Bonnie Honig: Con law prof Kreis “Supreme Court justices who see forgiving student loans, mandating vaccines, and regulating climate change as a slippery slope toward tyranny were not clear-eyed on questions of whether a president could execute citizens or stage a coup without being prosecuted” HCR Ltrs to an Am

Con law prof Kreis “Supreme Court justices who see forgiving student loans, mandating vaccines, and regulating climate change as a slippery slope toward tyranny were not clear-eyed on questions of whether a president could execute citizens or stage a coup without being prosecuted” HCR Ltrs to an Am

Must be a bit of a scramble teaching con law these days

With the emphasis on "CON"

The great thinkers of our society.

Burn it down, start over

I’d be good with expanding the court first, ushering these guys into irrelevance

We should ensure that whatever follows doesn't have intensifiers like "executive" or "supreme"

Gorsuch flat out said he was not interested in this case but rather in future cases then maybe in past cases. I cannot believe these assholes have so much power. I suspect that that's what they are really worried about losing, not our nominal democracy

See kids, bribes do work.

life lessons

It’s the Party of Limited Government, though!

Ha ha ha ha ha.... Limiting the governmental restrictions on the executive branch, so the Commander in Chief (the Government) has no limits.

That about nails why this case, even more than all the other abhorrent decisions, which are directly impactful to people, still feels like it puts the country on a precipice: far too many of the Conservatives seem fine with tyranny, provided it's their guy doing the tyranny.

I wonder if those superpowers they want to offer to the president could be used to change de Constitution and make the following presidents criminally liables.

This is what happens when conservatives get tenure.

With respect, these are not conservatives

Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

No, it's that there's nothing conservative about overturning 50-y.o. decisions or ignoring the constitution when inconvenient. These ppl are not conservatives, they are reactionaries, and it's an important difference

www.scribbr.com/fallacies/no...

No True Scotsman Fallacy | Definition & Exampleswww.scribbr.com The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given. By changing the definition of

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactio...

They absolutely are, and their legal reasoning is consistent with those conservatives who said that Medicare, affirmative action, the EPA, etc., were setting us on the path to serfdom.

Any actual or hypothetical consistency long-abandoned.

Do you believe that the American conservative movement has ever had consistency? And a followup, was it actual or hypothetical before abandonment?

Conservatism has ALWAYS been a contested tradition shot through with reactionary tendencies. "Taking America Back" by @davidaustinwalsh.bsky.social is the most recent book dealing with this here in America. My author interview here: www.salon.com/2024/04/20/a...

A prehistory of MAGA: "Mainstream" conservatives never really purged the fascistswww.salon.com Author David Austin Walsh says "respectable" conservatives have tolerated racists and neo-Nazis all along

Thanks!

Added thought: I think liberals/leftists misunderstand conservatives/reactionaries if we expect ideological coherence & sharp distinctions, just as they misunderstand us by ignoring it and lumping liberals/socialists/communists all together.

Correct.

These are Regressives.

If I was an attorney not aligned with Auto & Co. What's my obligation to not go "y'all gonna clown anyway so I'm just going to make some fart noises and then fuck off for lunch."

🤦🏼‍♂️

Motivating reasoning r us

Post