It’s been said by others, but MAGAts are in a death cult. They’re not really interested in governing so much as they are in burning everything to the ground. I can’t remember which Democratic representative said this of the recent shenannigans in the House, but it went something like, “You [Republicans] have been distrustful of the government for so long that you don’t even trust each other.” The draw for Trump supporters is that he wants to tear it all down. The judicial system, the legislature, the executive, and even the US Constitution.
Agree (sadly). There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who make a mark, and those who leave a stain.
He might be able to claim that, but he sure as hell is not gonna love being broke, incarcerated or (hopefully) both. Let’s hope both of those come to fruition.
It is that weird American thing where the Tree of Liberty can only be watered with blood. Hey US, the rest of world uses water.
I’d like to dismiss Trump’s attempts at inspiring stochastic terrorism as accomplishing nothing but unfortunately I think what he is doing is setting a precedent here. If you do not like the proceeding, attack the judge, the staff, the whole process and call it political persecution. This does not benefit the system as a whole.
As I see it… had he never gone into politics, he would have continued being just one more of the privileged who, I believe, would have got, guess what, privileged treatment in the system. But at the same time, that lived experienced let him know that yes, the system is set up to treat some better than others. But… he believes that’s something he intrinsically deserved. Thus, to him the decision that we can’t just let it slide because he’s too visible an example, is “unfair”. He thinks, “I did this for 50 years and everyone looked the other way and now I have to be punished for it?”
So basically the ending of “Road House,” but without a polar bear falling on someone.
But was the 2nd Amendment not meant to cover precisely this situation where the Justice Department cannot operate, Congress and Senate will not act (impeach) despite clear and overwhelming evidence, the Cabinet (Trump’s cabinet, to be sure) looks the other way and the risk of dictatorship and oppression is real and imminent?
Because you don’t need the 2nd Amendment when everything is going just dandy, but when you unfortunately need it, it is likely going to look a lot like lynching. That is in the nature of bearing arms with the intention to use them.
Asking from abroad and in no way advocating an extrajudicial killing, but the logic of the 2nd Amendment seems clear to me: that is the situation it was meant for. Otherwise you might as well declare it void, ban the NRA and safe yourselves a lot of trouble on another front. IANAL, of course, and US logic sometimes seems impenetrable to me. Same goes for the First Amendment, where I want to thank @Cervaise for their excellent explanations in post #11.
Just a clarification to my previous post because it may not be evident: the 2nd Amendment is a bad idea IMO.
Whether that’s what it was intended for or not, you recognize why this would be a bad thing, right? My seatbelt is designed to protect me should I get into a crash by controlling rate my body deaccelerates and keeping it secure is what it’s there for. Even with a seatbelt functioning as designed, crashing is still bad.
Yes, I do recognize that this would be a very bad thing, and I insist: I think the 2nd Amendment is a very bad idea in itself, as such, per se, and it is even worse to codify this in a law, particularly such a fundamental one as the Constitution. If everything else fails, the situation becomes desperate, then you don’t need the 2nd Amendment to kill a tyrant. It has happened again and again since the dawn of history. Putting it in writing gives rise to all kind of problems ( → NRA, → vigilantism, → terrorism…).
But if (if!) the Justice Department cannot solve this problem, and I think the OP wants it to be able to and still believes that not all is lost on that front, to which I wish them all the good fortune they and your country will need, if, as I was saying, the legal means don’t work, the illegal means become legal by force of the 2nd Amendment, right? That is the legal logic behind it, is it not? It would be a catastrophe, it could even lead to a civil war or worse, but the 2nd Amendment is not supposed to be taken lightly. It is or should be a last resort in desperate times.
I repeat: IANAL. Not even an American.
My 2nd Amendment solution comment wasn’t meant to start a discussion about the 2nd Amendent. That’s a hijack of this thread and something we probably don’t want to discuss here further.
Agreed. Sorry if this went too far.
Thanks both for self-correcting.
I’ve really enjoyed and appreciated reading all the thoughtful discussion in this thread. In particular, @Cervaise went to a great deal of trouble to put together an impressive and informative post. Kudos for that, and not just because I agree with him.
I think he is correct, that the American obsession with “mah raghhhhts,” particularly as they relate to first and second amendment issues, has been weaponized by the Right to prevent us from making common sense adjustments to these issues in betterment of our national well being. And because we’re a big country, and this war on common sense has gone on for decades in order to become successful, it’s going to take time (probably a lot of time) to course correct – if that can be done at all. Absent a widespread recognition of this malignant force in our politics by American voters, I fear our goose is cooked.
I started this thread because of frustration I felt at someone taking cheap shots at a judge who is only trying to work within the framework of the system we created. It’s not the judge’s fault that he is constrained in this way, and IMHO, it is far more dangerous for us to put some pig lipstick on a preferred outcome to justify a dubious action. There are so few left to defend our democracy.
I don’t believe the judiciary alone can solve our problems, far from it. As was pointed out by @ParallelLines, it, too, is perverted by Trump’s many ideological appointees – and let’s face it, that’s more McConnell’s and the Federalist Society’s dirty work than Trump’s – so there is much there to criticize. I just hope smart people will make the effort to discern between the members of the judiciary who are fighting for democracy and the ones who aren’t.
Thanks again to all for carrying on a great discussion.
The ancient Constitution of ours seems to be stretched to the limit. First it seemed to be the age of the document, and what does it man now? But on the other hand it is very difficult to change things in a two party system. I pulled up the current Finnish constitution (since I can read it). It is not likely much different from Nordic countries other than they have kings and queens. To add an amendment, it requires 5/6 approval in their one house. That is quite possible in the multiparty system. They are bound by some EU rules, but certainly threats from abroad (Russia) can be handled by changes in the constitution. Also, this sort of “new” constitution in Europe allows all the nationalist parties there to achieve their changes. A good part of modern politics deals with processing migrants/refugees and then “send them back” operations.