#Rule of law

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Seen yesterday on an overpass on the New Jersey Turnpike

* * * * *

Your weekly reminder: It’s a coup.

February 8, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

It’s a coup. The sooner that congressional Democrats and the legacy media acknowledge that fact, the better we will be able to calibrate our response and mount an effective defense. Democrats in Congress are beginning to get the message, largely because they are being flooded with outraged calls from their constituents. See The New Republic, “Disgusted” Democratic Voters Are Blowing Up Congress’s Phones.

To everyone reading this: Keep it up! In fact, redouble your efforts. There is no such thing as contacting your congressional representatives too much!

As noted yesterday, Democrats are starting to fight back in every venue possible. On Friday, Democrats and citizens who value the rule of law continued to make gains in the courts—even though it is not clear that court orders are being honored by Trump and Musk.

Indeed, the facts suggest that DOJ lawyers are not being candid or forthcoming with federal judges—a practice also known as “lying.” Sooner or later, federal judges will figure out that they are being misled by officers of the court and then there will be hell to pay. But we are getting ahead of ourselves . . . .

On Friday, there was more (mostly) good news on the litigation front. Indeed, the DOJ seems to be strategically retreating so it can get its lies, er, I mean its “story” straight. Let’s take a look at the good news and then examine the evidence of backsliding by the administration.

Before looking at the news, let’s take a quick refresher on the Constitution and the immutable laws of the universe.

A refresher course on the Constitution and the Laws of the Universe

Congress makes the laws (“all legislative Powers . . . shall be vested in a Congress.”)

The president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

All appropriations must be authorized by Congress (No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law)

The president must “execute”—i.e., carry out—the appropriations made by Congress.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prohibits the president from refusing to spend the money appropriated by Congress.

With the above firmly in mind, it is clear that Musk and Trump's “cutting” spending in various agencies violates Articles I and II of the Constitution, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and the founding principle of separation of powers.

The “cuts” that Musk and Trump are imposing through computer hacking relate to funds that Congress has already appropriated—and which must be “duly executed” by the president. If Musk and Trump want to effectuate future cuts to budgets, they must convince Congress to pass an appropriations bill that makes such cuts.

Congressional Republicans have sat on their hands as Musk and Trump have overridden Congress's Article I powers based on the vague excuse of “fraud,” which has never been specifically identified. Even if fraud exists, the remedy is not to override Congress’s role in the Constitution—it is to report the fraud to the DOJ for criminal prosecution and to Congress for remedial legislation.

Musk and Trump's unlawful actions go far beyond unauthorized “cuts” accomplished by computer hacking; they extend to the extinguishment of entire agencies and departments created and funded by Congress under the authority of Article I of the Constitution.

So, the “cuts” and “closures” are not merely “controversial,” or “disputed,” or “illegal.” They overthrow the constitutional order and separation of powers by claiming that the president exercises the authority granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution.

That is a coup. There is no other word for it.

Trump, having seized Congress’s authority under Article I of the Constitution, the open question is whether Trump will also claim the authority of the courts under Article III of the Constitution by asserting the right to decide which court orders, if any, he will obey.

Although the above sounds ominous, I remain confident and optimistic about the eventual outcome of this constitutional test. Why? because of the fourth branch of the government: the people.

Trump and Musk will get away with their unconstitutional coup up to the point that a critical mass of the people take notice, rise up, and put a stop to the assault on the Constitution. Based on the posts in the Comment section to yesterday’s newsletter, achieving that critical mass may be closer than Trump and Musk believe.

And then there are the Second and Third Laws of the Universe: The “Law of You Broke It, You Own It,” and the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” [Yesterday, I referred to the First Law of the Universe: “It is easier to break things than to fix them.”]

Taken together, the laws of the universe lead to the inevitable outcome in which something bad and unexpected happens, at which point Trump and Musk get 100% of the blame, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the event.

We are already beginning to see that dynamic as MAGA supporters are complaining that the price of eggs continues to increase (because of avian flu that is decimating stocks of egg-laying chickens). See this (satiric) commentary in Real Clear Politics, Egg Prices Are Totally Donald Trump's Fault!

