booly

joined 2 years ago
[–] booly 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I have a watered down version of this, but I'm a lawyer so it's very very valuable. If I get a question I might not know the answer to, if I've read it somewhere I usually know roughly where to go back to get it. And since lawyers mostly look things up instead of trying to memorize everything, a powerful "indexing" memory is valuable in the profession. At least in my practice.

[–] booly 7 points 19 hours ago

The Senate has already passed a bill that limits the President's power to set tariff rates on Canada. The House probably won't take that up.

Right now, there's also a Senate Bill with 7 GOP senators signed on that would limit the President's power to unilaterally set tariffs (requires 48 hours notice to Congress, can't last more than 60 days without Congressional approval, gives Congress fast track procedures for voting down new tariffs). There are some serious constitutional flaws in it (most notably the legislative non-aggrandizement doctrine, but also an issue with tying to sidestep the bicameralism and presentment requirement), though, and I'm not sure it would hit the point where it could overcome a presidential veto.

So right now it's not clear whether this GOP opposition would actually build into real legislation that could actually have an effect, or whether this is all showmanship trying to influence Trump himself to roll this back.

[–] booly 11 points 1 day ago

1987: Black Monday

That one didn't really matter that much to regular Americans. Less than a third of Americans owned stock back then, and that crash didn't have an obvious cause from actual economic fundamentals. And the Fed managed to contain the liquidity crisis, as your linked Wikipedia page describes, so that the broader economy was largely unaffected.

Recessions matter. Stock market crashes only matter when they are caused by, or are the cause of, an actual recession in the real world.

[–] booly 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

suffering for 50 years

In Europe, feudalism lasted 600 years last time, and only ended because a plague loosened up the nobility's power over peasants. Vestiges of that old system endured in some parts of Europe for another 200 years after that, too.

In some neofeudalist future, where the lords and nobles have access to incredibly invasive technology for monitoring the thoughts and actions of all people, for controlling even more links in the chain of the production of food or tools or weapons, that power structure may turn out to be even more entrenched than the last time around. It's not far fetched to say that the next time strictly inherited class comes around, it becomes a permanent feature of all societies that follow.

[–] booly 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure, I get if the "good side" were to be as cavalier with the law as trump is, the entire thing falls apart even faster. But I have no doubt in my mind the "rule of law" in the USA is over.

I'm not willing to make that call, yet. It's on life support, with the doctor in charge coyly hinting at whether he's going to finish it off himself, but it hasn't happened yet.

And in this case, the Supreme Court bailed out the President. They went ahead and said all 9 justices disagree on whether the courts have the power to review this dispute (rejecting the most extreme and most unaccountable theory of executive power), but said that the proper forum is in Texas, not in DC. So this DC judge who was weighing contempt was stripped of jurisdiction to do so.

That's not a constitutional crisis, which is what I'm very concerned about being that uncrossable line, but it is still separately a bad result.

These are nuanced distinctions, and I don't want to make it seem like I'm only watching out for a constitutional crisis and ignoring all the other ways that Trump is hurting the rule of law, but I think that violating court orders is a special kind of harm that needs to be viewed as its own especially dangerous thing.

[–] booly 8 points 2 days ago

This is one of the basic reasons why Political Compass Memes is such a bad idea.

No kidding. Not only do people fall on different parts of that two dimensional map depending on context (e.g. different positions on how much government support there should be for the arts versus for the sciences, how much government should regulate guns versus automobiles, etc.), but elevating these two axes above all the other unseen dimensions (ideological purity versus pragmatic compromise or versus consensus seeking, at what point process should yield to substance, the extent to which our institutions should have inertia that resists change, etc.), which causes people to oversimplify political issues into just those two dimensions.

There are many dimensions, and each problem may call for a different solution that would fall into a different place in any given dimension than the solution to another problem.

[–] booly 3 points 3 days ago

No. The 7% breaker went off 4 separate times in March 2020, though.

[–] booly 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's a rule hard baked into the NYSE that trading is paused for at least 15 minutes if it drops 7% in a single day. It is paused again for at least 15 minutes if it drops 13%, and then trading is ended for the day if it drops 20%.

[–] booly 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

There's not a goal post being moved. I'm describing now where the line has always been for a constitutional crisis: a judicial contempt order that gets disregarded by the executive branch. And the path to that is basically:

  1. The executive branch does something illegal.
  2. Someone sues in court.
  3. The court rules that action to be illegal.
  4. The executive branch doesn't obey the court order.
  5. The court orders the executive branch to show cause why contempt should not issue.
  6. The court finds the executive branch officials to be in contempt and orders sanctions (aka a punishment).
  7. The executive branch disregards that punishment and refuses to enforce it or obey it.

Steps 1 through 3 are pretty routine, and happen all the time.

