On "Republicans Against the Rule of Law": The original embrace of Trump required a choice to declare that ordinary standards of moral judgment must be suspended in the case of Trump, because he is allegedly so uniquely suited to accomplishing "conservative" purposes -- and because the opposition is allegedly so evil -- that it would be w…
On "Republicans Against the Rule of Law": The original embrace of Trump required a choice to declare that ordinary standards of moral judgment must be suspended in the case of Trump, because he is allegedly so uniquely suited to accomplishing "conservative" purposes -- and because the opposition is allegedly so evil -- that it would be wrong to hobble him with rules. But the Trump apologists back then insisted that he would honor the rule of law and restore constitutional governance.
Then Trump told federal officials to violate law and said he would pardon them. He asked "Who would prosecute me?" when an aide told him that what he wanted done was illegal.
He openly demanded "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" in order to reinstall him in power after losing an election.
He defied a subpoena to return highly sensitive documents he willfully and unlawfully pilfered, and he falsely claims that the law allows him to do whatever he wants with them. He is arguing in court that he should be free to violate laws without consequence while wielding the powers of the presidency - and claiming that being a presidential candidate should immunize him from the law too.
All of this is defended by people who have claimed to believe in the rule of law and to oppose the tyranny of rulers unrestrained by law. Now they claim that any effort to hold their side to the rule of law is just malicious, political "lawfare."
The turn against the rule of law as it applies to their political allies is a natural corollary of the demand that their political standard bearer be exempt from ordinary ethical judgment.
On "Republicans Against the Rule of Law": The original embrace of Trump required a choice to declare that ordinary standards of moral judgment must be suspended in the case of Trump, because he is allegedly so uniquely suited to accomplishing "conservative" purposes -- and because the opposition is allegedly so evil -- that it would be wrong to hobble him with rules. But the Trump apologists back then insisted that he would honor the rule of law and restore constitutional governance.
Then Trump told federal officials to violate law and said he would pardon them. He asked "Who would prosecute me?" when an aide told him that what he wanted done was illegal.
He openly demanded "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" in order to reinstall him in power after losing an election.
He defied a subpoena to return highly sensitive documents he willfully and unlawfully pilfered, and he falsely claims that the law allows him to do whatever he wants with them. He is arguing in court that he should be free to violate laws without consequence while wielding the powers of the presidency - and claiming that being a presidential candidate should immunize him from the law too.
All of this is defended by people who have claimed to believe in the rule of law and to oppose the tyranny of rulers unrestrained by law. Now they claim that any effort to hold their side to the rule of law is just malicious, political "lawfare."
The turn against the rule of law as it applies to their political allies is a natural corollary of the demand that their political standard bearer be exempt from ordinary ethical judgment.
Well said, Carol. 🔥🔥🔥