|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
No. That is not terrorism.
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social |
6184 followers 257 following 3709 posts
International Relations prof at U. Illinois. Senior Editor of Arc Digital. Author “Drones and Terrorism.” Politics, national security, and occasional nerdery.
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
No. That is not terrorism.
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not exactly. Their position is consistent: "my feelings supersede the law (but yours don't), so I (but not you) am allowed to shoot people if I (again, not you) decide that it's called for."
1 replies 2 reposts 20 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Good point. Dark, yes. But I don't think it's wrong.
1 replies 0 reposts 9 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Since this fascist "Second American Revolution" and "Red Caesar" crowd is already quite open about their intention to use state violence against political opponents and scapegoated minorities, there's even less reason to back down before their threats to be violent if they're not empowered to do it.
2 replies 7 reposts 36 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
My favorite line about war applies here: "The aggressor is always peace-loving... he would prefer to take over our country unopposed." No man, if you're trying a revolution against the Constitution of the United States, pro-Constitution Americans aren't going to simply get out of your way. Hard no.
16 replies 83 reposts 393 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
No. Treason is for an American actively making war on the United States—and not war in a metaphorical sense—or providing material aid to an entity that is actively at war with the United States. It's a specific high bar, and we should keep it that way.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Good chance motivated reasoning and ego are playing big roles here. Common for a SCOTUS Justice to believe their instinctual judgment calls are better than everyone else's. And I bet at least some of the conservative Justices tell themselves "I'm just following the law, protecting it from the Left."
2 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Yes. And the Times in particular is already at (or awfully close to) maximum slime. Guessing how the New York Times will react is a bad basis for a consequential decision in the first place. And NYT's level of negativity about Biden makes the concern moot in this specific case.
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Well, what if instead of the plain meaning of the text and the intent of the Founders, which both say that an impeached official could also be tried in criminal court for crimes, we pretend that it says an official who wasn't both impeached and removed from office cannot be tried in criminal court?
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
My pleasure. Thanks for reading. Actually, "my pleasure" isn't quite accurate. I wrote angry this time. But I'm glad you liked the piece.
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
YES, JOHN, AND YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO Sorry to shout, but geez. One of the best tenants of conservative judicial philosophy is judicial modesty and opposition to legislating from the bench. Not that conservative justices always adhered to it. But the principle was a good one.
0 replies 0 reposts 17 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
She has a laugh some people don't like, I think? I'm sure it'll be something.
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Yes
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
When I say the Supreme Court went beyond law, I don’t mean that I disagree with their interpretation of any legal text. I mean their immunity grant isn’t based in any. The Constitution does not address it either way. They invented new powers from nothing.
10 replies 39 reposts 149 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Kamala Harris could win. Not a sure thing, of course. Nothing is. And I don't know what Biden should do. But many discounting how she'd be received given what she'd be replacing and especially running against. Are there really more "too female" or "too Black" voters than "too old" voters? Doubt it.
11 replies 1 reposts 23 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The Supreme Court's overreaching, absurd, deeply un-American immunity decision is an exercise in power, not law. I wrote about the Justices' evident priorities, the decision's faulty logic, various risks it creates, how it helps Trump's authoritarian project, and more:
0 replies 7 reposts 34 likes
|
Joseph Fink
@planetoffinks.bsky.social
[ View ] |
claiming hypocrisy in cases like this is missing the point. they have completely consistent beliefs: they and their friends should be able to do whatever they want without consequence, and everyone else should be subservient to them.
15 replies 92 reposts 394 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Whoops. My bad. Thanks for pointing it out.
1 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
About as good as Billy Joel's rhythm, TBH
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Let's see... I was born in 1981. So that's a no, it was not wrong.
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Bad presidential debate, French elections first round, Supreme Court putting ex-presidents at least somewhat above the law. It's been quite a week. But neither fight has reached its big inflection point yet. France is July 7. US is November 5. Both could still go either way.
3 replies 1 reposts 31 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
A president supporting court packing for the explicit purpose of reigning in presidential power, including his own, after a Supreme Court made a wildly un-American, precedent-breaking decision to expand it, would be making the best case for a president to support court-packing.
4 replies 56 reposts 317 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I’ll second that. The sort I had in mind with the OP are less you and more… Douthaty.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Preemptively rejecting the "oh calm down, if you take this ruling out of the political context in which it took place, interpret the writing very generously, and assume total good faith in the future, it's not a big deal" apologist nonsense. "Oh calm down" has been wrong a lot these past 8 years.
3 replies 7 reposts 70 likes
|
Jacob T. Levy
@jacobtlevy.bsky.social
[ View ] |
In Paul's honor:
3 replies 42 reposts 190 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I understand pessimism and worry in response to the Supreme Court greatly expanding the degree to which the president is above the law and permitted to coup without consequence. But don't underestimate the upside scenario. It really all comes down to the election. If Trump loses, we can fix a lot.
