[HN Gopher] Victory at the High Court against the government's u...
___________________________________________________________________
Victory at the High Court against the government's use of 'general
warrants'
Author : mpweiher
Score : 244 points
Date : 2021-01-08 13:09 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (privacyinternational.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (privacyinternational.org)
| noodlesUK wrote:
| Surely we don't actually use general warrants in the UK as legal
| justification for all the shit that we surveil? Does RIPA not
| give a huge statutory list of what can be done (pretty much
| everything is fair game)?
| pmyteh wrote:
| This was a case about hacking, rather than surveillance. That's
| not authorised by RIPA, but under earlier 1994 legislation, and
| needs a specific warrant from the Secretary of State.
| arethuza wrote:
| Nitpick: I believe it is the High Court of England and Wales, not
| the High Court of the UK. The High Court in Scotland is the top
| level criminal court with the equivalent to the High Court of
| England and Wales being the Court of Session...
| lawtalkinghuman wrote:
| This is correct, though I suspect the UK government aren't
| going to try and disobey the ruling just in Scotland.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| I would assume they'll appeal and go to Supreme Court then
| the ruling would apply everywhere in the UK. But even then
| GCHQ is in England wouldn't their actions fall under English
| law?
| mtgx wrote:
| This is kind of hilarious, considering one of the top (public)
| reasons why David Cameron and Theresa May have been supporting
| Brexit is so that UK no longer has to abide by the EU Charter of
| Fundamental Rights, because the top EU court has slapped down the
| UK's mass surveillance regime a couple of times.
| [deleted]
| SEMW wrote:
| That was the European Court of Human Rights. It's not a 'top EU
| court', or an EU court of any sort. It's a body of the Council
| of Europe, which is an entirely different institution (with a
| much larger international membership than the EU). It enforces
| the European Convention on Human Rights.
|
| (the EU does requires members to be CoE members, and so there
| were some people suggesting that after leaving the EU the UK
| might also leave the CoE - possibly including theresa may, I
| haven't checked - but that doesn't currently seem likely to
| happen)
|
| The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is definitely a thing -
| basically a copy of the ECHR into EU law - but it's only
| applicable (1) to actions of EU institutions, (2) as a
| restriction on EU legistation, and (3) as an obligation on
| member states _when interpreting / implementing EU law_. It has
| no relevance to UK law other than that. (And what little
| relevance it would have had to the UK was further weakened
| since they had a partial opt-out to it that tried to get rid of
| the last of those for the UK!).
|
| The cases about UK surveillance legislation (eg [0]) were all
| ECtHR, not CJEU.
|
| [0]
| https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&...
| LatteLazy wrote:
| It's worth noting that unlawfully (illegally) collected evidence
| is still admissible in UK courts (with exceptions). So this
| ruling may make little real difference...
| simonh wrote:
| The courts are basically saying ok, fine, you can have a general
| warrant, however the legislation would have to specifically
| authorise the scope of the warrant. But the whole point of
| general warrants is to not have to specify the scope.
|
| That basically makes general warrants worthless, because it seems
| like you'd have to anticipate the specific details needed in the
| warrant and put that in the law authorising the warrant. In
| practice that probably means specific details like the names of
| the people, places and property subject to the warrant. Clearly
| that's not practical to put in law, but how else do you ensure
| that a general warrant applies in any specific case? It's a
| subtle but beautiful Judicial FU.
| andybak wrote:
| For country specific things (US included) can we put the country
| in the post title? I guessed this was UK but many people won't.
| GordonS wrote:
| Is anyone aware of an authoritative source detailing specific
| instances of where "general warrants" have been misused, and how?
|
| I know in general about what came out after Snowden of course,
| I'm just interested to learn more about specifics relating to
| these warrants.
| mmhsieh wrote:
| This goes back farther than you are likely asking for, but
| general warrants were called out in the U.S. bill of rights and
| were alluded to in the declaration of independence because the
| British crown had been using them to investigate smugglers and
| tax dodgers, especially in the northeastern American colonies.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| The bulk collection by intelligence agencies of phone and
| Internet data is the biggest example of a general warrant.
