5 of Wisconsin’s 6 conservative Republican congressmen, Glenn Grothman, Mike Gallagher, Bryan Steil, Tom Tiffany and Scott Fitzgerald, are nervous that the state Supreme Court is going to throw out the gerrymandered congressional maps. So they’ve asked one of the progressive judges, Janet Protasiewicz, to recuse herself. Perhaps progressives should ask the two most partisan GOP hacks on the court, Annette Ziegler and Brian Hagedorn, to recuse themselves. But that isn’t how it works in this country, is it?
Well, it does if you have no respect for the rule of law… like most Republicans. Aaron Blake put it like this: “A consequential development of the Trump era is what increasingly looks like the Republicans’ acrimonious divorce from the rule of law. The party that once prided itself as the law-and-order side has leaped headlong into highly speculative theories about the ‘weaponization’ of the justice system, spurred by Trump. Both Trump and his former lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently flouted civil defamation verdicts against them by continuing to defame their victims— cheered on by many on the right. Republican voters increasingly want a president who is willing to break both rules and laws to get things done. But some members of the party have in recent days crossed a new threshold: by suggesting that it’s okay to disregard the Supreme Court.”
When the US Supreme Court— 6-3 Republican— ruled that federal authorities can remove razor wire from the U.S.-Mexico border, Rep Chip Roy (R-TX), Gov. Kevin Stitt (R-OK) and several other fascists urged Texas to ignore the Court. Marjorie Traitor Greene (R-GA) urged a “national divorce” again.
In some ways, it’s a logical extension of the emerging Republican argument about state sovereignty. Anticipating a federal-vs.-state clash, Republicans have taken to arguing that Texas has the authority to defend itself from those crossing the border illegally.
But you can also see how we’re getting into dicey territory here. The Supreme Court is the institution we charge with interpreting our Constitution; we now have a sitting U.S. governor and a congressman suggesting it’s okay to ignore what the court says if you have a different interpretation. (Tapper noted to Stitt that Democratic governors could seemingly do the same in restricting gun rights beyond what the court says is constitutional— by arguing that it’s just that important to protect their citizens.)
The Roy and Stitt comments come after Alabama Republicans last year flouted a Supreme Court order regarding the state’s congressional map. The court had upheld a lower-court ruling that required a second district “in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.” The resulting district was just 40 percent Black. The lower court again rejected it, saying it was “not aware of any other case in which a state legislature” declined to abide by such an order. The Supreme Court again upheld that ruling.
It’s quite possible we’ll never have a situation in which Texas officials or the National Guard actually have to decide between what they argue is their duty and what the Supreme Court says.
But these kinds of comments certainly lay the rhetorical groundwork for a pretty unthinkable future clash— especially given they come from a party that has demonstrated increasingly little regard for the current application of the rule of law.
Yesterday, Ed Kilgore wrote that Trump is no longer fighting the GOP establishment; he owns it. He owns the congressional Republicans, the GOP governors and the Republican donor class. “It’s a token of Trump’s political skills that he can simultaneously dominate the most staid elements of the Republican Party (who are largely doing very well in Joe Biden’s economy) while maintaining his reputation as a chaos agent and an angel of vengeance for deeply unhappy MAGA grassroots foot soldiers. Some GOP elites may privately feel that they are riding a dangerous tiger temporarily in hopes of inheriting not only power in Washington but what’s left of the pre-Trump party when he finally retires or expires. But he has their support nonetheless, and they are in a poor position to rein him in if he wins in November, or if he loses and once again refuses to accept defeat.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.
ho hum. what this column illustrates is that, yes, nazis don't give a yoctofuck about rule of law.
But it also should imply two other things... if you can connect a few dots:
democraps (and, by extension, their voters) don't give a yoctofuck either, arguably since the '60s.
the "justice system" itself ALSO doesn't give much of a fuck (perhaps as much as a zeptofuck) either, since they refuse to enforce even blatant violations of…