• RandAlThor@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    3 months ago

    It is scary that the last line of defense against authoritarianism is the judicial system.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yep, because the Tribunal of Six is the final (legal) court of appeal in the country.

      The checks are fraudulent and the balances have been tampered with.

    • Typhoon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      No the last line is the citizens but they seem content to sit back and watch their democracy collapse.

      • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        People aren’t just sitting back though. The world literally just watched someone intentionally kill Charlie Kirk in a public setting, in front of thousands of people.

        • Typhoon@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          He wasn’t defending democracy. He shot him because he wasn’t fascist enough

          • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s speculation at best. The kid they apprehended hasn’t confessed to anything.

            Dont listen to the pundits. For anything. As someone recently suggested, pundits are just the court jesters keeping us divided.

          • HectorBanned
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            The shooter shot him because he was spreading hate.

          • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Again - speculation. Kid is only a suspect at the moment, hasn’t confessed to anything, yet the court jesters pundits are going absolutely hogwild over “what ifs” and assumptions based on absolutely nothing.

      • yucandu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        If it comes to the citizens, we’re all gonna have a bad time.

      • aesthelete
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        There are some people doing some stuff. But definitely not at the scale nor intensity required.

        • Typhoon@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh, it’s hard? Sorry, I didn’t realize defending your democracy would be inconvenient for you. Oh well, nothing you can do then.

    • L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I get what you are saying and totally empathize with the sentiment given a modern context, but that is the purpose of judiciaries and why the US federal goverment structure was designed the way it was.

      What’s surprising is not that it’s the last line of defense, it’s that we’ve been pushed to the fucking brink.

      • evenglow
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        USA fell off the brink last November. Everything going on now is the falling down bit while people hope someone else is stacking pillows at the bottom. But pillows got real expensive lately and a new Trump headline just dropped.

    • evenglow
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      More scary that it’s down to lawyers. Not the judges.

    • Taldan
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s always been the judicial system. In Nazi Germany, the courts were incredibly close to blocking the concentration camps. If they had, we’d have had a very different history

      • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Total concentration camp casualties were about 13 million. (about half of that jews, but we almost don’t talk about the rest, Israel makes sure the focus is on jews). Mind bogglingingly horrible.

        But total WWII casualties were something like 80 million.

        Would history be different? Sure. Amongst other things, Zionists wouldn’t be able to weaponize guilt.

      • SoloCritical
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        And why they didn’t just use an AI to summarize all the key points in just as much time as it took to write is beyond me lol.

        • FridaySteve
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          “Since you didn’t bother to write it, I didn’t bother to read it.”

          • SoloCritical
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Oof yeah I didn’t really think of that, I guess I was thinking this was the oppositions lawyer we were speaking about.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    3 months ago

    “As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective – not a protected platform to rage against an adversary.”

    You have to be a really shit lawyer to work for Trump.

    • ultranaut
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      It would be great if the lawyers actually faced consequences for such blatant abuses of their profession. Lawyers are supposed to have standards they adhere to which are obviously not being followed. These lawyers know what they are doing is wrong and are doing it intentionally, their Bar association really should not tolerate this behavior.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          They should be figuring out ways to expedite that process because any semblance of respect for our legal system is vaporizing by the hour.

          Sure the average person always had mistrust of it, but when you have the important people in the industry say it, you know it’s fucked because part of their job is to try to retain respect for the institution.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            They should be figuring out ways to expedite that process because any semblance of respect for our legal system is vaporizing by the hour.

            That cuts both ways - you want a process that is diligent and non-reactionary. Trump will always find more stupid lawyers willing to fall on their sword for him anyway.

    • anon6789
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      I loved that quote! 😄

      And this was a court they cherrypicked for presumed favorability.

      I love that we still get some moments like this.

    • mkwt
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      The judge gave them a page limit, too.

    • Paddzr
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      He has admitted doing it because it drains their resources.

      We need slap laws everywhere.

    • FEIN
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Some people reading your comment might take it as an exaggeration, but it was LITERALLY as frivolous as it could be. The judge who dismissed it said it contained repetitive praise for the president without establishing properly their reasons for legal action.

  • Pavidus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    Headline tomorrow: “Trump appeals decision against New York Times, suit remains.”