this post was submitted on 01 May 2025

637 points (97.9% liked)

News

35749 readers

1897 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

637

If leaders stay silent, the US won’t survive Trump’s next 100 days | Robert Reich (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The US constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray.

At this rate, we will not make it through the second 100 days.

Federal judges in more than 120 cases so far have sought to stop Trump – judges appointed by Republicans as well as Democrats, some appointed by Trump himself – but the regime is either ignoring or appealing their orders. It has even arrested a municipal judge in Milwaukee amid a case involving an undocumented defendant.

Recently, Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III of the court of appeals for the fourth circuit – an eminent conservative Reagan appointee who is revered by the Federalist Society – issued a scathing rebuke to the Trump regime. In response to its assertion that it can abduct residents of the US and put them into foreign prisons without due process, Wilkinson wrote:

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ would lose its meaning.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Hah, it’s now a discussion of literal existentialism.

No If USA falls into a fascist dictatorship, and the fedetal government takes full control, but in another 10 years, the fascist regime is exchanged for democracy again.
How can you say USA didn't survive, just because they had a bad period?

Again, that’s not what justified the civil war.

You are arguing arbitrary points that have no impact on my original claim.

The assumption you’re making is that the federal govt was designed to have autonomy of its own separate from the states.

No what I argue is based on the reality that the president has the executive power, and can choose to ignore the checks and balances, because they are poorly designed, and only work when everybody respects them.
But again all that is besides the point.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

How can you say USA didn't survive, just because they had a bad period?

I've stated pretty clearly at least 3 times now that in that specific scenario, I would consider the re-established democracy to be the same country.

You are arguing arbitrary points that have no impact on my original claim.

The inverse. You keep noting that the EU would allow a peaceful secession, but the US would not, and I'm saying that's irrelevant now and it was also irrelevant during the civil war.

the president has the executive power, and can choose to ignore the checks and balances

Again, the inverse is true. Executive Decisions are simply a notice of intent, they are not law. Only the legislative branch can create laws. But the situation we find ourselves in is both Congress and scotus respecting the Executive Decisions as law. That was never supposed to happen. Now the state judges are trying to act as the last line of defense. This is not besides the point, this is literally what the entire thread, and my original comment is about.