Trump is Above the Law

Billionaires in America are Above the Law…

So, that’s nothing new. We already knew how he has always believed himself above the law.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-authoritarianism-rcna207270

This passage describes a concerning exchange during Supreme Court oral arguments. Here’s a breakdown of what’s happening and why it’s significant:

The Context:
- The Supreme Court was hearing arguments related to Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer (representing the Trump administration) about the administration’s compliance with lower court rulings.
The Key Exchange:
- Barrett asked Sauer if the government always follows rulings from lower federal courts (district and appeals courts).
- Sauer admitted that while it’s “general practice” to respect those rulings, there are “circumstances when it is not a categorical practice.”
- Barrett then asked if this was a new policy of the trump administration, or long standing policy of the DOJ.
- Sauer replied that it was his understanding that it was long standing DOJ policy.
- He then gave the example that they may not follow a precident when they are trying to get that precident overturned.
Why It’s Concerning:
- Rule of Law: A fundamental principle of the U.S. legal system is that the executive branch (the president and their administration) must follow court orders. Sauer’s statement suggests a willingness to disregard those orders in certain situations.
- Creeping Authoritarianism: The phrase “creeping authoritarianism” implies a gradual erosion of established democratic norms and checks on power. The idea that the government can selectively choose which court orders to obey undermines the judiciary’s authority.
- Separation of Powers: The separation of powers is a core principle of the U.S. government. The judiciary is meant to provide a check on the executive branch. Sauer’s statement raises concerns about the executive branch’s willingness to respect that check.
- Erosion of Precedent: While it is normal for the DOJ to try to overturn precident, the implication that they may simply ignore precident they do not like, is concerning.

In essence, the exchange reveals a potential willingness by the executive branch to disregard established legal norms, which is seen as a threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers.

WTH? I still don’t get it

It’s tricky, but I can explain it more clearly.

Here’s the core issue:

The Normal Situation: In a healthy democracy, the government (the executive branch, like the President) must follow the orders of courts. This is how the rule of law works. If a court says “X is illegal,” the government can’t just ignore that.
What the Lawyer Said: The government’s lawyer, Sauer, suggested that the government doesn’t always have to follow court orders. He said they generally do, but not in every case.
Why That’s Bad: This is where “creeping authoritarianism” comes in. It means:
- Creeping: It’s not a sudden, complete takeover. It’s a gradual process.
- Authoritarianism: This is a system where the government has very strong power, and people have fewer freedoms. It’s the opposite of democracy.

So, “creeping authoritarianism” means a slow slide towards a system where the government doesn’t have to follow the rules. Sauer’s statement suggests that the government might pick and choose which court orders to obey. If that happens, it means: