The right understands that might equals right. They’re using citizen intimidation to steer judges towards rulings they want. This tactic will likely be more effective than boycotts and peaceful demonstrations. Learn something, people.
spreken ze dutch?
Oh well good news then, ted cruz had a proposed bill to protect judges from intimidation after death threats towards Kavanaugh.
Asked about Musk’s comments, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said that Musk was speaking in his personal capacity and that the White House has taken no position on whether judges should be impeached. He said “threats against judges are unacceptable, and the president condemns such actions,” and that appropriate law enforcement agencies that are tasked with surveilling such threats are doing so.
“The White House condemns any threats to really any public officials, despite our feelings that a lot of these people are leftist, crazy judges that aren’t following the Constitution,” Fields said. “Just because these people are leftist, crazy, unconstitutional people doesn’t mean they deserve to be harmed. That’s not how you engage with disputes in this country.”
That is what passes for an official ‘condemnation’ (read: endorsement) of pro-fascist political violence these days. If you think that non-fascists won’t be made to defend themselves using force, and soon, think again.
This is a lot easier to do in a sustained fashion when you have the sympathy of law enforcement like right wingers do
I mean, we can just kill the cops. It’s not like they’re trained well. They just know how to mag dump in a general direction.
agreed, but we don’t so oh well. it’s also a lot easier when we don’t have people making excuses for why nothing will ever work.
When we say liberals are do nothings and blame you guys in part for the things your country does, this is what we are talking about. The right wing citizenry in your country actively does shit to push their political agenda constantly. Meanwhile you guys just argue about the validity of “vote blue no matter who” on the internet and stick up for democratic politicians who are themselves, at best, doing absolutely fuck all.
Because those of us who lean left and want to bring the fight to the spineless right are silenced on Lemmy unless these topics come up on servers that don’t remove right wing rhetoric from the left. The problem is that the bulk of moderation understands that the right will talk the talk but rarely walk the walk so they get away with it. But when the left gets upset they only complain about procedure and all the laws that the right ignores so if violence comes up it gets silenced.
The venues are the problem. Having moderators like Jordan Lund helping the right by silencing the left is why. The world is unjust as a baseline. The left has to work so much against the current because they have to work against the right AND the neoliberal left.
Believe me, I wish the right would be scared of what kind of rhetoric they are engendering from their opponents but we simply aren’t allowed without committing actual violence. And then the rhetoric becomes threats and silenced. That’s why the right just trolls and makes spineless threats - they don’t act on them so they get away with it.
One major issue with this: The left and right are fighting for different things.
The far right would ultimately like a military dictatorship of sorts. In order to pull this off in a way the majority of the public would accept, they need people to be afraid, to have violent enemies that can only be defeated with organized military force.
The left, on the other hand, is fighting for civilian rule. This is based on the idea that laws need to apply to everyone, and that military force should not be used to suppress the public at large. In order to pull this off, it must be true that military force applied domestically is not actually necessary to have a functioning society.
Because these goals are fundamentally different, the methods of accomplishing them become different by necessity. Some methods strengthen and empower the goals of the right, other methods strengthen and empower the left. These are distinct, and it’s very important not to be manipulated into playing into the hands of your opponent.
This is well articulated. Like many, I am also frustrated by the “They go low, we go high” strategy in which Democrat politicians hamstring themselves, but on the wider scale, it is useful to bear in mind that we are fighting for a fundamentally different world than what our opponents are (though certainly it would be great if elected officials could be a little less pathetic)
ugh. jordan lund is the absolute worst. the fact that his profile pic had a chaotic good t shirt is beyond a slap in the face. we need the addresses of everyone who tries to obstruct.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I see comments about Musk and Trump being “taken care of” in basically every post mentioning them.
They aren’t direct calls to action, but the discussion of using violence to solve the problem is definitely ongoing and not being heavily censored.
You’re exactly right. I still say vote blue no matter who when a republican is the alternative (it is a war after all), but I do think we can do better at picking our candidates in the primaries.
I am absolutely not talking about just “picking better candidates in the primaries.” How did you so comically miss my point entirely?
Look if we just sit back, we can vote again in 4 years and it’ll be fine. What do you mean they’ve made it harder to vote and gerrymandered my district?
Lol how did you miss your own point so comically?
You: liberals don’t get anything done they just squabble and their candidates don’t do shit
Them: you’re right we need to get our shit together and pick better candidates who will stop squabbling and get shit done.
You: nO nOt lIkE tHaT!!
Because you have to do shit besides just trying to pick better candidates with votes. Just waiting to vote is the issue.
i didn’t miss your naive ideological wish, but, because i’m a grown adult who’s been watching the political game for the last 30 years, i realize that third party candidates have no practical chance and i don’t want to hand another election to republicans.
i’m sorry you don’t understand american politics but you really should try harder before you spread more harmful disinformation.
let’s just agree one the one thing that really matters: guns.
He wasn’t saying to vote third party. He was saying progressive people need to get out and get in the face of office holders, threaten them with personal violence if necessary, for going along with fascist bullshit and trampling on the rights of the helpless.
He was saying that voting is bullshit. That phone calls & letters to representatives are a little, and getting out on the street matters. Especially if your representative is the other party.
oh my bad. absolutely agree. however, voting is still important in addition to all that. it’s a war. we have to use every tactic available.
I love your username by the way.
Yeah but voting is one day every four years. Yeah you should do it. But obviously it can’t be the only thing you do if you actually want to achieve anything politically. And if you act like it’s the only thing, or even the most important thing, you’re fucking up your country. Full stop.
Yes, exactly, thank you. I thought I put it pretty plainly but I guess it needed further explaining.
I think it would be more appropriate to say you’re voting anti-fascism. It just so happens that blue is the only legitimate option that’s anti-fascism.
Which third world country are you talking abou… oh, wait.
i mean yeah “haha” or whatever, but I really think we need to move past making jokes and start talking about serious action.
Sure. I’m just a bystander though. Gonna make jokes till you guys get your act together.
Is there a non pay wall link?
Thanks! The few I’ve links that I checked were bored so this is helpful.
That’s a Reuters article. I never got paywalled and I don’t have an ad blocker.
I must have hit the article limit. I’m getting a subscription request. Firefox Reader View to the rescue:
WASHINGTON, March 5 (Reuters) - U.S. Marshals have warned federal judges of unusually high threat levels as tech billionaire Elon Musk and other Trump administration allies ramp up efforts to discredit judges who stand in the way of White House efforts to slash federal jobs and programs, said several judges with knowledge of the warnings.
In recent weeks, Musk, congressional Republicans and other top allies of U.S. President Donald Trump have called for the impeachment of some federal judges or attacked their integrity in response to court rulings that have slowed the Trump administration’s moves to dismantle entire government agencies and fire tens of thousands of workers.
Musk, the world’s richest person, has lambasted judges in more than 30 posts since the end of January on his social media site X, calling them “corrupt,” “radical,” “evil” and deriding the “TYRANNY of the JUDICIARY” after judges blocked parts of the federal downsizing that he’s led. The Tesla CEO has also reposted nearly two dozen tweets by others attacking judges.
Reuters interviews with 11 federal judges in multiple districts revealed mounting alarm over their physical security and, in some cases, a rise in violent threats in recent weeks. Most spoke on condition of anonymity and said they did not want to further inflame the situation or make comments that could be interpreted as conflicting with their duties of impartiality. The Marshals Service declined to comment on security matters.
As Reuters documented in a series of stories last year, political pressure on federal judges and violent threats against them have been rising since the 2020 presidential election, when federal courts heard a series of highly politicized cases, including failed lawsuits filed by Trump and his backers seeking to overturn his loss. Recent rhetorical attacks on judges and the rise in threats jeopardize the judicial independence that underpins America’s democratic constitutional order, say legal experts.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in his annual year-end report in December, warned about a rising number of threats to the judiciary’s independence, including calls for violence against judges and “dangerous” suggestions by elected officials to disregard court rulings they disagree with.
On social media, Musk and Republican lawmakers have described judges as threats to democracy, turning the role of the federal judiciary – a branch of government created to check executive and congressional power – on its head. ‘‘The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges,’’ Musk wrote in one post. “No one is above the law, including judges.”
Musk did not respond to a request for comment about his wave of criticism against the judiciary.
Several judges said the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides judicial security, has informed them of a heightened threat environment over the past several weeks, either verbally or in writing. The Marshals also discussed security measures, the judges said, including regular searches for threatening posts online.
