Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Timothy Burke's avatar

Isn't it odd that so many of us can be absolutely (and accurately) aware that "law" is a kind of specific structure for mediating (and concentrating) power, and that it has no special correspondence to justice or democracy and yet we get so profoundly nervous at the thought of using legal structures with something like a consciously political intent? I mean, I fully understand why we hesitate. It's not that we are doing something with law that is unusual--it is used politically all the time, especially by conservatives. It's more like a genre constraint. If you say you're writing a science fiction novel and instead what you seem to have written is a work of autofiction set in 1998 and there's no clever metafictional bridge to explain why your declared intention has been paid off, you tend to get a lot of aggravated readers who think you violated the genre you were aiming at. To do "law" right, you have to appear disinterestedly apolitical. That is, for liberals and even leftists--that is what they expect of the genre. For conservatives, quite the opposite at this point: it's all about the instrumental end and not about the process; they are hoping for 'law' to go by the wayside in favor of executive decree. But they will do that regardless of what is done now in reference to Trump.

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

Trump would be a good target for a bill of attainder, if that were allowed.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts