So you'd be fine with say, Kamala, running on a campaign of crushing dissent because the courts will say "lol no"? Is that what I'm reading?

I certainly don't think any camp would be okay with that, let alone MAGAs (and for obvious reasons)

It's a common trope of centrists and republicans to say that it's okay for Trump to explore the outer limits of legal theory and executive power, but at the same time freak out at what a Democrat might do with the government.

> So you'd be fine with say, Kamala, running on a campaign of crushing dissent because the courts will say "lol no"? Is that what I'm reading?

No, I wouldn't be fine with it.

Do you imagine this is what Trump is doing? Or that Democrats don't do the same? Democrats ran a long and successful campaign to crush anti-woke dissent, for instance. Broke lots of laws (and still do!) in the process. Questioning woke orthodoxy could get you blackballed or fired in government, and they wielded power to make sure the same was true in many non-gov institutions. They were even on the path to first amendment restrictions to protect this crusade. Even compelled speech in Biden's last Title IX!

Anywho, to steelman I think you would need to explicitly make the leap from "flag burning" to "running a campaign of crushing dissent", because flag burning doesn't seem like even part of a campaign against crushing dissent. It seems like empty pandering to stupider supporters.