impeachment as a remedy appears unlikely.
I can mention of a few other remedies but I don't want to be put on a list.
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
452 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19932 readers
3763 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’re already on a list.
Man with hatchet buried in his forehead warns... We may be getting close to trouble here folks, eventually.
Say, I'm starting to think this guy is trouble.
was this your Rubicon?
I'm getting kinda tired of all these constitutional crisis, maybe one of the branches could start checking some of this bullshit. Just a thought.
Say, isn't there an organization out there whose members all take an oath to defend the constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic? I wonder what that organization might have to say about something like this, can anyone get their thoughts?
Would be nice but congress is Republican controlled and for any court related stuff it could just go up to the supreme Court and be ruled Trump's way. Or just flat out ignored cause who is gonna stop him if he just ignores court rulings.
Ideally, the Dems should've pushed the security out of the way and physically removed the DOGE team and their hardware and software. Instead they performatively argued with a single private security guy blocking the doors. The Dems are already capitulating talking about letting the "blue dogs" vote with the GOP.
I'd like to see a large amount of Dems in congress and in other high positions to take direct action, get arrested, and jailed. I think this would force hard conversations in the media about what's going on, and courts and judges to more or less definitively rule.
But the Constitution! Some people are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that our systems have allowed this takeover to happen and the path to get out of this is narrowing rapidly. I'd be surprised if 3 years from now we even recognize the US as it once was.
But the Constitution
Remember when Republicans carried those vest pocket editions of the Constitution? They were keeping it at the ready for the time they could wipe their asses with it.
They haven't already?
The real interesting question to me is how do you even really prevent something like this from happening? If every elected official decides the law doesn't matter who is left to enforce it on them? I feel like the only real options are the military stepping in when bad things are happening but that's a very slippery slope to normalize that or having powerful unions that can actually lead general strikes when these kinds of things happen. But atleast in the US unions have been beaten down so much that that isn't really an option so what is left really?
We are. There is an amendment for this. Its a funny one known as the second. But good luck with that, especially if the military is going along with it.
The first ammendment is the opposition to authoritarianism - not the second.
Both are. Dudes just came from a monarchy.
I think we have a couple of bad options
- live with it
- end civilization as we know it
It's like a rock and a hard place...
By the end of 2025 the Us will be a christofacist theocracy if the non cult member don't start a resistance really soon and yes that mean violence and probably a civil war but no peaceful way will stop them now
The congress and the Courts don't matter. They don't have the actual physical power to enforce anything. The ones who enforce are the police and the army. That is the difference between constitutional states of laws and authoritarian regimes. Which system do the people with guns protect. And the people with guns receive their orders from the President and lower hierarchies of the executive branch.
So either the people with guns obey their superiors and abolish the division of power, or they disobey their direct orders and remove the authoritarian upstarts from power. If they choose to enact an authoritarian regime instead of removing the authoritarians from power, the only way out is resistance. Resistance against the people giving the orders and resistance against the people enforcing the orders.
And the people with guns receive their orders from the President and lower hierarchies of the executive branch.
While police are generally 'executive' they are often supposed to take orders directly from the courts. Most warrants begin with phrasing in this manner: "[any] peace officer shall arrest..." Some states also allow judges to directly order peace officers to make arrests for offense committed in the judge's presence without a warrant being drawn up first. Even if their boss is telling them to not do it, they should ignore the unlawful orders and get along with the handcuffing, but it won't ever happen.
Just like how trump was soft-handed in every courtroom for the last four years, I can't imagine any judge right now ordering his appearance at court or an arrest. Anyone with half a brain knows that he would ignore it, and it would go to the supreme court and they would rubber stamp whatever he had done as being not subject to the law because he was 'acting in the presidential capacity.'
I'm fully aware of the makeup of the Senate and the "it's ok if it's an official act, you can have little crime, as a treat" ruling by SOTUS. Our government is a house of cards built on a "gentleman's agreement" to generally not be a dick.
I'm just sick of it already. There's a bird flu coming and the CDC cannot warn us about it and likely won't be rolling out vaccines. There will only be lockdowns in the Blue states. Which will allow the strain to become more virulent in carrier populations in Red states. Tariffs are going to fuck over small businesses allowing for more venture capital buyouts and to top it all off Elon is capturing as much data as his grubby little paws can grasp.