| There are more specific examples like when police demand the ID
| of everyone who's cell phone providers place them at a protest
| (aka GeoFences) or the details of everyone who searched for
| certain terms.
| hedora wrote:
| This is a start:
|
| https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Imagine a murder happened. A judge issues you a general warrant
| to search for anything suspected as evidence regarding the
| case. You now can now search anyone anywhere.
| unanswered wrote:
| So it appears that as of now, general warrants are disallowed in
| the UK and (in practice) permitted in the US. America's founding
| fathers are spinning in their graves.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| The foundering fathers did their part. We as the inheritors
| have failed miserably in holding onto the freedoms that were
| gifted to us.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Thomas Jefferson said it best:
|
| "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to
| bind another, seems never to have been started either on this
| or our side of the water... (But) between society and
| society, or generation and generation there is no municipal
| obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to
| have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is
| to another as one independant nation to another... On similar
| ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual
| constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs
| always to the living generation... Every constitution, then,
| and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If
| it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of
| right."
| [deleted]
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The other side of this is Chesterton's Fence:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's
| _...
|
| If your forefathers were willing to die for something,
| better fully understand why before you try to get rid of
| it.
| willcipriano wrote:
| From a Chesterton's Fence perspective think about the
| ability of the people to hold a amendatory convention.
|
| If you don't know, a amendatory convention can be
| achieved by having two thirds of the state legislatures
| vote for one. If that happens then you must get a two
| thirds majority of states to agree on the proposal
| presented and it becomes a constitutional amendment.
| Entirely side stepping the federal government.
|
| This power hasn't been used in a very long time, and from
| my readings of Washington and Jefferson they intended us
| to use it. Perhaps this is a corollary to Chesterton's
| Fence, call it Chesterton's Button rephrased less
| elegantly than he or you put it: "If your forefathers
| were willing to die to give you the ability to do
| something, you should question if that ability has not
| used in a very long time."
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| > If you don't know, a amendatory convention can be
| achieved by having two thirds of the state legislatures
| vote for one. If that happens then you must get a two
| thirds majority of states to agree on the proposal
| presented and it becomes a constitutional amendment.
|
| The required majority to approve the output of the
| convention is 3/4 of the states, not the same 2/3 as to
| call the convention in the first place.
|
| > Entirely side stepping the federal government.
|
| The entity that is required to call the convention once
| 2/3 of the states have requested it is the federal
| Congress, so they are not entirely side stepped. But, it
| is true that they are not allowed to refuse to call the
| convention in this situation. There is nothing in the
| Constitution, any federal statute, or any court ruling
| that addresses what happens if Congress doess not do so.
|
| > This power hasn't been used in a very long time
|
| It's never been used successfully, although it's been
| attempted at least once by every state except Hawaii.
| (Some attempts were indirectly successful in achieving
| their goal, by spurring Congress to propose the desired
| amendments.)
| PoachedSausage wrote:
| That might have been true in Jefferson's day, lifespans
| were shorter. Now most western democracies are effectively
| gerontocracies, the young are bound to the wishes of the
| old. See Brexit.
| function_seven wrote:
| Lifespans weren't that much shorter in his day (provided
| you made it to 5 years old).
|
| He's not describing something that is "true" or not, but
| rather what ought to be. I think it's just as relevant
| today as when he wrote that.
| PoachedSausage wrote:
| I agree that it ought to be that way, however those with
| power tend to want to hang on to it. How do you solve it?
| The US has a term limit for the President, but you can
| stay in Congress/Senate/Parliament for life if re-
| elected.
| [deleted]
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > but you can stay in Congress/Senate/Parliament for life
| if re-elected.
|
| It gets even worse when you look at the actual approval
| ratings and re-election numbers, this a system created to
| serve career politicians and nothing more. When you see
| the approval rating is in the lows 30s, abut approval
| rates are in the 90s, something is definitely wrong as in
| need of a massive correction.
|
| Andrew Yang found this out the hard way and his lobbying
| efforts in Washington to help get the 2nd stimulus checks
| approved can be pretty much summed up as congress was
| oblivious that the People needed further financial
| assistance. That is how far detached they are from
| reality, I think this recent stunt pulled in the capital
| by blind ideologues served as a warning to how fast
| things can devolve.