It is also in the nature of things that everything in the universe regresses to the mean. Extreme events are rare and anomalous. They happen but then recede into the center regions of the Bell Curve, where we live most of our lives.

I do not suggest adopting a “This too shall pass” attitude. But we should recognize that as we fight to defend the Constitution, the immutable laws of the universe, the rules of probability, and the limits of human tolerance are on our side. We have every reason to be confident that we will prevail over the anti-democratic coup that is unfolding before our eyes. Let’s act like it! Act boldly and without fear!

Developments on Friday

The winning streak of coup opponents continued on Friday, with one exception. In the most significant victory, a federal judge prevented the administration from placing 2,200 USAID workers on paid leave. See press release from Democracy Forward, Breaking: Federal Judge Pauses Parts of USAID Shutdown in Response to Lawsuit.

Democracy Forward partnered with the Public Citizen Litigation Group to represent two groups of federal union employees seeking to prevent the illegal shuttering of USAID.

In the complaint, the core of the plaintiffs’ claim is set forth simply and elegantly:

Not a single one of defendants’ actions to dismantle USAID were taken pursuant to congressional authorization. And pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency.

The complaint also alleges:

The President of the United States has only those powers conferred on him by the Constitution and federal statutes

The President does not have the power under the Constitution unilaterally to amend statutes.

President Trump’s actions to dissolve USAID exceed presidential authority and usurp legislative authority conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, in violation of the separation of powers.

The logic made plain in the USAID complaint applies to virtually every unlawful action taken by the DOGE vandals to date.

In a second victory, a federal judge barred the FBI and DOJ from disseminating the names of the FBI agents who worked on the January 6 investigations. The judge entered an order on a stipulated consent order—i.e., a voluntary agreement between the plaintiff FBI agents (current and former) and the DOJ. The Consent Order is here: FBI Agents Association v DOJ | ORDER | 2025-02-07.

The consent order remains in effect until the hearing on a motion for preliminary inunction, or on two days’ notice, whichever is sooner.

But, in an action by employees of the Department of Labor, a federal judge denied the employees’ request for an order protecting their private information from DOGE hackers. See The Hill, Judge won’t block DOGE from accessing Labor Department systems.

The order denying the AFL/CIO’s motion for temporary restraining order is here: AFL / CIO v. Dept of Labor | Order.

The judge denied the request for a temporary restraining order on the ground that the plaintiffs have not yet suffered injury and, therefore, do not have standing to bring the suit at this time. The judge nonetheless scheduled a hearing on a preliminary injunction. In short, the case isn’t over.

However, even as employee unions are obtaining injunctive relief in court, it appears that Musk and Trump are continuing their march to the sea unabated. In a press availability on Friday, Trump said that he has effectively given DOGE free rein in making cuts—which, as noted above, violates Articles I and II of the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. See The Guardian, Trump hints Musk ‘Doge’ team has free rein with Pentagon next in line for cuts.

At the press conference, Trump said,

Pressed on whether there was anything he has told Musk he cannot touch, Trump offered only a vague reply. “Well, we haven’t discussed that much,” he confessed. “I’ll tell them to go here, go there. He does it. He’s got a very capable group of people. Very, very, very, very capable. “They know what they’re doing. They’ll ask questions, and they’ll see immediately as somebody gets tongue-tied that they’re either crooked or don’t know what they’re doing. We have very smart people going.”

No reporter asked Trump about the constitutionality or legality of Musk’s actions, asking instead whether anything is “off limits.” In response to that question, Trump said that the Department of Defense and the Department of Education are next:

I’ve instructed him to go check out education, to check out the Pentagon, which is the military. And you know, sadly, you’ll find some things that are pretty bad.

Finally, although a court order restrains Musk and DOGE from obtaining access to the Treasury payments system, Musk has managed to appoint a friend and fellow Silicon Valley venture capitalist to take charge of it. See The New Republic, Elon Musk to Install DOGE Crony Amid Treasury Department Takeover.