8 replies 11 reposts 44 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
But I'd rather be wrong. Actually, I'd rather we don't have to find out. But if we do, then I hope I'm wrong about how it'll go.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I think that's over-optimistic. For example, the "holding the Senate" bit. We already saw Trump ignore the need for Senate confirmation by abusing the active appointment provision. That accelerated in 2020 after his first impeachment, and accelerated further after he lost re-election.
3 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
No. But if Trump wins, I don't think there will be a free and fair election in 2028.
1 replies 0 reposts 8 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Right, individuals in the military might carry out illegal orders. And if some reject but others follow, that risks splitting the military, which would be its own nightmare. Insane to rely on every individual officer making the correct judgment call every time. Milley won't be there. Flynn will.
1 replies 2 reposts 9 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
In practice, it's irrelevant. Trump and Co. have delayed long enough that he has an opportunity to gain presidential power. And if that happens, he'll order DOJ to drop the federal cases, and tell any state cases to go to hell. There won't be anything they can do about it.
2 replies 1 reposts 8 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
For insubordination, you mean?
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Reminder: Trump pardoned literal war criminals. One's actions were so bad that some of his fellow SEALs testified against him, which pretty much never happens. And Fox News then treated the pardoned criminals as heroes. Thinking this every time I see "but the military won't follow illegal orders."
5 replies 63 reposts 199 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
That's a good way to put it (better than how I did). There's a general presumption that presidential orders to the military are legal, and immense pressure to treat them as such. Besides, the president can remove any who don't follow his illegal orders, and pardon any who do.
0 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
One way to describe what's happened is turning enforceable laws into optional norms. Or in other words, turning "must" into "are supposed to."
1 replies 1 reposts 7 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Let's-see-how-you-like-it fantasies in response to the Supreme Court immunity ruling are underestimating just how bad the situation is. Any prosecutions would take place in courts, where SCOTUS would block it. This term especially, the SCOTUS majority has shown that its standards are Calvinball.
9 replies 17 reposts 89 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Why must they? The president can put them above the law at will, and can't face legal consequences for doing so. The Lorance and Gallagher pardons underline that. And military personnel are supposed to follow CiC orders. This is hanging way too much on every individual officer always refusing.
1 replies 0 reposts 9 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Hear hear! It ain't over 'til it's over. And in this November's election, We the People have a live chance. Acting like we don't just squanders it.
3 replies 12 reposts 49 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not an unreasonably assumption
0 replies 0 reposts 8 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Richard Nixon 1977: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. America 1977-2023: What, are you kidding? No way. Roberts Court 2024: Actually Nixon was right, and shouldn't have been in trouble for ordering the Watergate break-in, because orders are by definition official acts.
3 replies 28 reposts 71 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
No, it just renders the difference between illegal and legal irrelevant.
2 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
SCOPTUS also appears to have declared a president immune from charges of conspiracy. Proving conspiracy requires showing advance plotting to work together to commit a crime. But SCOTUS says POTUS merely talking about it with another officeholder makes it an official act, and therefore not illegal.
2 replies 9 reposts 54 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It sure looks like, according to SCOTUS, a president telling an executive branch official "I order you to break the law" cannot be criminal, since giving orders to people in the executive branch is an official act, and the fact that a president used this official act to order a crime doesn't matter.
4 replies 21 reposts 91 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Holy shit, the Supreme Court actually wrote that Trump telling Pence to claim the wildly unconstitutional power to single-handedly reject certified Electoral College votes, thereby overthrowing Constitutional democracy, can't be illegal because POTUS and VP talking about it makes it an official act.
36 replies 179 reposts 533 likes
|
Julia Azari
@juliaazari.bsky.social
[ View ] |
basically making a coup legal as long as you discuss it with your vice president. moreover, this way of argumentation that ignores obvious context and treats all reasoning like we're in a law school seminar is just straight-up gaslighting.
5 replies 58 reposts 318 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
If the president is above the law. And the president can put anyone above the law at will. Then there's no such thing as an illegal order, at least not if the president says so.
1 replies 1 reposts 16 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
POTUS is supposed to follow the law. SCOTUS is supposed to honor the Constitution. A lot of supposed to's that were enforceable laws are now merely optional norms. Plus the military is supposed to carry out CiC orders. The US is not supposed to rely on the conscience of every individual officer.
1 replies 1 reposts 10 likes
|
|
Nicholas Grossman
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The difference between "there cannot be legal consequences for this" and "this is not illegal" is semantic. They function the same.
3 replies 0 reposts 15 likes
|
Don Moynihan
@donmoyn.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This is the ball game folks, the authoritarian green light laid out in advance. Congress will not impeach Trump. And SCOTUS now blesses him with extraordinary latitude to do whatever he wants in power. A second administration will not be constrained by Congress, the courts, the bureaucracy or law.
27 replies 446 reposts 1062 likes
|
southpaw
@nycsouthpaw.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Chief Justice Roberts decrees the end of DOJ independence in an offhanded sentence on page 20.
52 replies 493 reposts 1262 likes