|
| The US experiment showed great promise and had amazing
| prospects for a desirable model that Human Civilization
| could aspire and achieve, but much like its predecessor
| (Rome) it too decayed into oblivion due to the inherit
| and predictable fact that power corrupts. Human's cannot
| to be trusted with such power and to believe otherwise is
| to fall back on to this absurd notion of a chiefton caste
| system, that really on serves the upper tier of Society
| and creates a poorly incentivized system that ensures by
| the time you're even a possible candidate you're already
| so marred by the corruption you're just as bad as you
| what you wanted to change.
|
| I really do want things to get better, not just in the
| US, but on the entire Earth as we have such a limited
| window of opportunity to live up to our potential as
| Species; but so long as we abide by these whimsical make-
| believe popularity contests--with people we frankly
| couldn't or wouldn't leave our pets under even the most
| dire circumstance--who then in turn act as the arbiters
| of everything aspect in Life that matters and use the
| pubic purse for personal largess we will always succumb
| to the same result.
|
| Software engineers at FAANG really should be working on a
| protocol of governance that automates all the decision
| making congress could and would do with it's priority on
| rolling out a proper beta in the next 5 years, that could
| actually be suitable challenge for them to redeem their
| squandering talents and skills instead building this
| horrible panopitcon.
|
| Remember, those rabid Q-anon/conspiracy guys are just as
| much your fault as they are Trumps/Fox news when you look
| at what most of you people do everyday. And it isn't
| until they do something as stupid as they did this week
| that it becomes obvious to those who did it.
|
| But, hey: it's just money, right?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > Software engineers at FAANG really should be working on
| a protocol of governance that automates all the decision
| making congress could and would do
|
| Technocracy is much worse than even representative
| democracy. We could barely even imagine the horrors that
| would come from being subject to laws generated by rigid
| computers.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| willmw101 wrote:
| It's almost as if becoming a superpower corrupts nations
| yuriko wrote:
| Judgment text:
| https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/27.html
| jojobas wrote:
| In a system where the government is essentially the majority of
| the parliament, a law to reinstate the previous practice will be
| passed pretty soon.
| tialaramex wrote:
| There's a difference between having the majority in Parliament
| (which is generally necessary in order to govern) and being
| able to muster that majority to vote on some specific matter of
| interest to the general public. Johnson has a large majority
| but they don't just answer to him, they answer first and
| foremost to their constituents, and their constituencies are
| not Gerrymandered to a tortuous degree so as to make only party
| loyalty relevant.
| nicky0 wrote:
| Not necessarily. Whilst the Priti Patel strain of "law and
| order first" MP is certainly there, a lot of Tory MPs are quite
| hot on civil liberties and this is the kind of issue they tend
| to rebel on.
| jojobas wrote:
| If they are so hot on the issue, why did they allow this to
| happen before this ruling?
| nicky0 wrote:
| Because it was happening as a matter of common law. It
| hasn't (yet) been up for debate as a specific question
| before parliament.
| PoachedSausage wrote:
| The kind of civil liberties they like are the rather limited
| kind, or only for the right kind of people (their voters).
| During the debate on the November lockdown, the word
| 'arbitrary' was used a lot, yet they are quiet on the
| arbitrary nature of the classification of Cannabis, no civil
| liberties for users of Cannabis (wrong kind of people).
| tomatocracy wrote:
| Actually there are a fair few Tories in favour of
| legalisation of cannabis. Crispin Blunt and Peter Lilley
| spring to mind as having been relatively forthright on this
| but quite a few quietly hold these views.
| Veen wrote:
| Are you implying that cannabis users exclusively vote
| Labour? I suppose that explains Jeremy Corbyn.
| PoachedSausage wrote:
| No, not a specific political difference, more of a
| differnce of socio-economic/age/class/possibly even race.
| As we saw at the last election Corbyn wasn't that popular
| with some traditional Labour voters.