Two New York federal judges – U.S. District Judges Paul Engelmayer and Jeannette Vargas – are receiving extra security after their rulings blocked staff from the Musk-driven Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive Treasury Department data, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Engelmayer and Vargas did not respond to requests for comment.
Another person familiar with the judicial security environment said several federal judges in the Washington D.C. area had received pizzas sent anonymously to their homes, which is being interpreted by law enforcement as a form of intimidation meant to convey that a target’s address is known.
“I’ve never seen judges as uneasy as they are now,” said John Jones III, a former U.S. district judge in Pennsylvania appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush in 2002.
Jones, who also served on the security committee of the federal judiciary’s policymaking arm, said judges are now grappling with being identified by name in viral social media posts criticizing their integrity and demanding their impeachment. He said he has spoken to about a dozen current judges who expressed safety concerns for themselves and their families.
“The consequences are, quite starkly, that we’re going to get a judge killed if we’re not careful,” said Jones.
Federal courts are hearing more than 100 lawsuits challenging the administration’s initiatives, many of them focused on efforts driven by Musk and his team at DOGE to purge hundreds of thousands of federal employees and dramatically scale back government aid and regulatory programs.
Trump and his White House press secretary also have criticized judges they describe as activists who have issued orders that slowed or blocked some of those efforts.
Asked about Musk’s comments, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said that Musk was speaking in his personal capacity and that the White House has taken no position on whether judges should be impeached. He said “threats against judges are unacceptable, and the president condemns such actions,” and that appropriate law enforcement agencies that are tasked with surveilling such threats are doing so.
“The White House condemns any threats to really any public officials, despite our feelings that a lot of these people are leftist, crazy judges that aren’t following the Constitution,” Fields said. “Just because these people are leftist, crazy, unconstitutional people doesn’t mean they deserve to be harmed. That’s not how you engage with disputes in this country.”
“WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL”
When U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled on February 25 that the Trump administration must resume U.S. foreign aid payments that Trump had halted, Musk and other allies of the president called for the judge’s removal.
“When judges egregiously undermine the democratic will of the people, they must be fired,” Musk posted on X.
In response to that post, some of Musk’s followers on X said the judge should be arrested for treason or deported. One suggested “US patriots fire upon him.” Some assailed his Muslim heritage and questioned his patriotism, including one who falsely asserted Ali had ties to Muslim militant groups.
After an earlier February ruling by Ali in the same case, an X user called for him to be beheaded. Another questioned “why so few judges are hanged.” One posted a picture of a noose.
Ali didn’t respond to a request for comment on the threats against him.
“The chatter among judges is we have to be careful,” one federal judge said in an interview. Judges overseeing Trump cases receive widespread media coverage, heightening security concerns when their decisions prove controversial, the judge said.
Several judges described threatening phone calls promising personal harm.
The American Bar Association issued a statement on Monday denouncing the ongoing wave of verbal assaults and threats against judges. The Federal Judges Association said in a statement to its 1,100 members late on Tuesday that “continued violence, intimidation and defiance directed at judges simply because they are fulfilling their sworn judicial duties” risked “the collapse of the rule of law.”
Threats against judges have climbed sharply since Trump ramped up his criticism of the judiciary after he lost the 2020 election. In that time, serious threats against federal judges more than doubled, from 220 in 2020 to 457 in 2023. Last year, Reuters documented how Trump’s attacks on judges who rule against his interests often lead to waves of threats against them.
Calls for impeachment of judges have added a new wrinkle to the hostility some judges face. Republicans in Congress have introduced impeachment articles against three judges, including Ali, who have ruled against Trump’s executive orders.
Americans have called for impeaching judges before, including failed efforts against Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren after he delivered a landmark opinion in 1954 outlawing racial segregation in public schools. But impeachment is historically rare. It’s typically reserved for gross misconduct and never intended as a weapon against judges who issue an unpopular ruling, said judges and legal scholars.
Convicting judges on articles of impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate, where Republicans hold only a slim majority.
The vitriolic rhetoric has given pause to members of the judiciary who have been touched firsthand by violence. U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed when a would-be assassin showed up at her home in 2020, warned of the consequences of stoking public rage against judges.
“It really is dangerous to use disparaging words because it leads to death, as in my case,” Salas said in an interview. “It leads to the ratcheting up of already very high emotion. And you know I’m living proof.”
Love that reader mode still works for paywalls
Reuters gives a certain number of free articles per month(?) before the paywall.