There is no indication—yet—that Musk has violated the order prohibiting DOGE from having anything more than “read-only” access to the Treasury payment system. Still, two sources (Talking Points Memo and Wired) suggest that DOGE agents have moved beyond read-only access.

Shutting down USAID is simply unconstitutional. For all intents and purposes, USAID has ceased work and been defunded. How that happened is not clear, but the onus is on Trump to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” Instead, plaintiffs and legal advocacy groups are forced to play “twenty questions” and “hide the ball” with DOJ lawyers feigning ignorance of the facts.

Concluding Thoughts

I will be on Substack Livestream on Saturday morning, February 8, at 9:00 am PST / 12:00 noon EST. I will send an email 30 minutes in advance. Just log onto the Substack app at the appointed time, and you will see a notice that I am live streaming.

There is a perverse dynamic at work. As Trump and Musk engage in ever more awful actions, they will hasten the moment of our victory. We shouldn’t wish for awful things to happen, but we should recognize that the cruelty and depravity of their actions are sowing the seeds of their failure while strengthening the opposition that will crush their hateful agenda.

Stay strong! Talk to you tomorrow!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[reality-detective]

Day 1 - No Time Wasted 🤔

[gwydionmisha]

The employees did nothing wrong. Republicans are hollowing out the FBI as part of the planned weaponization against anyone 47 or Kash Patel don't like.

[jurph]

[originalleftist]

There are really just two issues that matter this election:

One is climate- Biden put us on a path to halve carbon emissions in 6 years and reach net zero by 2050. Harris will continue that. Trump will actually increase use of fossil fuels while gutting regulations.

Every person on Earth will be harmed and endangered by that, regardless of your identity, location, or views.

The other issue is the peaceful transfer of power. Whatever problems you may have with Harris, she'll leave peaceably in 4 or 8 years. Trump will not. This is not fear mongering or hyperbole. He has said that if he wins we'll never need to vote again. He met his last electoral defeat by inciting and enabling a violent insurrection. Sure, he's an old man, but he's surrounded by young men who share the same contempt for democracy and the rule of law- like his Vice Presidential nominee, JD Vance, who will assume power if he dies in office.

We were lucky to get him out once, barely. His people are much more prepared for a coup now, he'll have broad legal immunity now thanks to SCOTUS, and he's openly vowed to become "a dictator on day one" and deploy troops on American streets.

Any issue with Harris is a temporary problem, and you can try again in 4 or 8 years. With Trump, you can't.

THE ONLY REASON TO ELECT TRUMP IS IF YOU ACTIVELY WANT THE WORLD TO BURN. And don't care how many actual people burn in the process. And if that is your position, then by your own choice you are an enemy of all humanity.

[baldwinheights]

[wangxianficrecs]

Follower Recs

~*~

hi I'd like to submit a fic rec, don't know if it's been recommended yet! A post CQL canon fic, where Chief Cultivator LWJ, with LJY's help, calls for proposals from cultivators to create a code of rules for cultivation society. It's so short, but *such* a richly written fic. With each rule that the cultivators submit, the author does a close study of plot and characters, that also considers the larger concerns of cultivation society & gentry. I read it, and then immediately reread it again and again. I've always enjoyed the care and insight that this author takes with their fics and this is another stunning one! @potatokunst

Rule of Law

by Deastar (@youhideastar)

T, 2k, Wangxian

Summary: Lan Jingyi shuffles into the office looking as if he’s eaten something unpleasant. “Hanguang-jun,” he says, with some trepidation. “I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but… I think what the cultivation world needs is a—a code of rules. Written down.”

~*~

(Please REBLOG as a signal boost for this hard-working author if you like – or think others might like – this story.)

[mapsontheweb]

Ranking by Rule Of Law

[liketwoswansinbalance]

I've been thinking about this dilemma for so long, so I decided to make a poll.

All I can say for now is that I fall into the "situational" category. In my opinion, unless I've forgotten some critical, concrete evidence, it's so hard to tell, to the point that I think it must be nuanced and situational, or simply a non-explicitly-addressed point in canon.

