The exec branch is at war with the judiciary.

[Rumpole]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US

Trump Ramps Up Attacks On Judges, Calls Out Justice John Roberts


President Donald Trump took to social media on Thursday to further air his grievances about “radical left judges, ” aka anyone who imposes barriers to his mass deportation plans.

Trump, who has been widely accused of violating the U.S. Constitution on numerous occasions, baselessly argued that rulings and decisions from judges who he disagrees with could “very well lead to the destruction of our Country!”

“These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes. They want all of the advantages with none of the risks. Again, a President has to be allowed to act quickly and decisively about such matters as returning murderers, drug lords, rapists, and other such type criminals back to their Homeland, or to other locations that will allow our Country to be SAFE,” Trump said on Truth Social.
Threats Rise Against Judges Overseeing Trump Policy Cases, Fueling Safety Concerns

President Trump’s angry call on Tuesday for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his administration on deportation flights has set off a string of near-instant social media taunts and threats, including images of judges being marched off in handcuffs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-deportations-woefully-inadequate/ar-AA1BlcnP


U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is blasting the Trump administration for providing a “woefully insufficient” response to his demand for more details about last weekend’s flights deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is blasting the Trump administration for providing a “woefully insufficient” response to his demand for more details about last weekend’s flights deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.

Boasberg’s brief order is an initial step toward proceedings that could result in government lawyers or officials being held in contempt. He directed Justice Department lawyers to explain by Tuesday why two planes carrying Venezuelan citizens from a south Texas airport continued to their destination in El Salvador, despite the judge’s instructions to return the planes to the U.S.

When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

 

[SeaMajor7]

You've got that BACKWARDS, rumphole.

 

[MarathonMike]

Would someone please wake up?

It's not our fault you put us to sleep with your endless cut and paste.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US


When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

 

[Edgetho]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US


When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

The Judicial Branch is NOT a co-equal branch of government. The only people that think it is -- Is the Judicial Branch.

When the Judicial Branch wants power, lately it simply awards itself the power it desires. When there is a clash between the Judicial and the Executive, who decides the issue? Why, the Judicial Branch, of course.

Why should any one of 677 unelected, unaccountable, unknown District Court Judges be able to stop a POTUS in his tracks while he is doing what The American People elected him to do?

District Court Judges have never won a single vote for Office from any American at any time, but one, just one, can stymie POTUS, who was voted on by ALL of America?

Something stinks here and if SCOTUS is too chicken shit to do their jobs by snapping back the leash on these activist Judges, then one of two things will happen...... Neither of them good....

Either POTUS will completely ignore them or The American People will remind the Judiciary that they are a luxury and not necessary. And if they don't behave, we will put their arrogant asses on the curb. Or worse.

The Judiciary is picking a fight it can't possibly win.

Your word salad is bullshit. And your conclusions are childish

 

[Darkwind]

OP is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

 

[Votto]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US


When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

Breaking!!!

The war between Trump and the judiciary is now over as a Federal judge has declared himself President.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — The Trump Administration agenda was stopped in its tracks this week after a federal judge appointed himself the new President of the United States.

"There's nothing we can do," said legal experts. "He's a federal judge."

Sources confirmed that Judge Mortimer Dithers of the Northern District of California granted himself all the powers of the executive branch in an emergency move to stop Trump. "Last night, the Constitution appeared to me in a dream and told me to do this," said Judge Dithers. "You can't argue with that. Also, my word on this is law because I'm a federal judge."

President Judge Dithers has already issued several executive actions, including orders for Tesla to stop making cars, Elon Musk to punch himself in the face, and Trump to not move his head next time someone shoots at him. "This is the bidding of your new leader," said Judge Dithers. "So let it be done, by the order of your new Federal Judge President."

Trump later responded to the ruling on Truth Social by accusing the judge of "looking like a potato."

At publishing time, Judge Dithers had been unseated as President by a higher court judge who declared himself President instead.

 

[Edgetho]

OP is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

I doubt very much that he/she/it wrote it.

Sounds more like something an Intern at some DISGUSTING FILTH outlet wrote. From the mind of a Post-Teen college girl

 

[Darkwind]

I doubt very much that he/she/it wrote it.

Sounds more like something an Intern at some DISGUSTING FILTH outlet wrote. From the mind of a Post-Teen college girl

Oh, I not for an instant thought that the OP wrote it. The OP may have had someone in authority over him, a parental-type person, tell him he agreed with what it said, but at no point do I think it was written by the OP.

 

[Marener]

Why should any one of 677 unelected, unaccountable, unknown District Court Judges be able to stop a POTUS in his tracks while he is doing what The American People elected him to do?

Because we are a constitutional republic.

 

[jwoodie]

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

Is "vigorous" your new catchword of the day? I prefer "honest" or "unbiased."

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump must step back and stand down.

 

[Independent thinker]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US


When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

The judiciary is part of the deep state.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Breaking!!!

The war between Trump and the judiciary is now over as a Federal judge has declared himself President.

View attachment 1092011

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — The Trump Administration agenda was stopped in its tracks this week after a federal judge appointed himself the new President of the United States.

"There's nothing we can do," said legal experts. "He's a federal judge."

