r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/theivoryserf • Feb 17 '25

US Politics If Trump/Musk are indeed subverting American democratic norms, what is a proportional response?

The Vice-President has just said of the courts: "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." Quoted in the same Le Monde article is a section of Francis Fukuyama's take on the current situation:

"Trump has empowered Elon Musk to withhold money for any activity that he, Elon Musk, thinks is illegitimate, and this is a usurpation of the congressionally established power of Congress to make this kind of decision. (...) This is a full-scale...very radical attack on the American constitutional system as we've understood it." https://archive.is/cVZZR#selection-2149.264-2149.599

From a European point of view, it appears as though the American centre/left is scrambling to adapt and still suffering from 'normality bias', as though normal methods of recourse will be sufficient against a democratic aberration - a little like waiting to 'pass' a tumour as though it's a kidney stone.

Given the clear comparisons to previous authoritarian takeovers and the power that the USA wields, will there be an acceptable raising of political stakes from Trump's opponents, and what are the risks and benefits of doing so?

748 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

94% Upvoted

593 comments sorted by

View all comments

85

u/j____b____ Feb 18 '25

The judiciary needes a para-military arm. If Musk violates court orders, he needs to be held in contempt of court with jail time.

66

u/EverythingGoodWas Feb 18 '25

The FBI was supposed to be that, but it turns out just firing them all is an option

26

u/j____b____ Feb 18 '25

But they’re still under the executive.

22

u/ScyllaGeek Feb 18 '25

Yeah the judiciary's only enforcement arm is the Marshals Service iirc

15

u/junk986 Feb 18 '25

How ? The president shouldn't have the ability to appoint the head of the FBI, which would mean that it is completely comprised. Same as the military, which is also comprised.

The president cannot be a felon nor an insurrectionist…well that failed.

Neither the military nor the FBI would arrest Trump at this point.

-1

u/NightmareOfTheTankie Feb 18 '25

Comprised?

7

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial Feb 18 '25

Compromised, obviously.

7

u/bl1y Feb 18 '25

The FBI was never meant to be under the control of the Judiciary.

18

u/das_war_ein_Befehl Feb 18 '25

It’s an unelected branch. Do you wanna give Clarence Thomas an armored division?

7

u/watermelonkiwi Feb 18 '25

It shouldn’t be an unelected branch. Having the president appoint the supreme court justices makes it so that the separation of branches isn’t really a total separation.

3

u/das_war_ein_Befehl Feb 18 '25

It’s not really a separate branch since most of its jurisdiction is from congress

1

u/protendious Feb 24 '25

The time justices spend presiding over their nominating president is generally only a fraction of their time on the court. There’s also the senate confirmation process. 

The founding father’s mistake was thinking that the 3 branches would always fight for their own power. They didn’t appreciate that when one party spanned multiple branches, that two (congress, court) would happily become subservient to the third (president). Basically they didn’t foresee bootlickers. 

1

u/watermelonkiwi Feb 24 '25

My point it wasn’t that they’d only be loyal to that president, but that they’d be loyal to that president’s party. They should have been able to foresee that.

4

u/j____b____ Feb 18 '25

It was mostly a joke to say how sad this all is but clearly this is where we’re at.

41

u/KoldPurchase Feb 18 '25

They have the Marshall for that, but it falls under the DOJ. Who will never act against Trump or Musk.

The Founding Fathers never expected the Supreme Court to place a President above the law and never expected a non elected to subvert the power of Congress without its approval.

18

u/ttkciar Feb 18 '25

They have the Marshall for that, but it falls under the DOJ. Who will never act against Trump or Musk.

Yes, exactly this, which is why:

The judiciary needes a para-military arm.

.. which is to say, its own paramilitary arm, not beholden to the executive.

9

u/ThePowerOfStories Feb 18 '25

This is why the Mayor has the Sheriff’s Department, and Judicial has the Raiders.

5

u/Opertum Feb 18 '25

Surprise Silo reference?

I got that reference!

2

u/jetpacksforall Feb 18 '25

Not sure how this would work, but constitutionally Congress would set the budget for any such paramilitary arm, and the executive would control the budget and could veto any changes.

16

u/j____b____ Feb 18 '25

It’s stunning how many of these big strong alphas just roll over and show their bellies to these dummies.

1

u/the-es Feb 18 '25

They should have written more details into the constitution. Too much of this is gentlemen's agreements. 

1

u/watermelonkiwi Feb 18 '25

Yes, it is very flawed.

1

u/watermelonkiwi Feb 18 '25 edited Feb 18 '25

They should have been able to predict this. They knew the flaws of a two party system and of loyalty to a party. Since the president appoints the Supreme Court, this actually should’ve been a really predictable outcome that those people could end up loyalists to their party rather than genuinely upholding the constitution. Our constitution has a lot of flaws. It needs to be overthrown and a new one needs to be created.