|
| Perhaps we will see some changes now that we are getting
| stories of Hard Working Families (TM) having to spend
| large sums of money to buy Cannabis based medications for
| their children.
| nicky0 wrote:
| I was thinking people like Steve Baker (who as it happens
| is also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for
| Drug Policy Reform - you might like him!)
| goodcanadian wrote:
| The High Court has ruled it is unconstitutional[0]. It cannot
| simply be overruled by an act of parliament.
|
| [0]Edit: There seem to be objections to my use of the term
| "unconstitutional." They have ruled it as against common law:
|
| _"The aversion to general warrants is one of the basic
| principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is founded.
| As such, it may not be overridden by statute unless the wording
| of the statute makes clear that Parliament intended to do so."_
|
| These sort of "basic principles" are often referred to as the
| British constitution or constitutional principles, so I believe
| my choice of term is correct even if there is no single written
| document called the "constitution." As to the question of
| whether parliament can overrule it, perhaps, technically, yes,
| but I find it very difficult to come up with a scenario that
| would successfully meet the objections in the ruling.
| Veen wrote:
| > It cannot simply be overruled by an act of parliament
|
| Yes it can. Parliament is sovereign: it can overrule anything
| it likes with legislation. There is no higher authority than
| parliament in the UK, not even the Supreme Court.
|
| Also, the High Court didn't rule it unconsitutional, it ruled
| it contrary to common law. The UK is not the US.
|
| The executive (Cabinet etc) cannot simply ignore the ruling,
| but they might be able to get legislation through Parliament
| to explicitly allow general warrants.
|
| https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/27.html
|
| > That principle means that the courts will, when
| interpreting the provisions of a statute, presume that
| Parliament did not intend to legislate in a manner which
| overrides fundamental common law rights. The common law has
| an aversion to general warrants that leave significant
| matters of judgment and discretion to the person executing
| the warrant rather than to the person legally or
| constitutionally responsible for issuing it.
|
| > In view of the importance of the constitutional principle
| that there can be no interference with property without clear
| and specific legal authorisation, the words of an enactment
| must be unambiguous before the court may interpret Parliament
| as intending to override rights. There are no such
| unambiguous words in section 5. The national security context
| makes no difference as otherwise the courts would sanction
| wide powers to override fundamental rights.
| pmyteh wrote:
| This is absolutely true in theory, but in practice
| Parliament can find it... a little difficult to legislate
| so as to overrule some exercises of judicial power. This
| case touches on one of them: the Act establishing the
| Investigatory Powers Tribunal contains an ouster clause
| which is expressed as preventing any of its decisions being
| appealed or questioned in another court (subject to
| exceptions which don't apply here). And yet, here is the
| High Court hearing a judicial review of one of the IPT's
| decisions.
|
| The courts don't like these jurisdiction-stripping ouster
| clauses, for good reasons - if someone can't be reviewed,
| what is to stop then committing abuses under colour of law?
| In _Anisminic_ (1969) the House of Lords ruled that an
| ouster clause didn 't actually apply in a given case, and
| that decision has been followed and expanded in various
| cases to this day. Including in this case - today's
| judgment was given after the Supreme Court ruled the IPT
| ouster was ineffective for similar reasons.
|
| I'm not aware of any copper-bottomed legislative wording
| that has been accepted to show that Parliament _really
| does_ intend to oust jurisdiction, so in practice the
| courts can and do rule 'they can't really have meant this'
| even against the express intentions of Parliament.
| simonh wrote:
| Ansiminic (1969) is really interesting.
|
| Section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 stated:
| "The determination by the commission of any application
| made to them under this Act shall not be called into
| question in any court of law"
|
| However the House of Lords determined that the ouster
| clause exempting the determination from legal review did
| not apply, as there was no valid determination in the
| first place.
|
| So essentially if the tribunal were to make a
| determination consistent with the law then yes that
| wouldn't be subject to judicial review, but if they make
| an error of law then their determination is not valid and
| therefore is subject to review. Take that, parliamentary
| overreach!
| tomatocracy wrote:
| This has led to ever more elaborate ouster clauses eg
| amending the wording to something like "determination or
| purported determination". It's been an ongoing game of
| legal sophistry. It's quite amusing really.
