And when the court tells them to stop it, they are pretty much stopping it. I agree that they’re totally lawless in their goals and their methods, but the idea that they’re just ignoring the courts is not founded in fact.
Replies
It could be argued that the damage they're doing in the time it takes the courts to respond is, to an extent, hobbling the power of the judiciary
feb 17, 2025, 12:34 am • 6 0 • view
Agreed. And that's part of their strategy. Taking chunks out of it makes the next assault easier.
feb 17, 2025, 12:58 am • 0 0 • view
Yes, I know. That’s why I think it’s important to make sure that all these actions are fully adjudicated as illegal rather than left as presumptively fine.
feb 17, 2025, 1:01 am • 11 0 • view
It could be. And, I mean, that’s true, in a very real sense. But it’s also a lot less than what they’d be doing if they truly believed there was no reason to comply with those orders.
feb 17, 2025, 12:35 am • 11 0 • view
Yeah I’m really truly worried that USAID has been mostly dismantled already. Courts haven’t quite gotten to it. But there’s likely already no putting it back together
feb 17, 2025, 12:38 am • 11 0 • view
Right. It's a graphic illustration of how you can dismantle stuff without doing it explicitly... or legally...
feb 17, 2025, 1:00 am • 2 0 • view
Yeah, it’s bad as fuck.
feb 17, 2025, 12:40 am • 9 0 • view
It hasn't even been a month 😞
feb 17, 2025, 12:42 am • 5 0 • view
COVID didn't warp my sense of time at all but this has. It feels like three.
feb 17, 2025, 12:44 am • 7 0 • view
The Court also has other mechanisms of forcing compliance with contempt orders freezing financial resources, placing lines on assets and appointing receivership of assets to pay mounting fines.
feb 16, 2025, 11:53 pm • 5 0 • view
It's damn close. They've warned that they will ignore them if they think they "need" to. And I'm really just stating how they can "just do it" which is how all coups are executed - you just do it. "Oh but you broke the law!" doesn't cut it.
feb 17, 2025, 12:57 am • 1 0 • view
I mean, they’ve said that on Twitter. I have no doubt that they would like to do so, but they’re also *not doing that,* and if and when they do, the Courts do have some power to compel them to. I’m not saying that everything is fine; I’m saying that taking things to the court is not a waste of time.
feb 17, 2025, 1:00 am • 6 0 • view
I NEVER said it was a waste of time. Everything should be challenged. I'm giving my opinion, based on what they have said and how they can execute it, that they WILL most likely ignore the rule of law and they can get away with it.
feb 17, 2025, 1:04 am • 1 0 • view
I don’t think they can get away with it as much as you think they can.
feb 17, 2025, 1:07 am • 10 0 • view
Trump has not lost in any meaningful way to date, on anything. I expect that he will eventually defy the courts directly and get away with it. He'll pull his own "enabling act" or similar and they won't be able to stop him.
feb 17, 2025, 1:25 am • 1 0 • view
What makes you say that? The courts are enjoining him left right and center. He cannot "pull his own enabling act or similar," because that is a power exclusively reserved to Congress.
feb 17, 2025, 1:26 am • 9 0 • view
Not an enabling act per se but I'm sure they already have schemes for how they would achieve all the control they need eg schemes for ignoring/overriding court orders. Emergency powers anyone? www.npr.org/2025/02/14/n...
feb 17, 2025, 6:35 pm • 1 0 • view
I mean, they have schemes galore. Some of those schemes may be constitutional, some may not. He can't just decide on his own that he gets to appropriate Congress's power.
feb 17, 2025, 6:51 pm • 11 0 • view
You keep thinking the rule of law will apply. Hitler changed the law to make his acts legal. They will either do that or simply ignore it. Have you not noticed that Trump has totally escaped legal consequences while he wasn't even president?
feb 17, 2025, 1:47 am • 1 0 • view
let's say you're right and it won't apply, we deal with it then Demanding that people act as if something has happened when it objectively has not happened is ridiculous and is just a convenient way to never deal with reality
feb 17, 2025, 1:53 am • 1 0 • view
It does apply. Trump has yet to amend the Constitution.
feb 17, 2025, 1:50 am • 4 0 • view
It’s true they are not yet *openly* defying courts. But they reversed an $80M ACH transaction for shelter and services funding despite a TRO forbidding them from doing so without following the law. Following court orders makes you a target for dismissal in this admin
feb 16, 2025, 11:57 pm • 10 1 • view
Right. They're pushing the legality envelope right now. They like to test it then step back, let us celebrate, relax, then they redouble their efforts. They'll wait till they have something big that they really want and up the ante.
feb 17, 2025, 12:12 am • 0 0 • view
This just isn’t a set of facts where I would confidently put money on “these guys aren’t going to try”
feb 17, 2025, 12:02 am • 4 0 • view
Yep, they did. Their compliance is partial and dilatory, and the courts are noticing. I’m not saying it’s perfect; I’m saying they aren’t completely blowing the courts off.
feb 17, 2025, 12:11 am • 11 0 • view
Like you said "so far".
feb 17, 2025, 12:18 am • 1 0 • view
Yep. That’s the only data we have.
feb 17, 2025, 12:19 am • 6 0 • view
their intentional noncompliance is not open defiance. I think Vance, Musk, and Trump plainly aim at the latter but haven’t yet consolidated sufficient support for that even within the executive branch to do it—but they’re going to try and I think they aim to try soon.
feb 17, 2025, 12:18 am • 0 0 • view
roger
feb 17, 2025, 12:12 am • 1 0 • view
do we know whether or not anything has changed on this front? can't find any news on whether there is positive confirming evidence that they are in compliance www.npr.org/2025/02/10/n...
feb 16, 2025, 11:54 pm • 2 0 • view
The defendants asked if they could continue to not pay everything and the court said “not if it’s illegal.” storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
feb 17, 2025, 12:09 am • 8 0 • view
I expect that with the spending freeze we’re going to see a lot of “compliance” in the form of “no, Mom, I’m not touching my little brother, I’m just holding my finger an inch away from his eyeball.”
feb 17, 2025, 12:13 am • 3 0 • view
Yep. In my experience, the courts are both familiar and displeased with such tactics.
feb 17, 2025, 12:13 am • 14 0 • view
(I realize there are several other orders that they do seem to have complied with, just wondering about this specific one)
feb 17, 2025, 12:09 am • 2 0 • view