I don't want to make this comment any longer as it'll fuck up the thread for everyone else, but there's resources in the comment below if any of y'all would like
Rookie mistake - you guys in the US thought "checks and balances" mean another thing, but it's now clear as day that they actually refer to checks from billionaires and bank account balances...
The Supreme Court has done everything but declare the Constitution null and void.
So.... A convicted rapist and felon doesn't trust judges and wants them to get out of the way of his other illegal and unconstitutional activities? You don't say...
Here is a clip of JD Vance in 2021 saying this is exactly what he would tell Trump to do when he wins in 2024:
“I think that what Trump should—like, if I was giving him one piece of advice—fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it"
Can't say he didn't warn everyone
Constitutional crisis or oligarchs' open-mic night? Legal ghouls shift to hand-wringing now that courts they weaponized for decades bend for Trump. Where was this faux outrage when Obama droned weddings or Bush gutted habeas corpus? The bench has always been a billionaires' batting cage – Musk just swapped his rocket for a gavel.
This 'crisis' is the propaganda cycle hitting puberty. Media hacks who normalized Patriot Act II suddenly care about checks and balances? Please. SCOTUS isn't corrupted – it's functioning exactly as designed: a veto board for capital.
Vance's rulings aren't an aberration – they're the theater of the absurd required to maintain empire cosplaying as democracy.
Musk must be dealt with.
The only person who was able to say no to Elon and actually have it stick is that judge in the Delaware Chancery who denied his $55 billion payout.
We must summon her again since it seems to be the only functioning thing left in the government capable of stopping him.
Well. Maybe only person in the states. We need to look to Brazil and the EU.
He cuts social security he will be. That'll be his undoing.
That's why he'll keep it for last. Once he has absolute control over everything including the military.
with Republicans controlling Congress, impeachment as a remedy appears unlikely.
I know what they mean, but the Republicans will be willing to impeach those judges to remedy the problem.
This, if they start ignoring judges, is the time to protest and riot.
The time for protests and riots was years ago my dude.
The second best time is now.
We can start in Philly with the Super Bowl win and spread out from there
Guys its ok democrats are having a meeting to schedule a committee to request an inquiry
Sarcasm aside, it would have no real power anyway.
Oh good so we're going to re-prosecute Marbury vs. Madison. I'm sure this won't end in civil war /s
This constitutional crisis is "looming" in the same way the saucers were "looming" over the Whitehouse in the movie independence day. While they were firing...
"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.” Isn’t this premise just blatantly wrong though? A judge is to uphold the law, and aren’t there laws governing how the military operates that, if violated, could be have legal consequences?
At least, isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
(Edit: I’m genuinely asking because I’m questioning my understanding of how these things are supposed to be balanced without giving absolute authority, as if in a dictatorship)
Where it actually breaks is unknowable, but the structure is:
Judges determine the interpretation of the law. The executive branch enforces the law.
Both of those branches derive their power from the constitution.
The military protects the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The President is the Command in Chief of the military, however service members from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to a Private fresh out of boot camp are instilled with the obligation to refuse illegal orders.
If the Supreme Court rules on an issue and the President tries to use the military in contravention of that ruling, the military is supposed to follow the constitution, not the President.
Judges are more for after-the-fact rulings.
Fair point but I think the argument is still that, even after, it is the judges job to say they are operating illegally and must therefore cease such operations and/or take the penalty, no?
2nd amendment does if they don’t
Jesus Christ....
Legal experts warn of a looming constitutional crisis after JD Vance suggested ~~judges lack authority over Trump’s “legitimate power.”~~ "Trump is our dictator now."
This weekend, I read through "Foundations of Leninism" where Stalin says how they were totally right to setup a vanguard party that conveniently puts him in charge.
Which is to say this: congrats to JD Vance for beating Joseph Stalin on the most self-justifying horseshit I've read this weekend.
(To any tankies who are about to reply, yes, I do happen to agree with a great deal in there. It's still self-justifying horseshit for actions already taken that happened to put him in charge.)