We've nearly always seen him in a position of authority and he's a disciplined character, so we could say "rule-follower." Why would he sabotage his own rules, even if he had authority to supersede them as their creator. So, yes, he is (even tentatively) pro-rules or potentially pro-rule-of-law because of how he wields authority. Indeed, he is kind of a walking rulebook.

But that's no fun. Let's complicate matters, shall we?: he deserts the School in Rise. A notable exception.

(His Monrovia Prison prison-break doesn't count at the moment because that "had to be done," in the spirit of self-preservation.)

Then, what of others' rules?

Maybe he'd follow them only at his convenience? Because he's used to being the authority in every room?

Any rule that doesn't make sense, that would seem beneath him, or just wouldn't fly—he wouldn't follow or allow it.

But... isn't he also intentionally a contrarian over 50% of the time? So, maybe he'd flout the rules just because he can, or, i.e., because he (usually) has immunity from them in his authoritative position.

Yet, if he didn't have that position, would he still rebel? Hard to say.

If he already benefited, he'd have little to no reason to rebel for others' sakes, even if they were suffering, so he's no classic, rebel protagonist vs. a dystopian government. Seems too idealistic for his character.

If he were on the oppressed side of a society, what would he do?

Perhaps, just game the system for himself and himself only, climb the ladder for status, to reach a position of power and erase all evidence of his formerly being oppressed. Bury the old identity, supplant a dictator? (This hypothetical brings to mind Coriolanus Snow, haha.)

How do I know? Or how would I speculate that this would happen in the dystopian scenario?:

1. This "elevating himself" course of action would be the route of least resistance and the least effort, logically. No messy overturning of society as he's just one person. You can make a case for one person, if that person can prove they're "deserving" of more.

2. Canonically, he was willing to install himself in a position of power while others weren't impacted or were negatively impacted, by his conscious-or-not choices.

With sorcery, I feel as if his being oppressed couldn't happen believably. (Search up the logistical problem with the "oppressed mages trope" and you'll probably see a few world-building articles, if you don't know what I'm talking about.)

Ok, then, moving on, there'd still be evidence, internal evidence, in his mind that he was once in some form of some low (social) position (not even referring to Nevers in-narrative, no, I mean as a hypothetical).

Just take the oppressed fantasy class trope—like the Grisha (they are sorcerers/witches, to a degree, and the Small Sciences are nearly indistinguishable from magic, right?).

What would he do there?

Well, I'm tempted to say he'd be like the Darkling, side with those in power (Tsar) and just... grant himself every advantage, secure rights for his own kind (magic-users).

The problem: he may not even reach Darkling levels of "selflessness" or solidarity. At least, he wouldn't view himself as lesser-than, which feels impossible by default, given his ego.

But, we're still left with the question, and I guess the answer is just situational. That's all.

So, the best, approximate answer I have (now) is that he is a rule-follower—until something affects him and his own self-interest personally.

I don't think he could be the rebel-without-a-cause type, but that's already unspecific and a useless categorization.

I view him as a loophole abuser or exploiter (of the literal) because of the one, weight-in-gold, Man-Wolf-involved, Rufius-death scene from Fall.

Classic trickster archetype, as I tend to label him, or The Man of Exact Words and Clauses. And that's within the rules! Of language!

Thus, I'm (currently—you're welcome to try to change my mind) compelled to say: rule-follower at heart, with a rebellious streak, given extenuating circumstances.

Or, alternatively, True Neutral (literally his apathy) in most cases, with a self-serving streak and a severe case of monotropism/one-track mind.

Does any motive or incentive to dismantle anything, systems(?), lurk in the shadows of his mind? Possibly. Well—for anything that serves him (and his causes).

See the problem? Caveats to everything.

Any thoughts or more condemning-or-not judgments, anyone?

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

John Buss

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 9, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Feb 09, 2025

On Friday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order “protecting Second Amendment rights.” The order calls for Attorney General Pam Bondi to examine all gun regulations in the U.S. to make sure they don’t infringe on any citizen’s right to bear arms. The executive order says that the Second Amendment “is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans.”

