I am reminded of reading about how during the early days of Nazi Germany, confused liberal officials from the legal system would go to concentration camps and demand the release of prisoners who were held there illegally, only to be told to fuck off.
The lathe turns: A new form of sovereign type citizen emerges.
Not really, being good liberals they actually did fuck off when someone in authority told them to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
Per the SCOTUS the president deciding to murder you is a "political question" and you don't have standing to challenge it or get a trial hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
yeah i think the real takeaway is just that the scotus decided to formally recognize the status quo of the united states (sqotus)
Contrary to Liberal interpretations, this ruling doesn't change much. If the President was capable of openly assassinating politicians, or launching a military coup to overthrow democracy, they would not be deterred by 9 people in black robes telling them they may be liable to criminal charges in the future for doing so.
Until the Chief Justice gets their own division to command, the Court only has as much power over the Federal Government as they are allowed to, which is invariably determined by their usefulness to politically dominant factions of Capital. See what happened after the Marshall Court made a decision impeding the interests early-American Capital had in forcefully dispossessing Indigenous peoples from their land.
I still believe the most incisive commentary on the Law's function in society was given by Marx. He succinctly attacks the Liberal idea that all social structures (economics, politics, etc.) arise from the letter of the law. Rather:
Society is not founded upon the law; this is a legal fiction. On the contrary, the law must be founded upon society, it must express the common interests and needs of society — as distinct from the caprice of the individuals — which arise from the material mode of production prevailing at the given time. This Code Napoleon, which I am holding in my hand, has not created modern bourgeois society. On the contrary, bourgeois society, which emerged in the eighteenth century and developed further in the nineteenth, merely finds its legal expression in this Code. As soon as it ceases to fit the social conditions, it becomes simply a bundle of paper.
Yes, the court only has as much power as they are allowed to, but Biden and the dems believe so much in the legitimacy of institutions that there's a decent chance they'd roll over and just give them that power.
The parliamentarian says you have to die in poverty. It's against the rules for us to raise the minimum wage, Jack.
They don't believe in the institutions like the lackeys do. When it comes time to fuel genocide, not a single person in power cares about the legality of their actions. They only use the rules like shitty parents do, as a crudgel.
college politics classese are just arguing with dumbass lawphiles
"You can't put that bag on me, it's against the rules."
brb printing out a sovereign citizen license plate for my face
Rule-brained nerds.
I don't know how anyone didn't have an experience in early childhood or at least childhood that taught them rules aren't real, only their enforcement
Judge: Mr President, sir, you are legally ordered to release that political prisoner!
President: lol, no
Judge: 
Assuming everyone plays by the rules, I wonder if the court order would prevent the president from imprisoning that person again or if they would need another court order 
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