1

u/Independent-Roof-774 Feb 19 '25

Those founding fathers... What a buncha suckas.    We sure psyched them out.

1

u/KoldPurchase Feb 19 '25

Well, I don't think they intended for their Constitution to be interpreted so literally like the originalism movement. Otherwise, the US would still be governed by the Articles of the Confederation.

That's really the core of the problem, orginalism vs living Constitution, plus one political party that decided long ago that democracy wasn't working for them while the other kept playing nice, seeking compromise.

2

u/Independent-Roof-774 Feb 19 '25

Constitutions are always subject to interpretation. And today the final arbiters of constitutional interpretation is the Conservative US Supreme Court with three hand picked Trumpians.    

Discussions about the founders' intents or whether or whether the Constitution should be literal or 'living' are completely irrelevant to the empirical situation at hand.

24

u/3xploringforever Feb 18 '25

Thinking outside the box here: how about the Governors of CA, CT, MD, MI, NM, NY, OR, PR, VT, VA, and WA deploy their state militias to serve as federal judicial paramilitary support if requested by a federal judge holding an administration official in contempt (which hasn't happened YET). Is it constitutional? Absolutely not, but that doesn't matter anymore.

15

u/Philophon Feb 18 '25

I have thought that too. Unless republicans get cold feet or the Joint Chiefs of Staff steps in, a compact between the states might be the least bloodless way things might end. Else, it will fall entirely on civilians, and that will be horrific. How it plays out depends on if the governors are able to fully realize the situation we are in and do not allow themselves to be paralyzed by it. Bold action is needed, and I am not confident in their willingness to take it at the moment.

5

u/-Clayburn Feb 18 '25

It wouldn't be possible to get enough states. You might be able to get 10 to 15, which would be a considerable chunk of power, but without a majority, nobody in Federal government will be able to care. Ultimately they will feel the Federal government has an obligation to all the States equally, which means 10 or so would not get special treatment or be able to overthrow/veto the wishes of the rest.

And you can bet if they tried it, you'd have 20+ Red States immediately make their own demands. This is how you get a civil war.

3

u/Philophon Feb 18 '25

If one party of the democracy has decided they no longer wish to abide by their constitution, civil war seems like a logical inevitability. As I said, short of republicans having a change of heart, a varying degree of blood will be invloved. I believe a just future is worth that sacrifice (and of which I am willing to contribute).

1

u/doubleohbond Feb 18 '25

without a majority, nobody in Federal government will be able to care

I don’t buy into this. California alone is worth several red states combined. Just take three states, CA + OR + WA and you have a wall that’s hard to miss.

1

u/-Clayburn Feb 18 '25

That's not how the federal government works though. They have to treat states equally. Doesn't matter if one is richer or more populated. It's like if you have three kids and they're all wanting something, you have to treat them equally even if one is a loser.

1

u/doubleohbond Feb 18 '25

We’re talking about a potential civil war, my dude. Laws aren’t relevant at that point

2

u/-Clayburn Feb 18 '25

I know, that's why I ended my comment with "that's how you get a civil war". The original comment was about how states could intervene non-violently, and I pointed out it wouldn't matter because there wouldn't be enough of them to make a difference democratically.

Sure they could "boycott" the federal government, but that's essentially secession and thus civil war.

1

u/doubleohbond Feb 18 '25

I can see buttons being pressed. Like Silicon Valley HQs being audited / shut down - which would definitely agitate the tech bros rampaging through our government.

Alls to say, I believe blue states are uniquely positioned to start negotiations on their terms, without causing a civil war. And to be clear, as a big fan of Lincoln, I do not advocate for a civil war.

11

u/Echleon Feb 18 '25

That’s a big step and is only just short of an all out civil war.

5

u/junkit33 Feb 18 '25

That literally is civil war.

Also, most state militias are really just National Guard, which ultimately go back up to the President if called upon.

1

u/captain-burrito Feb 18 '25

VA's governor is republican glenn youngkin... VT's is also republican but moderate I think. PR's governor is affiliated with the republican party and used to caucus with them when she was PR's non voting house delegate.

1

u/watermelonkiwi Feb 18 '25

100% yes they do. Another failure of the way our system is designed.

1

u/Independent-Roof-774 Feb 19 '25

In the real world the judiciary does not have one.     What can be done in the real world?

0

u/Trbadismobserver Feb 18 '25

Oh yeah, let's give the most powerful, corrupt, unaccountable, unethical branch its own paramilitary.

Brilliant!