165
'Vexatious litigant’: Lawyer devises 'radical' plan that could stop Trump in his tracks
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
165 points (97.7% liked)
politics
20359 readers
5119 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These plans only work against targets that obey the rule of law.
The whole point of the plan, if you were to read the article, is to deal with an administration not obeying the rule of law.
I don't think you get what I meant, there's no way to punish or school this administration because they are trying to be autocrats. The courts don't matter because they have no way of enforcing their rulings without the DOJ (department of justice) which Trump has captured.
And this guys proposal isn't to punish the administration. It's to make the administration ineffectual by having judges ignore cases brought forward by the administration until the administration complies with other court orders.
For instance. Trump tries to fire a guy. Guy says "no you don't have the authority." Trump says "yes I do. I'll go to the courts and get them to prove you wrong." Courts go "don't care. You're ignoring [some other court order against trump]. We wont hear this case until you comply with the previous order." The result would be that the guy keeps his job despite whether or not Trump can or can't fire him. At least that's this guy's idea to my understanding.
I'm also not trying to say it would be effective or even remotely doable. Just pointing out that criticizing the plan for something it's not attempting to do doesn't make any sense.
What I am trying to explain to you is that he doesn't care what happens in court, he's an autocrat he'll do it anyway.
He can't just "do it anyway" if people refuse to comply with his orders and the courts refuse to back him up. What do you think Trump is going to do? Walk over to somebody's desk, pick them up out of their chair, and physically throw them out the building himself?