In fact, it is the right to vote for the lawmakers who make up our government that is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans.

The United States Constitution that establishes the framework for our democratic government sets out how the American people will write the laws that govern us. We elect members to a Congress, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. That congress of our representatives holds “all legislative powers”; that is, Congress alone has the right to make laws. It alone has the power to levy taxes on the American people, borrow money, regulate commerce, coin money, declare war, “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper.”

After Congress writes, debates, and passes a measure, the Constitution establishes that it goes to the president, who is also elected, through “electors,” by the people. The president can either sign a measure into law or veto it, returning it to Congress where members can either repass it over his veto or rewrite it. But once a law is on the books, the president must enforce it. The men who framed the Constitution wrote that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” When President Richard Nixon tried to alter laws passed by Congress by withholding the funding Congress had appropriated to put them into effect, Congress shut that down quickly, passing a law explicitly making such “impoundment” illegal.

Since the Supreme Court’s 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, the federal courts have taken on the duty of “judicial review,” the process of determining whether a law falls within the rules of the Constitution.

Right now, the Republicans hold control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. They have the power to change any laws they want to change according to the formula Americans have used since 1789 when the Constitution went into effect.

But they are not doing that. Instead, officials in the Trump administration, as well as billionaire Elon Musk— who put $290 million into electing Trump and Republicans, and whose actual role in the government remains unclear— are making unilateral changes to programs established by Congress. Through executive orders and announcements from Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” they have sidelined Congress, and Republicans are largely mum about the seizure of their power.

Now MAGA Republicans are trying to neuter the judiciary.

After yet another federal judge stopped the Musk/Trump onslaught by temporarily blocking Musk and his team from accessing Americans’ records from Treasury Department computers, MAGA Republicans attacked judges. “Outrageous,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) posted, spreading the lie that the judge barred the Secretary of the Treasury from accessing the information, although in fact he temporarily barred Treasury Secretary Bessent from granting access to others. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said the decision had “the feel of…a judicial” coup. Right-wing legal scholar Adrian Vermeule called it “[j]udicial interference with legitimate acts of state.”

Vice President J.D. Vance, who would take over the office of the presidency if the 78-year-old Trump can no longer perform the duties of the office, posted: “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

As legal scholar Steve Vladeck noted: “Just to say the quiet part out loud, the point of having unelected judges in a democracy is so that *whether* acts of state are ‘legitimate’ can be decided by someone other than the people who are undertaking them. Vermeule knows this, of course. So does Vance.” Of Vance’s statement, Aaron Rupar of Public Notice added: “this is the sort of thing you post when you’re ramping up to defying lawful court orders.”

The Republicans have the power to make the changes they want through the exercise of their constitutional power, but they are not doing so. This seems in part because Trump and his MAGA supporters want to establish the idea that the president cannot be checked. And this dovetails with the fact they are fully aware that most Americans oppose their plans. Voters were so opposed to the plan outlined in Project 2025—the plan now in operation—that Trump ran from it during the campaign. Popular support for Musk’s participation in the government has plummeted as well. A poll from The Economist/YouGov released February 5 says that only 13% of adult Americans want him to have “a lot” of influence, while 96% of respondents said that jobs and the economy were important to them and 41% said they thought the economy was getting worse.

Trump’s MAGA Republicans know they cannot get the extreme changes they wanted through Congress, so they are, instead, dictating them. And Musk began his focus at the Treasury, establishing control over the payment system that manages the money American taxpayers pay to our government.

Musk and MAGA officials claim they are combating waste and fraud, but in fact, when Judge Carl Nichols stopped Trump from shutting down USAID, he specifically said that government lawyers had offered no support for that argument in court. Indeed, the U.S. government already has the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent, nonpartisan agency that audits, evaluates and investigates government programs for Congress. In 2023 the GAO returned about $84 for every $1 invested in it, in addition to suggesting improvements across the government.

