It has become quite clear in recent months that the the rule of law will not be enforced on the federal government or their allies.

▲

gorgoiler 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I heard a law professor on NPR a few nights back saying how, at the executive level, the rule of law is dead and has been for some time. They cited Jan 6 but recognised how politically divisive that example was, so also gave the failure to enforce the TikTok ban as a less partisan example.

If you take your hands off the wheel you can go a surprisingly long time before you crash. This hands-free period will have to come to an end at some point.

▲

ardme 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I remember a lot of stuff Bush did in the aftermath of 911 that was illegal. Anyone remember Snowden? And Obama did a drone strike on a US citizen. This has been going on a long time but maybe we used to play pretend better.

	▲	sbarre 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> This has been going on a long time This has been going on forever, everywhere. Laws have always applied selectively, particularly when it comes to whatever group is responsible for enforcing them.
	▲	bonsai_spool 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There are very clear differences, so I find your argument disingenuous at best. While the legality can be doubted for the examples you gave, those administrations released their legal rationale. The TikTok rationale essentially came to ‘we want genz voters’

▲

andruby 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree.

> This hands-free period will have to come to an end at some point

What would that mean? Do you expect the government to put their hands back on the wheel, does the US "crash" and become a dictatorship and/or does it lead to WW3?

▲

augusto-moura 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It might take some time to end though, executive power without laws is very close to dictatorships, and some dictatorships take a long time to dissolve (if they dissolve at all). They might not even have an end. As an example, look at Russia, from an empire to a dictatorship to an oligarchy. It never seemed full democracy and there's no hope of it changing in the next decade. There's a lot of speculation on what will happen at the end of Trumps presidency

▲

rwmj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Selectively ... Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

▲

Quarrelsome 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If we are to learn from the brutal Soviet sanctioned forced deportations of the Baltic nations following world war 2, then justice will come but it will take time.

Once the Baltic nations gained independence they tried everyone involved in the administration of those orders, which took place without trial or oversight and often resulted in the replacement families being deported if the actual tagets could not be found.

Ofc Stalin or any of the power brokers at the time were long dead, so instead it was a parade of lower level admin workers, all who were elderly in their 80s or 90s and who at that time were young, simply doing the bidding of their employers.

The lesson: don't be a bag holder for people who will die before you leaving you to hold the responsibility for their crimes.

▲

thomaspinchone 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it's been quite clear for about 50 years now

▲

delecti 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe, but there was also clearly an inflection point just over 12 months ago, and another 8 years prior.

	▲	mrexcess 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For me it was when Eric Holder, the Attorney General under President Obama, straight-up ignored a Congressional subpoena. Maybe the actual event happened earlier than that, but in that moment I marked "rule of law" as a dead letter.

▲

megous 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's pretty clear for decades. When exactly did some higher up in the US gov end up in jail for ordering eg. mass killings abroad, or colluding with others that engaged in mass crimes like initiating wars and conflicts.

US will not lock up a single asshole who helps kill thousands of people abroad (not even inconvenience them with a simple court appearance to have to justify themselves), but it sure can lock up thousands on flimsiest justifications like FTA in court because of whatever, or technical parole violations, or driving on suspended license, basically for failures to navigate bureaucracy while poor.

I'll believe in rule of law when at least shits who materially support mass killings of children will start getting locked up. But alas, no. No such thing.

Until then it's all just bullshit that normal people have to submit to, and ruling class gets to excuse itself from with endless lawyering, exceptions, and nonsense, while it's clear they're still just scum psychos doing scum psycho things.