We are tottering on the edge of dictatorship. Powerful voices across institutions, from politics to academia and religion, must speak out

The US constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray.

At this rate, we will not make it through the second 100 days.

Federal judges in more than 120 cases so far have sought to stop Trump – judges appointed by Republicans as well as Democrats, some appointed by Trump himself – but the regime is either ignoring or appealing their orders. It has even arrested a municipal judge in Milwaukee amid a case involving an undocumented defendant.

Recently, Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III of the court of appeals for the fourth circuit – an eminent conservative Reagan appointee who is revered by the Federalist Society – issued a scathing rebuke to the Trump regime. In response to its assertion that it can abduct residents of the US and put them into foreign prisons without due process, Wilkinson wrote:

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ would lose its meaning.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    1·
    13 hours ago

    Hah, it’s now a discussion of literal existentialism.

    No If USA falls into a fascist dictatorship, and the fedetal government takes full control, but in another 10 years, the fascist regime is exchanged for democracy again.
    How can you say USA didn’t survive, just because they had a bad period?

    Again, that’s not what justified the civil war.

    You are arguing arbitrary points that have no impact on my original claim.

    The assumption you’re making is that the federal govt was designed to have autonomy of its own separate from the states.

    No what I argue is based on the reality that the president has the executive power, and can choose to ignore the checks and balances, because they are poorly designed, and only work when everybody respects them.
    But again all that is besides the point.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      1·
      5 hours ago

      How can you say USA didn’t survive, just because they had a bad period?

      I’ve stated pretty clearly at least 3 times now that in that specific scenario, I would consider the re-established democracy to be the same country.

      You are arguing arbitrary points that have no impact on my original claim.

      The inverse. You keep noting that the EU would allow a peaceful secession, but the US would not, and I’m saying that’s irrelevant now and it was also irrelevant during the civil war.

      the president has the executive power, and can choose to ignore the checks and balances

      Again, the inverse is true. Executive Decisions are simply a notice of intent, they are not law. Only the legislative branch can create laws. But the situation we find ourselves in is both Congress and scotus respecting the Executive Decisions as law. That was never supposed to happen. Now the state judges are trying to act as the last line of defense. This is not besides the point, this is literally what the entire thread, and my original comment is about.