|
| This is a recent attempt (subsequently dropped I think as
| the politics moved on):
| https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/10/15/the-uk-internal-
| mar...
| pmyteh wrote:
| Yes!
|
| When I see US jurisprudence getting tied up in knots
| about whether given rules 'are jurisdictional' or 'are
| merely mandatory' I can really see the benefit of the
| decision the HoL took in _Anisminic_. And it does
| permanently prevent flagrant abuse of judicial power by
| lower court judges. But the legal fiction of
| parliamentary sovereignty does feel a little more
| fictional when you read that case.
|
| (Of course, they were careful to make clear that
| Parliament was, in fact, still sovereign, and given a
| sufficiently expressed will, etc. etc. But in
| practice...)
| jsmith99 wrote:
| Britain doesn't have a constitution. As the article alludes
| to, when Acts of Parliament clash with semi-constitutional
| items like international treaties, human rights laws, or
| ancient traditions, the courts will attempt to construe the
| law as Parliament not deliberately intending to override the
| standard. However, if Parliament explicitly states their
| intention, they can override anything.
|
| E.g. Lord Hoffmann in ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, at
| p.131: "Parliamentary sovereignty means
| that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to
| fundamental principles of human rights. ... The constraints
| upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not
| legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament
| must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the
| political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by
| general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too
| great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified
| meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process.
| In the absence of express language or necessary implication
| to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the
| most general words were intended to be subject to the basic
| rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the
| United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of
| Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little
| different from those which exist in countries where the power
| of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional
| document."
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Britain doesn't have a constitution.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Ki
| n...
|
| Also try reading 'The British Constitution: A Very Short
| Introduction' by Martin Loughlin.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| _Britain doesn 't have a constitution._
|
| Yes, it does. It is unwritten and fuzzy, but Britain
| definitely has a constitution or at least "constitutional
| principles" as mentioned in the quote you provided:
|
| _" . . . In this way the courts of the United Kingdom,
| though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply
| principles of constitutionality little different from those
| which exist in countries where the power of the legislature
| is expressly limited by a constitutional document. "_
|
| While it may technically be possible under certain
| circumstances, I find it very hard to image how a piece of
| legislation could be crafted that would successfully
| override the arguments made here.
| tomatocracy wrote:
| Just to nitpick - the UK constitution is uncodified (ie
| not in a single document called a constitution) and
| _perhaps_ in part unwritten but most (perhaps all) of it
| is written down in the various constitutional statutes
| and judgements.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| Fair point.
| beojan wrote:
| > While it may technically be possible under certain
| circumstances, I find it very hard to image how a piece
| of legislation could be crafted that would successfully
| override the arguments made here.
|
| Something along the lines of "The issuance of general
| warrants is expressly permitted," perhaps? The principles
| of constitutionality may be similar, but the amendment
| process isn't, it simply requires an Act of Parliament.
| [deleted]
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| "Notwithstanding the objections to their issuance by
| <court> on <date> and <court> on <data>, and stated
| explicitly so as to satisfy the reasoning of said courts,
| the issuance of general warrants is intended by
| Parliament and shall henceforth be expressly permitted"
| pmyteh wrote:
| Parliament overruling the decision about warrant
| specificity is quite straightforward. The wording in the
| Act was somewhat ambiguous about how much specificity was
| required, so the court ruled that it be interpreted
| tightly in accordance with the principle of legality.
| Parliament adding a simple 'The warrant may apply to
| broad classes of activity and to persons not currently
| known to the Secretary of State' would probably be enough
| for that - in principle it just needs to be unambiguous
| that that is what Parliament intends to do.
|
| The clause attempting to oust the jurisdiction of the
| courts, on the other hand, would require something a lot
| more vigorous. I don't know whether a clause like yours
| would be sufficient, but if judges can find a way around
| it they probably will.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| I doubt that a court would find that sufficient; it seems
| overly broad and therefore ambiguous, but hey, I'm not a
| lawyer.
