Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

moniss

(6,112 posts)
Mon Dec 9, 2024, 10:38 PM Dec 9

It is heartening to see discussion

about the incoming circus of ghouls and the rock solid belief that they won't be able to do certain things because "the law says this or that" or because "it's in the Constitution". I admire people keeping the faith. I really do. But given the track record of the ghouls I wonder who people think is going to stop them?

So if a court decides against them do you think they will obey the decision? If they don't then who will stop them? A Congressional Impeachment? Do people think that there would be enough GQP Senators to vote for conviction? They didn't vote to convict and remove when it was a full blown insurrection attempt in part because some were apparently in on the scheme.

Many years ago I had a US History teacher who told us the law is only worth anything to the people if there is enforcement and deterrent effect. Does this group of ghouls have any track record of respecting the law and being deterred from further illegal acts? Thought of another way the law against someone breaking into your house doesn't prevent a thing without deterrence. That law can only have deterrent effect if it is enforced. If the "sheriff" is the one refusing to enforce the law, no matter whether by interdiction or enforcement of a court decision then there is no deterrence. No consequences means the law regarding anything is worthless words on a piece of paper.

So when the lower courts rule against them and they ignore the decision and keep doing what they want what do we do as citizens? Wait two years and think we'll turn the tide in a heavily suppressed and propagandized election? These questions are not just rhetorical they are all deadly serious.

When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon and ordered him to turn over the tapes he did not immediately go "OK here they are." Most people around today never lived through the very real tension of what it would mean for the country if a President refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling directly against him.

So what is the plan from our Party? Shouldn't we have one ahead of time? Shouldn't we know it ahead of time? What is our plan as "grass roots" people? These ghouls have demonstrated they will defy laws, break them and then employ their mastery at evading consequences and creating long delays.

My recommendation is to at least have a national coalition of the major rights groups like the ACLU, NAACP etc. formulate coordinated outreach to grass roots people for strategic and sustained massive civil disobedience. This country needs to, at long last, experience and learn the power of a general work slowdown/strike for example. The corporate greed merchants need to feel the effect of massive numbers of people saying "No I am not shopping on weekends for anything but true necessities like food or clothing and will do so for a very long time." Do you have any idea the power it would demonstrate if several million people all cancel Netflix, for example, over a two week period and stay canceled? Cancel Amazon Prime by the millions and stop buying through them because the few dollars you save doing so are actually a trade off for the money you are giving an oligarch to use at his newspaper to attack and undermine our democracy.

The bottom line is that I sincerely do appreciate people having faith in the rule of law but we also need to understand that when the highest officials who are supposed to obey and enforce those laws refuse to do so then "We The People" must act. We need to be ready to take organized civil disobedience actions and to take organized direct actions to stop feeding our money to the ones who are trying to hurt us. Take apart the machine as much as we can.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Karasu

(335 posts)
3. Exactly. Whenever something SHOULD prevent them from doing something, that thing is immediately swept aside.
Mon Dec 9, 2024, 11:43 PM
Dec 9

When Trump was first "elected" in 2016, the very first thing they did was dismiss the emoluments clause so he could take office--and that was just the beginning.

We saw it this very year with how quickly the courts threw out the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. It's not the least bit ambiguous. But as we were already knee-deep in the election cycle, the courts bent over backwards to keep Trump on the ballot (even the courts that ruled he engaged in insurrection), solely because of his sheer popularity--not out of any obligation or responsibility to uphold the law.

We're seeing court cases thrown into the trash left and right. The SCOTUS creating entirely new precedent for presidents just to protect this single individual (in other instances, his loyalists, or even his entire party) from accountability.

We've seen so much similar shit play out time and time again, too many times over the last 8 years to count. Yes, the law and the Constitution are technically supposed to prevent these things. But none of it matters when this shit isn't enforced, when the guardrails have been destroyed, or when the people willing to abuse their power to circumvent the law are the very same people in charge of making these decisions.

No, the law and the Constitution alone are not enough to save us. But they should be, and in a better world, they would be.

rubbersole

(8,662 posts)
4. Things would have to be catastrophic to get civil disobedience in contemporary America.
Tue Dec 10, 2024, 12:06 AM
Dec 10

And sadly, we'll see civil disobedience. By this time next year. Hope I'm wrong.