Sources confirmed that Judge Mortimer Dithers of the Northern District of California granted himself all the powers of the executive branch in an emergency move to stop Trump. "Last night, the Constitution appeared to me in a dream and told me to do this," said Judge Dithers. "You can't argue with that. Also, my word on this is law because I'm a federal judge."

President Judge Dithers has already issued several executive actions, including orders for Tesla to stop making cars, Elon Musk to punch himself in the face, and Trump to not move his head next time someone shoots at him. "This is the bidding of your new leader," said Judge Dithers. "So let it be done, by the order of your new Federal Judge President."

Trump later responded to the ruling on Truth Social by accusing the judge of "looking like a potato."

At publishing time, Judge Dithers had been unseated as President by a higher court judge who declared himself President instead.

Could be worse.

 

[Rumpole]

The Judicial Branch is NOT a co-equal branch of government. The only people that think it is -- Is the Judicial Branch.

When the Judicial Branch wants power, lately it simply awards itself the power it desires. When there is a clash between the Judicial and the Executive, who decides the issue? Why, the Judicial Branch, of course.

Why should any one of 677 unelected, unaccountable, unknown District Court Judges be able to stop a POTUS in his tracks while he is doing what The American People elected him to do?

District Court Judges have never won a single vote for Office from any American at any time, but one, just one, can stymie POTUS, who was voted on by ALL of America?

Something stinks here and if SCOTUS is too chicken shit to do their jobs by snapping back the leash on these activist Judges, then one of two things will happen...... Neither of them good....

Either POTUS will completely ignore them or The American People will remind the Judiciary that they are a luxury and not necessary. And if they don't behave, we will put their arrogant asses on the curb. Or worse.

The Judiciary is picking a fight it can't possibly win.

Your word salad is bullshit. And your conclusions are childish

I really find it amazing that there are people like you who missed the whole point of 1776 and the ratification of the constitution in 1788. Let’s walk you through this, because what you’ve laid out isn’t just wrong, where 'just wrong' is a monumental understatement--it’s the kind of thinking that paves the road to authoritarianism.

First off, you claim the Judicial Branch isn’t co-equal. But that’s not up for debate--it’s Constitutional Law 101. Where in gawd's earth do you get such nonsense? The Constitution creates three branches--Legislative, Executive, and Judicial--with equal standing. The founders did this on purpose. Why? Because they feared exactly the kind of strongman presidency you seem to think is just fine. Hamilton made it crystal clear in Federalist 78: the judiciary exists specifically to act as a check on executive overreach.

You complain that judges are unelected--as if that disqualifies them. But that’s the point. Judges aren’t supposed to be politicians. They’re not supposed to pander to voters or bend to mob rule. Their job is to interpret the law independently, even when that means stopping the President of the United States. That’s not arrogance. That’s how the rule of law works in a constitutional republic.

You seem bothered by the idea that one judge can “stymie” a president elected by millions. But here’s the deal: the presidency is powerful--not absolute. We don’t live in a monarchy, and being elected doesn’t give a president the right to break the law. If it did, you wouldn’t have a democracy. You’d have a dictatorship with elections. They have that in Russia.

And now we get to the real heart of your argument--the threat. “The judiciary is picking a fight it can’t win.” “We’ll put their arrogant asses on the curb. Or worse.” That’s not patriotism. That’s fascism 101--threatening an independent judiciary with violence or removal because it dares to check the president’s power. You’re not defending liberty. You’re advocating the destruction of the one institution standing between this country and autocratic collapse.

You mock the idea of judicial review, but you’ve ignored every historical example, every political theory, and every warning sign. You don’t have a counterargument--you have a grievance, wrapped in populist rage and aimed straight at the Constitution.

Let me break it down plainly: If you think the president should be immune from judicial checks, you don’t believe in American democracy. You believe in a Caesar. And if you want to throw judges “on the curb” because they won’t bow to your guy, then you’re not the patriot in this conversation. You’re the threat.

 

[Rumpole]

Is "vigorous" your new catchword of the day? I prefer "honest" or "unbiased."

The problem with those words is they are subject to interpretation. Vigorous isn't. There are all sorts of news sources in a vigorous free press,, just pick the one you like, the one's you believe are 'honest' and 'unbiased', so that's the point.

 

[Rumpole]

The judiciary is part of the deep state.

It’s curious how often the phrase ‘deep state’ is uttered by those whose understanding of civics could be inscribed upon a cocktail napkin

 

[BothWings]

The various branches and departments of our government have become chess pieces for the New World Order vs the patriots we actually still have in office. They grab power in whatever branches they can and use the powers thereof just like chess pieces....all with their unique rights and abilities....to play the game. It's not the actual departments which are at war, its the Deep State factions which are using them at their convenience. Paper--rock-scissors.

 

[jwoodie]

The problem with those words is they are subject to interpretation. Vigorous isn't. There are all sorts of news sources in a vigorous free press,, just pick the one you like, the one's you believe are 'honest' and 'unbiased', so that's the point.

In the context of the judiciary and free press, "honest" means truthful and "unbiased" means free of personal opinion. What does "vigorous" mean in this context?

 

[Meathead]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US


When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

The insanity continues. You lost bigly. Get over it.