And there are off ramps that avoid that constitutional crisis. Maybe it's a case where the court's ruling gets overruled on appeal. Maybe the court finds that it doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on that issue. Maybe the executive branch backs down. One of those has happened so far in all of the cases that have ended.

It's the cases that are still active where things might go off the rails. This particular Salvadorean deportation case has made it further than any other (past the fifth step I described above) ~~and is the one where DOJ has suspended its own lawyer for admitting that he didn't have the answers the judge was looking for.~~ In a closely related case, DOJ has suspended its own lawyer for admitting personal frustration with his client (that is, ICE/DHS). These are concerning and worth pushing back on at every turn, and to sound the alarms when that line is actually crossed.

This defeatist attitude, that Trump has already won and is unaccountable, is counterproductive. We're still busy fighting, and we can still win because we haven't lost yet.

[–] booly 3 points 3 days ago (5 children)

No, and this is really important.

Intentionally disobeying court orders is a red line, in a way that merely breaking the law isn't.

If you argue that the Trump administration has already crossed that red line several times, and people start believing it, it carries less force when they actually do cross it. It's a big deal, and the mere fact that his administration is arguing that they haven't crossed it (yet) is important for a few reasons:

  • The rank and file federal employees don't yet feel that they have the precedent to follow executive branch orders that would violate court orders.
  • The political actors aligned with Trump don't yet feel emboldened enough to do the same, if Trump hasn't done it first.
  • The resistance can point to that specific act, of crossing the red line, as a position to fight on, for both recruiting fence sitters and their effort to active resistance (and justification for no longer fitting themselves purely within the bounds of the law).
  • On the other hand, crying wolf about the red line before it is crossed confuses those fence sitters (hyper technical arguments about whether and how the Trump administration broke the law don't carry the day) and makes it less politically powerful when that line is crossed.

So long as the Trump admin still pretends to care about the law, there's still a lane for lawsuits and litigation as active resistance. If the Trump administration starts openly flouting court orders, which has not happened yet, that opens up a new chapter.

Trump is pushing limits, but is still being really careful about what is technically legal. If they stop tip toeing around that line, then the resistance is clear to escalate into technically illegal conduct, too, while still aiming for a return of the rule of law.

Muddying the waters by arguing that the line has already been crossed is misreading where we are in this resistance movement.

And disclosure: I'm a lawyer and I have filed things in court against the government, so I have a vested professional and personal interest in believing that what happens in court still matters. But I also have an above average understanding of exactly what the constitutional and statutory powers of the presidency are, and what kind of actions would actually threaten the continued viability of our constitutional government.

[–] booly 0 points 3 days ago (7 children)

No, it hasn't.

It's been threatened several times, and there's been plenty of arguments by Trump's DOJ that they didn't actually violate the text of orders (including in this case, where the judge didn't include in the written order to return flights that have already left U.S. airspace), or that any violations were inadvertent and not intentional, but this is the first case that is dealing with the question of whether the administration intentionally violated a court order.

The judge is taking the steps to learn the facts here, and the shocking thing is that DOJ just put the main attorney on administrative leave (and pulled him off this case) for conceding obvious things in open court. Despite just promoting him to his position the week before.

[–] booly 9 points 3 days ago

Regulations are often a substitute for litigation.

And litigation is a substitute for what the law euphemistically refers to as "self help" where someone uses violence or the threat of violence as a remedy for perceived wrongs.

59
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by booly to c/politics
 

There's a stickied post at the top of this community about 10 things you can do to resist the second Trump administration. It was published on January 23, 2025, and some parts are getting stale only 11 days later.

I intend for this to be a collaborative, brainstorming effort, focused into 4 parts:

Part 1: Actions that are the legal exercise of rights you have.
Part 2: Actions that might not be legal, but are nonviolent and non-destructive forms of disruption, from poisoning data sources to tying up manpower and physical resources on wild goose chases.
Part 3: Actions that probably are not legal, but are still nonviolent methods of disruption that may involve property destruction.
Part 4: Actions that may involve physical violence against people.

This thread is going to be about Part 1: legal ways to stop or slow down or otherwise disrupt Trump's agenda. When I get the time, I'll start filling out the others. I was mostly motivated because I didn't see enough discussion of things that would fall under Part 2, but as a preview, I think that Part 2 and Part 3 will have the most interesting stuff.

But for now, Part 1.

Political and Legal

Voting/Campaigning:

There are two open seats in the House, currently controlled by Republicans 218-215. Both vacancies, FL-1 and FL-6, are generally regarded as safe seats for Republicans (about 66%-33% in the 2024 elections), but the last Trump term showed that there's still room for upsets in special elections. And although 218-217 isn't enough to oust the speaker and take control over the House's legislative agenda, it does mean that every House member needs to show up to vote on everything, lest they lose the vote. It makes it much more inconvenient for Congress to support what Trump is doing, and adds a lot of friction.

