143
Why federal courts are unlikely to save democracy from Trump’s and Musk’s attacks
(theconversation.com)
Because they are forcefully doing it anyway?
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
143 points (97.4% liked)
politics
20080 readers
4245 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
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.
None of that matters as long as the rich make money.
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.
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.
Founders should've given the courts an army
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.
Quench the Tree of Liberty.
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...
In theory, this is what the "unorganized militia" is for. A.k.a. you and me and every other able-bodied adult male.
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.
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.
The speed of change isn't the problem. A functional court system can strike down these executive orders as fast as Trump can sign them. It's not like he blinks and the world just changes around him.
The problem twofold:
One is that our founding fathers didn't properly balance the three branches of government. WIthout giving the Supreme Court a method of enforcement, they always have been little more than an advisory panel. It's only held up for 200 years because the Supreme Court gave themselves at least some of the power the founding fathers should have given in the first place and a gentleman's agreement not to rock the boat which somehow managed to hold for 200 years.
The second is that our founding fathers really didn't give any guidance about what to do if even one of the three branches of government goes rogue, let alone all three. They gave absolutely no guidance about what to do when that gentleman's agreement doesn't hold up. They gave absolutely no answer to the question of "I'll do what I want, what are you going to do about it?"
And here we are, being led by a man who is literally pissing on the Constitution and asking what anyone's going to do about it, and the answer he's getting is a whole lot of "Nothing."
The answer is violence.
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.
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.
You keep talking in future tense...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thought the guidance was the 2nd amendment?
you've had over 200 years to fix these problems
can't just blame those who built the base
Why does the Department of Justice falls under the executive?
Supposed to be separation of powers, Judiciary is supposed to just look at evidence and make judgement calls, the executive is supposed to do the legwork to actually bring that evidence to the courts. If the Judiciary is the ones collecting evidence and making the judgement calls as to what will and won't support a particular position, that's a bad thing.
Unfortunately that separation of power breaks down when fascists controll most/all the levers of power.
The solution, perhaps, is to make the DoJ independent
And what does an independent DoJ look like to you?
2a
The first amendment is kind of about our ability to openly say "time to use the second amendment".
You need to fight them in the mud where they want to be. Quit trying to take the high road