentence and the rest popped out.

Anyway, you're right, that is the guidance we were given. When the government fails the people, that government isn't the solution. There was never any reason for them to provide some legal framework to overthrow the elected government. But fuck, revolution is ugly. Hope my kids don't see it. But at some point it could wind up being our god damned duty to oppose this.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

You keep talking in future tense...

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The US has had many warnings over the past century of issues with its system of government. Each time they've ignored that and failed to fix the underlying issues. For example, Nixon and Agnew was a warning that the system was ill-equipped to deal with a corrupt president and corrupt vice-president. The opportunity was there at the time to strengthen the system and prevent precisely what Trump has done over the past 8+ years, but nobody did anything about it.

The founding fathers may be responsible for not envisioning how a gentleman's agreement would be abused, but the greater responsibility lies with those who came afterwards, saw how the system could fail, and did nothing.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 20 points 5 months ago

Nixon and Agnew was a warning that the system was ill-equipped to deal with a corrupt president and corrupt vice-president. The opportunity was there at the time to strengthen the system and prevent precisely what Trump has done over the past 8+ years, but nobody did anything about it.

We actually did the literal opposite of fix, and actually exacerbated the issue with the writing of the DOJ "memo" that everyone treats as law that states "a sitting president cannot be indicted." So everything that followed had to rely on a completely broken Congress.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

The opportunity was there at the time to strengthen the system and prevent precisely what Trump has done over the past 8+ years, but nobody did anything about it.

That's not strictly true. The right wing noticed and has been working tirelessly to exploit it ever since.

[–] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Our constitution does have the method to be fixed, 27 times we've fixed it. They're called amendments. Honestly I would hazard to say that no political document anywhere is going to stand up to bad faith actors trying to subvert it. At the end of the day the the constitution is just a piece of parchment with some ink on it and only has the power we give it.

Germany as a nation began in 1871 when it went from being the Holy Roman Empire a loose collection of Germany states, to the nation of Germany and ~50 years later would collapse into Nazi Germany. Fascists don't care about the law, they use the perception of law to gain power.

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

I thought the guidance was the 2nd amendment?

[–] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 2 points 5 months ago

The answer is violence.

[–] 100@fedia.io 1 points 5 months ago

you've had over 200 years to fix these problems

can't just blame those who built the base

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

The first amendment is kind of about our ability to openly say "time to use the second amendment".

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is the time I for collective action. Refuse to shut it down, go back to work, call a wildcat strike if needed and shut the area down. Relying on the captured courts is a losing proposition.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

https://generalstrikeus.com/

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 5 points 5 months ago

Because they are forcefully doing it anyway?

[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

You need to fight them in the mud where they want to be. Quit trying to take the high road