Felicita

(39 posts)
5. Love your post!
Tue Dec 10, 2024, 12:56 AM
Dec 10

Let's go! I'm ready Jan 20 to boycott as much as possible, including Netflix. Never was a "Prime" member, but ready to stop the occasional Amazon orders. Got my Progressiveshopper.com bookmark and have been shifting my purchases to bluer companies.

cadoman

(953 posts)
8. if there was a "full blown insurrection", Garland utterly failed in bringing charges
Tue Dec 10, 2024, 08:45 AM
Dec 10

I think there were GOP who could have been easily peeled off to support impeachment if the charges & groundwork were laid out and the committee were assembled & operating with more neutrality, etc. Instead, Congress & the media tried to speak it into existence through repetition something that didn't match the charges being brought.

Assault, trespassing, property damage, etc. was what was coming out of the AG's office. These are protest-gone-bad charges. The # of weapons charges was minuscule and for a country that loves it's assault weapons, I'm not aware of a single charge that was brought for bringing one. Why did the largest gun-owning demographic not bring weapons to their afternoon insurrection, and why did they literally disperse before sundown? By evening the place was well-policed and militarized and we were blessed to count the electoral votes in favor of Joe Biden.

---

Now you can either take the angle that Garland was a fuckup or complicit, and that Biden was a failure for keeping him, and that they failed to bring the charges the media said were appropriate.

I however, don't think that little of either man--particularly not Biden.

So I'm left to the conclusion that the same way the media overplayed the "End of Democracy" and "Hitler" narratives--that Biden clearly doesn't believe, based on his genteel behavior during the transition--the media overplayed the "Insurrection" narrative.

It's Biden's way of hinting that its political shelf life has expired and it's time to focus somewhere else.

---

You ask for examples of the GOP/Drumpf following the law, and the examples are probably more plentiful than first blush. Roe was the law of the land for decades, and they plotted for decades to change it. TFG was brought into Georgia and had his mug shot taken, was admonished and sanctioned in court by state judges, and has been issued hundreds of millions in fines and judgements. If he hadn't won there's a good chance he would have gone to prison. His Muslim travel ban had to be revised because of court intervention. His taxes were exposed to Congressional oversight. Some of his DACA actions were blocked by courts. His home was safely searched by the FBI.

There were even instances where his staff blocked him, like when Cohn blocked him from withdrawing from KORUS by literally stealing the agreement he was going to sign. (Gary Cohn is still alive and wealthy.)

Our government works because power is dispersed. I think we are far too defeatist and emotional about our prospects sometimes. As you can see above there are plentiful examples of the system keeping the GQP in check and we'd be foolish to deny ourselves of the fact that they exist.

I'll end with this thought: someone failed utterly in never bringing Logan Act charges against him. It's on far more solid legal footing than nearly all the cases that were in play.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-logan-act-viktor-orban-meeting-1924738

moniss

(6,112 posts)
9. You really don't seem to get that
Tue Dec 10, 2024, 10:29 AM
Dec 10

what little they followed the law was for the first time around and prior to Project 2025. As far as a conclusion that labeling !/6 as insurrection is incorrect or overblown the fact it was unsuccessful or called off doesn't change what it was by definition. It was an organized, violent attempt by a mass of people, arguably to have included elected officials in the planning/execution, to overthrow a legal election for the leader of the country and to install a leader of their choosing by illegal and violent means.

If anything has been "overdone" it is the downplaying of the seriousness of what was done. Joe Biden's current reaction is no proof for or against the extremism of the incoming ghouls and those who feel comparisons to Hitler and his rise are "overdone" are most likely to have not lived through dictators taking power except from afar. When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a good bet it is a duck regardless of the year, the color of the feathers or which pond it's in. It is a tired trope of those who downplay 1/6 to claim it was "protest gone wrong". They chased members of Congress into retreat behind locked doors and then broke the side glass in an effort to get at them. Only a fool would think, given the violence already used, that they were just going to tell the officials their complaints. Finally someone used some sense and shot and killed one who was trying to launch herself through the shattered glass opening. Then they scattered like the cowardly scum they are.

The largest criticism I have for the actual day of 1/6 is that the Capitol Police should have fired their weapons at these people the moment they breached the doors at the entrances. But in the most glaring example of deferential treatment for white people it didn't happen and nobody in this country can seriously claim that shots would not have been fired if this had been a nearly all black crowd storming the Capitol of the US.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It is heartening to see d...