Susan Glasser

and negotiate with Congress and have a political fight that yields a different result.

and negotiate with Congress and have a political fight that yields a different result.

Just do it. Because they don't have the votes to do what they're doing by executive fiat. And the great fear right now that Larry points out and others do as well is that we're hurtling toward a situation where with so many of these actions being challenged in court, that Trump might become really the first president of the post-American Civil War era, literally.

Just do it. Because they don't have the votes to do what they're doing by executive fiat. And the great fear right now that Larry points out and others do as well is that we're hurtling toward a situation where with so many of these actions being challenged in court, that Trump might become really the first president of the post-American Civil War era, literally.

Just do it. Because they don't have the votes to do what they're doing by executive fiat. And the great fear right now that Larry points out and others do as well is that we're hurtling toward a situation where with so many of these actions being challenged in court, that Trump might become really the first president of the post-American Civil War era, literally.

You know, there's this line in that piece that says, no one has found any examples since 1865 of a president refusing to carry out a judicial decree. And That's the fear right now that is animating many of the legal experts and that is animating many of those who study democracy, because that could be the way in which he breaks the back of this thing.

You know, there's this line in that piece that says, no one has found any examples since 1865 of a president refusing to carry out a judicial decree. And That's the fear right now that is animating many of the legal experts and that is animating many of those who study democracy, because that could be the way in which he breaks the back of this thing.

You know, there's this line in that piece that says, no one has found any examples since 1865 of a president refusing to carry out a judicial decree. And That's the fear right now that is animating many of the legal experts and that is animating many of those who study democracy, because that could be the way in which he breaks the back of this thing.

I agree that that's consistent with Trump's approach always, which is the blizzard of legal approaches. And then they'll just make an argument, even if it's completely spurious, because frankly, that's what January 6 was. It was insane. It was, you know, there was no lawyer who thought that you could

I agree that that's consistent with Trump's approach always, which is the blizzard of legal approaches. And then they'll just make an argument, even if it's completely spurious, because frankly, that's what January 6 was. It was insane. It was, you know, there was no lawyer who thought that you could

I agree that that's consistent with Trump's approach always, which is the blizzard of legal approaches. And then they'll just make an argument, even if it's completely spurious, because frankly, that's what January 6 was. It was insane. It was, you know, there was no lawyer who thought that you could

turn January 6th from a ceremonial ministerial, essentially rubber stamping of the electoral certificates the states had already approved, that you could turn that into an event, you know, with consequences. And yet they find one lawyer to make a kind of crazy argument. That was John Eastman.

turn January 6th from a ceremonial ministerial, essentially rubber stamping of the electoral certificates the states had already approved, that you could turn that into an event, you know, with consequences. And yet they find one lawyer to make a kind of crazy argument. That was John Eastman.

turn January 6th from a ceremonial ministerial, essentially rubber stamping of the electoral certificates the states had already approved, that you could turn that into an event, you know, with consequences. And yet they find one lawyer to make a kind of crazy argument. That was John Eastman.

So that's the approach that I have thought they would take to undermining the sanctity of some of these judicial rulings. They'll just say, yeah, exactly. Well, when the judge said we weren't allowed to spend the money, he didn't mean this money, blah, blah, blah. And then it'll spawn its own series of lawsuits. And again, we only have one four-year term.

So that's the approach that I have thought they would take to undermining the sanctity of some of these judicial rulings. They'll just say, yeah, exactly. Well, when the judge said we weren't allowed to spend the money, he didn't mean this money, blah, blah, blah. And then it'll spawn its own series of lawsuits. And again, we only have one four-year term.

So that's the approach that I have thought they would take to undermining the sanctity of some of these judicial rulings. They'll just say, yeah, exactly. Well, when the judge said we weren't allowed to spend the money, he didn't mean this money, blah, blah, blah. And then it'll spawn its own series of lawsuits. And again, we only have one four-year term.

Look at how successfully Trump tied up all of the lawsuits and criminal cases against him, even when he was out of office. So I would see it as more of a sort of a rolling ball of legal uncertainty that has the effect of undermining law. any of the checks and balances and accountability that the court rulings are supposed to impose upon a rogue executive.

Look at how successfully Trump tied up all of the lawsuits and criminal cases against him, even when he was out of office. So I would see it as more of a sort of a rolling ball of legal uncertainty that has the effect of undermining law. any of the checks and balances and accountability that the court rulings are supposed to impose upon a rogue executive.

Look at how successfully Trump tied up all of the lawsuits and criminal cases against him, even when he was out of office. So I would see it as more of a sort of a rolling ball of legal uncertainty that has the effect of undermining law. any of the checks and balances and accountability that the court rulings are supposed to impose upon a rogue executive.