Lobbying those with political power:

At the federal level, there are still elected officials who may have the tools to slow down or stop some of this President's attempted actions. The Republicans only have a bare majority of 218-215 in the House, and 53-47 in the Senate (plus tiebreakers). Many of the actions taken in the last 2 weeks have been illegal usurping of Congressional power. Encourage Congress (including Congressional Republicans) to take back some of that power for themselves. Let them know their jobs aren't safe, even in the "safe" districts or states.

At the state and local level, encourage all governmental organizations not to go along with Trump's initiatives. Schools, hospitals, police, other governmental functions should stop cooperating with the feds on things like immigration. Tell your elected officials at the state and local level. If your election precinct is anything like mine, there are dozens of people who rely on your vote, and need to hear a loud and voluminous series of voices telling them that they need to use their power for good, to resist Trump.

If you know people with influence, like major donors to a political party or candidate, a family member of a political official, lobbyists, journalists who amplify political messages, lean on them to make their voices heard on this. There should be a cacophony of loud voices from every direction encouraging resistance in concrete ways, to stop specific policies and actions.

Lawsuits and legal action:

If you have the means and are in a position to challenge any executive actions in court, do so. It doesn't matter if your own issue isn't necessarily politically charged. Tie up Trump's DOJ and Trump's legal defense network with work, and get the courts to start bogging down Trump's executive actions, big and small.

Run up legal fees with the law firms doing work on behalf of conservative interests. Is there a private law firm representing Trump or his allies in a lawsuit that you're involved in? Make them do more work, and charge more money in the hourly bills, for work responding to your own motions/objections/requests. Don't make their lives easier.

Economic

Boycott and Divest:

  • Don't do business with anyone who supports the Trump agenda, and don't even invest in the companies that do.
  • If you can afford to, stop doing work for, or on behalf of, those organizations. Think of it like crossing a picket line, and refuse to do the work.
  • If you run a service, turn fascists away, or even charge them a higher price (a mechanic silently adding a price premium for anyone with Trump bumper stickers, etc.).
  • Your own personal budget or financial/economic power may be smaller than your organizational or work budget that you control. If you're in charge of ordering food for an office event with work funds, or decorating an office, or buying things for use in your operations, use that purchasing decision to make sure it goes to the right people, and away from those who support Trump.

Donate and support organizations who are doing good work:

  • There are nonprofits helping the marginalized, fighting legal battles, or even little things like building technical tools for coordinating communications or organization on our side, or monitoring/reporting the actions of the other side.
  • Many of these organizations can make use of donations, or your business.
  • Even on the for-profit side, some businesses are doing good, either through charity or through focus of resources towards doing good. Support them with your business, and help others find them as well (good reviews, word of mouth, etc.).

Extract, within legal limits, whatever wealth or income you can from those who would support Trump:

  • Charge Trumpers higher prices.
  • Perform shoddy work for them when hired.
  • Refuse to give them discounts you'd ordinarily give to others.
  • Put them at the bottom of the priority list whenever you need to prioritize resources or efforts, whether we're talking about a home renovation project or a waiter deciding which table to drop food at first.
  • Submit that costly warranty or return or refund claim for something you previously bought from a Trump-supporting business.
  • Waste their time and waste their money.

Strikes/Slowdowns:

  • If your employment contract allows it or if you can afford to lose your job over it, and you're in a position where your work tends to help Trump supporters, start looking at ways to strike, or even engage in some kind of sickout, in the most disruptive way.
  • This is going to be heavily job/career/employer dependent, but it's something to think about whether it applies to you, and if so, to coordinate to figure out the best way to deploy this power.

Social/Cultural

Resist:

  • Refuse to cooperate with those who seek to implement Trump's agenda.
  • When ICE or any other Trump enforcement agency comes knocking, don't talk to them. Never consent to a search. Don't offer them food or water or wifi or warmth or parking or shelter.
  • Refuse to give information or access without a warrant or court order.
  • Even when legally required to comply, do it in an inconvenient way: turn over data in inconvenient and inefficient file formats (scanned TIFFs even if you have the digitally created PDFs, weird archaic photo/video formats, etc.), waste people's time with in-person demands or physical documents rather than electronic communication, ask dumb followup questions, etc.
  • There's a sabotage manual floating around, and that's got a lot of good ideas, many of which are actually legal.
  • Stand your ground when refusing illegal orders. Just this morning (February 3, 2025), a group of federal employees successfully turned away Musk's people from the OPM building, by standing up for the law (that's why this is in Part 1 of this series and not in Part 2, nonviolent civil disobedience).
  • For government employees and military personnel and law enforcement officers especially, they're in the most important position to stand in the way of illegal firings, illegal access to systems, etc. If you can afford to, stand up for what is legal and right and refuse unlawful orders until you are removed, then challenge your removal until you are physically arrested and carried out. Make enough commotion so that your arrest will be filmed and broadcast.

