Mr. Nunziata is, of course, absolutely correct. But the problem isn't really Trump or the people he installs in the judiciary. The problem is the Congress we have which, in turn, means the problem is the voters that we have.
From what I can tell we have enough voters who affirmatively want or will tolerate an autocratic and illiberal form of government that will "get stuff done." So Congress is not just doing what Trump wants but what they believe "the people" want Trump to do.
Anarchy (lawlessness, disorder, etc.) is a tool in the hands of autocrats. Social, legal, moral and economic predictability is replaced by the Fiat of the autocrat. Therefore the quintessentially predictable judiciary with its stable internal logic and its irksome precedents must be overcome. From that point "conservative" juris prudence simply becomes a system of legalistic rationalization. In other words it becomes the judicial activism that it supposedly was meant to oppose.
I am a pessimist. I believe we have already passed the "Constitutional Crisis" that everyone seems to think is in the future. Republicans are already acting as if they will never have to face another free and fair election. If they did they would be paying more attention to what the polls are saying. Even people who support tough immigration policies (beyond the MAGA world cult) don't like the way those policies are being implemented.
The re-redistricting of Republican controlled states (and the tit for tat response of Democratic controlled states) is another symptom of democratic decline. Here in Florida "the people" passed a constitutional amendment to prevent the sort of gerrymandering that Trump is promoting. But the rubber-stamping Republican Supreme Court of Florida found that the 2022 re-redistricting that Governor Desantis forced through intending to reduce Democratic districts and dilute the Black vote did not violate that amendment. Having found that one time it is pretty certain that the Republican drive to reduce the 8 member Democratic Congressional delegation down to 3 will also be permitted.
Of course the permanent Democratic minority will be allowed to carry on in order to maintain the illusion of a functioning democracy. They will even win some elections but not enough to change the balance of power.
What's replacing the rule of law is anything but anarchy. Autocracy is what's coming, and the Republicans in the Senate are fine with it, they proved over and over again for ten years -- and more, let's be honest -- because the profit well. The unitary executive did not originate with Trump, nor did the idea that if the president does it, it's not illegal. However, they both have a Republican pedigree.
Anarchy and autocracy are two sides of the same coin because an authoritarian selectively offers the state's protection to favored groups while allowing disfavored groups and people to fend for themselves even as social forces are encouraged to target them
At this point it really doesn't matter. It isn't as if Thomas and Alito are really any more principled than Bove. Trump has a whole slew of equally awful people to pick from now.
Mr. Nunziata is, of course, absolutely correct. But the problem isn't really Trump or the people he installs in the judiciary. The problem is the Congress we have which, in turn, means the problem is the voters that we have.
From what I can tell we have enough voters who affirmatively want or will tolerate an autocratic and illiberal form of government that will "get stuff done." So Congress is not just doing what Trump wants but what they believe "the people" want Trump to do.
Anarchy (lawlessness, disorder, etc.) is a tool in the hands of autocrats. Social, legal, moral and economic predictability is replaced by the Fiat of the autocrat. Therefore the quintessentially predictable judiciary with its stable internal logic and its irksome precedents must be overcome. From that point "conservative" juris prudence simply becomes a system of legalistic rationalization. In other words it becomes the judicial activism that it supposedly was meant to oppose.
I am a pessimist. I believe we have already passed the "Constitutional Crisis" that everyone seems to think is in the future. Republicans are already acting as if they will never have to face another free and fair election. If they did they would be paying more attention to what the polls are saying. Even people who support tough immigration policies (beyond the MAGA world cult) don't like the way those policies are being implemented.
The re-redistricting of Republican controlled states (and the tit for tat response of Democratic controlled states) is another symptom of democratic decline. Here in Florida "the people" passed a constitutional amendment to prevent the sort of gerrymandering that Trump is promoting. But the rubber-stamping Republican Supreme Court of Florida found that the 2022 re-redistricting that Governor Desantis forced through intending to reduce Democratic districts and dilute the Black vote did not violate that amendment. Having found that one time it is pretty certain that the Republican drive to reduce the 8 member Democratic Congressional delegation down to 3 will also be permitted.
Of course the permanent Democratic minority will be allowed to carry on in order to maintain the illusion of a functioning democracy. They will even win some elections but not enough to change the balance of power.
What's replacing the rule of law is anything but anarchy. Autocracy is what's coming, and the Republicans in the Senate are fine with it, they proved over and over again for ten years -- and more, let's be honest -- because the profit well. The unitary executive did not originate with Trump, nor did the idea that if the president does it, it's not illegal. However, they both have a Republican pedigree.
Anarchy and autocracy are two sides of the same coin because an authoritarian selectively offers the state's protection to favored groups while allowing disfavored groups and people to fend for themselves even as social forces are encouraged to target them
Disagree. Anarchy is the absence of any ruler above others (an-arch) or it has no meaning.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english-thesaurus/anarchy
I do believe it is even more cynical than that. If all goes according to plan, Love is slated to replace either Alito or Thomas when they step down
At this point it really doesn't matter. It isn't as if Thomas and Alito are really any more principled than Bove. Trump has a whole slew of equally awful people to pick from now.
Love is just a whole lot younger which is the point I believe