| jojobas wrote:
| It's right there in your quote, if the parliament spells it
| out in a law they can have it.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| They did spell it out in a law: the one that was just
| overturned. I expect it will be very difficult to come up
| with a wording that will stand up to the scrutiny of the
| court.
| jojobas wrote:
| No law was overturned, a practice of the government was
| found to be against the law.
| Stierlitz wrote:
| > .. the UK High Court has ruled that the security and
| intelligence services can no longer rely on 'general warrants' ..
|
| obmanyvat' ;]
| skinkestek wrote:
| Looking up obmanyvat' it seems to mean "lie to" or deceive, but
| I don't really get the context:
|
| is it a standing Russian joke or something?
| kelchqvjpnfasjl wrote:
| From Stanford v. Texas
|
| Vivid in the memory of the newly independent Americans were those
| general warrants known as writs of assistance under which
| officers of the Crown had so bedeviled the colonists. The hated
| writs of assistance had given customs officials blanket authority
| to search where they pleased for goods imported in violation of
| the British tax laws. They were denounced by James Otis as "the
| worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of
| English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever
| was found in an English law book," because they placed "the
| liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." The
| historic occasion of that denunciation, in 1761 at Boston, has
| been characterized as "perhaps the most prominent event which
| inaugurated the resistance of the colonies to the oppressions of
| the mother country. 'Then and there,' said John Adams, 'then and
| there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the
| arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child
| Independence was born.'"
| simonh wrote:
| Good one, that showed us Brits the right of it.
|
| #Cough# Civil Forfeiture #Cough#
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Not to mention the constitution free zone around the borders.
| JulianMorrison wrote:
| Which is 100 miles deep and includes many major cities.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| You're underselling that one, because they count the
| coastline as a "border":
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mappin
| g-w...
|
| > the border zone is home to 65.3 percent of the entire
| U.S. population
| bregma wrote:
| Also, international airports. 100 miles around Denver,
| Atlanta, or Dallas covers a lot of people.
| [deleted]
| guntars wrote:
| Do they actually ever use it? I know it theoretically
| means that CBP can search anyone's home in NYC without a
| warrant, but if they never actually do it, they might get
| shot down in the courts if they ever try.
| lawtalkinghuman wrote:
| If all else fails, you just outsource spying on your own
| citizens to a friendly ally (the Five Eyes).
| [deleted]
| hedora wrote:
| After Brexit, we out-idioted you.
|
| Now that the pendulum is swinging back, hopefully we'll take
| this a challenge to out-competent you as well.
| simonh wrote:
| I like that take.
|
| Britain: Brexit.
|
| USA: Hold my beer!
| [deleted]
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Hardly. Both Trump and Biden will be gone (probably dead)
| after four more years and things will return to normal. All
| doors will eventually reopen.
|
| Britain will never return to the normalcy of EU membership.
| Things have changed permanently for that country in a way
| that they might not have if they'd voted remain. Doors are
| now closed for them.
| vkou wrote:
| Biden's presidency is not the abnormal thing. It'll be
| yet another neo-liberal administration.
|
| The abnormal thing is the genie of reactionary populism
| that the Republicans unleashed a decade ago, starting
| with the Tea Party, and culminating with the Trump party.
| Given that prominent republicans (Ted Cruz) are actively
| trying to marshal those forces behind them[1], I don't
| think that we'll be going back to normal anytime soon.
|
| [1] He's far more likely to win the 2024 nomination than
| someone like Mitt Romney, who, for all his faults, is not
| happy with Trumpism.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I was trying to be inclusive. My point was that
| everything 2020-related will be dead by 2024.
| TheDong wrote:
| Your comment was that "trump and biden will be gone,
| things will return to normal".
|
| The parent is rightly pointing out that it doesn't matter
| if those specific individuals in power are gone, that
| doesn't mean the broader movements around them will
| change.
|
| The problems of the world are rarely due to a single
| person, and rarely are solved by a single person losing
| power. Behind that single person is a system, and a new
| person will take their place if the system isn't also
| changed.
| Razengan wrote:
| As long as you think in terms of "us versus you" the
| pendulum will keep swinging.
|
| That's how you started fighting among yourselves, after
| all.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-08 23:00 UTC)