Record:

  • Take pictures and video, document everything that you see that is advancing the Trump agenda.
  • Record illegal arrests, get whatever visual information you can of any faces or nametags or badge numbers, etc.
  • Copy memos and notices, record announcements and orders and instructions, so that they can be analyzed later.
  • If the fascists are looking to delete records, burn books, take websites or databases offline, etc., volunteer to download, store, or distribute that information.
  • Actively participate by disseminating useful information, maybe even running websites that publish information that Trump's team is trying to suppress.

Report:

  • Observe and warn about illegal acts by federal agents or Trump-aligned militias or other groups. Are there people bringing weapons to a Proud Boys rally? Did a pardoned January 6 insurrectionist illegally modify a firearm, or carry a firearm while intoxicated? Keep an eye out on them, because many of them will slip up and inadvertently leak details of the illegal things they're doing.
  • Submit the petty complaints you'd ordinarily not bother with, like a Trump-supporting organization failing to comply with the fire code, health and safety code, illegal parking, etc.
  • See something illegal that a Trump-supporting organization is doing? Report them and let them deal with the hassle. Get their vehicles towed, their power shut off, their rallies broken up, etc.
  • Keep the press and public in the loop so that they know what's happening and can disseminate that information.
  • Warn locals when white supremacists or Trump-aligned insurrectionists are rallying in an area.
  • Share relevant information and video that you see, especially crossing mediums (e.g., copying and forwarding a video you saw on Lemmy to a person who isn't on Lemmy).

Speak up:

  • Persuade the bystanders that what is happening is not normal, is dangerous and illegal, and encourage them to get involved, too.
  • Give concrete examples of how Trumps actions have already hurt people.
  • Show your receipts from when people downplayed Project 2025.
  • Show the apathetic non-voter, or the uninformed voter, that electing Trump was a mistake and we need to do everything in our power to prevent them from consolidating more power.
  • Appeal to their specific interests: show cops the videos of January 6 insurrectionists tasing and assaulting cops, show military servicemembers how Trump is exacting revenge on those who he himself appointed (Milley, Bolton, Pompeo, Wray), show business interests how Trump is extracting favors from the rich and interfering with markets, etc.

Isolate, Shun, and Shame:

  • This is the non-economic analogue to the boycott and divest bullet point above. Mockery and shaming are more effective when you're naturally a funny guy, and where it comes off as mean-spirited fun rather than bitter/angry. Channel your stereotypical 80's teen movie jock making fun of nerds and go to town using popularity against these losers.
  • Manage your social relationships so that Trump supporters don't get the benefit of your friendship or of the neighborly or kind things you do for others.
  • Boycott the social connections of Trumpists. Stop inviting them to things, cut them out of your group message threads.
  • Call people out on their support of fascism. Point out their hypocrisy. Make them uncomfortable showing their political beliefs in public.
  • Point out the leopards-eating just deserts when you decline to help a Trump supporter with their Gofundme when they ask their social network for help while voting against their own interest when it comes to disaster relief, universal healthcare, workplace job protections, sick leave, etc.

Organize:

  • Get like-minded people together to take action.
  • Coordinate activities for maximum impact.
  • Catalog what different people's skillsets are, so that we can all think through where a person's efforts may be most effective.

Infiltrate right wing groups:

  • Pretend to be one of them. Gather intelligence.
  • Record and report any crimes to the press, to law enforcement authorities that are positioned to act on it.
  • Volunteer to do stuff to assist in operations, and then leave that stuff undone, or done so poorly as to be counterproductive.
  • Poison their data, spread information or misinformation that disrupts their ability to organize or act.
  • Even if you get caught and expelled, take some solace in the fact that you're adding to their paranoia that they've got people they can't trust.

Volunteer and help:

  • There is, and will continue to be, a huge need for people who are able to help those in need.
  • Everyone has different skillsets, and there will need to be doctors, lawyers, counselors, engineers, programmers, journalists, scientists, cooks, drivers, mechanics, and all sorts of workers who can do good things to help people in need. You each know your own profession best, and can figure out where your efforts can provide the most help.

There's a lot more to be said, and I think the juicier stuff will come in the later parts of this series with civil disobedience and more active resistance, but I wanted to get this stuff out there, and get people's creativity going. What did I miss? What did I get wrong? Is there something on this list that could use some elaboration?

 

Amazon is running a Prime Day sale on July 16 and 17. Setting aside the fact that this is two separate days, neither 716 nor 717 are prime numbers. They should've done 7/19 instead.

view more: next ›