Until Trump fired 18 of them when he took office, major departments also had their own independent inspectors general, charged with preventing and detecting fraud, waste, abuse, misconduct, and mismanagement in the government and promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in government operations and programs.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation also investigates corruption, including that committed by healthcare providers.

According to Musk’s own Grok artificial intelligence tool on X, the investigative departments of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as well as USAID, have all launched investigations into the practices and violations of Elon Musk’s companies.

But Trump has been gutting congressional oversight, apparently wanting to make sure that no one can oversee the president. Rather than rooting out waste and corruption in the government, Musk and his ilk have launched a hostile takeover to turn the United States of America into a business that will return huge profits to those leaders who, in the process of moving fast and breaking things, are placing themselves at the center of the lives of 332 million people. Breaking into the U.S. Treasury payment system puts Musk and his DOGE team at the head of the country’s nerve center.

The vision they are enacting rips predictability, as well as economic security, away from farmers, who are already protesting the loss of their markets with the attempted destruction of USAID. It hurts the states—especially Republican-dominated states—that depend on funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education. Their vision excludes consumers, who are set to lose the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as protections put in place by President Joe Biden. Their vision takes away protections for racial, ethnic, religious, and gender minorities, as well as from women, and kills funding for the programs that protect all of us, such as cancer research and hospitals.

Musk and Trump appear to be concentrating the extraordinary wealth of the American people, along with the power that wealth brings, into their own hands, for their own ends. Trump has championed further tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, while Musk seems to want to make sure his companies, especially SpaceX, win as many government contracts as possible to fund his plan to colonize Mars.

But the mission of the United States of America is not, and has never been, to return huge profits to a few leaders.

The mission of the United States of America is stated in the Constitution. It is a government designed by “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Far from being designed to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a single man, it was formed to do the opposite: spread wealth and power throughout the country’s citizenry and enable them to protect their rights by voting for those who would represent them in Congress and the presidency, then holding them accountable at the ballot box.

The people who think that bearing arms is central to maintaining American rights are the same people who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election by storming the United States Capitol because they do not command the votes to put their policies in place through the exercise of law outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[reality-detective]

American History You Were Never Taught! 🤔

[davidaugust]

“I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment.”

“I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.”

“I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court.”

Yes please.

Gift link to President Biden’s proposal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzIyMjI1NjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzIzNjA3OTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3MjIyMjU2MDAsImp0aSI6IjI5ODkwY2VjLTYwZTItNDZmZi1hOWZkLWQwOTJjZmI5MGNjMSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9vcGluaW9ucy8yMDI0LzA3LzI5L2pvZS1iaWRlbi1yZWZvcm0tc3VwcmVtZS1jb3VydC1wcmVzaWRlbnRpYWwtaW1tdW5pdHktcGxhbi1hbm5vdW5jZW1lbnQvIn0.ZjQ4R9u8pwlIKd0l230VD0f20mb0V140Kw3gTFopyfM

[isaacsapphire]

Perp walk for Mangione was a show of force in support of the rule of law. Everyone knows murder for profit is wrong. Apparently it’s a matter of public debate whether it’s ok to murder an individual deemed symbolically responsible for a systemic problem which he did not personally cause and could not have personally solved.

Rule of law? I understand what you’re saying, but rule of law includes presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, which both were impinged upon by that perp walk.

Luigi has plead not guilty, and for all I know all the evidence was planted and he’s just a slightly loopy guy who would fit in here and was on an American walkabout when the cops decided to frame him because they needed a perp in custody asap.

And yes, the overall public reaction to the killing has been somewhere between joy and the arguably mild approval of the “we aren’t going to try to help solve this one” from various investigative subreddits, to people arguing about the true cause of the health care crisis in the United States.

The aggression of the response to both Luigi and Boston really doesn’t feel like equality under the law, because the same offenses are treated differently when the victims are regular people.

[wrightinthephoenix]

“I think that President Trump is following through on the statements he’s made a number of times that his appointments to the Supreme Court owe him and should show him loyalty, and he believes that between his three appointees and Justices Thomas and Alito, that he can have a majority willing to allow him to violate any federal law he wants to.”