Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindslight | Hacker News Reader

1. A protest is not "disruption".

2. The "elected" government is explicitly prohibited from policing speech, and mostly strongly political speech.

3. That restriction is framed in terms of natural rights that apply to all human beings, not merely citizens.

Sorry, there is no "however you feel about" both-sidesism to be had in this situation. The time for discussing and debating differing political viewpoints is after we've ousted the fascists and restored our Constitutionally-limited government bound by the rule of law.

I'm a libertarian, so I think many of the policies and narratives pushed by Democrats leave much to be desired. In fact I was both-sidesing up until 2020 or so (5d-chess and all). But at this point, I'm no longer going to be suckered by any of the fascists' dishonest appeals to things that I care about. In fact, I am going to criticize them even more because they are burning the credibility of appeals to individual liberty.

View on HN

Yes, but as the US decided to put whoever they have in charge now, it's up to them to remove it.

We always complain when Russia or China is meddling in any country's affairs but we should accept it when a Canadian does it in the US because we don't like who's in charge.

A president is still supposed to be subservient to the Constitution. Border guards as well. There was no referendum on getting rid of the Constitution.

Furthermore under the Constitution, Canadians have every right to protest. As an American, I heartily thank those who do.

Your comment sounds an awful lot like the motivated reasoning that brushes aside these structures in favor of simple authoritarianism.

> sounds an awful lot like the motivated reasoning that brushes aside these structures in favor of simple authoritarianism.

You know that's a stretch.

Just because I think that no country should meddle in another's affair doesn't mean that I agree with whatever's happening down there.

>A president is still supposed to be subservient to the Constitution. Border guards as well. There was no referendum on getting rid of the Constitution.

The current administration is just the tip of the problem-berg, but if millions of people see it as normal and I see it as a problem, what should we do now ?

> Just because I think that no country should meddle in another's affair

A random person wanting to cross the border to attend a protest is not a "country meddling in another's affairs". It's an individual wanting to join a protest.

Let's not resort to hyperbole here.

If the Canadian government was telling its citizens to go cross into the US and join protests, then yes, that would be a country meddling in another's affairs. That's not what happened.

Luckily these fascists control the SCOTUS so they can politely say "Mindslight, you're wrong because we can ignore previous case law whenever we want". Well, luckily for them, not for the rest of us.

> these fascists control the SCOTUS

What’s learned helplessness when it isn’t learned but willed? SCOTUS has rejected “these fascists” multiple times. Electoral consequences to this administration are mounting. It’s wild to continue to ply lines of lazy nihilism when the evidence points so clearly the other way.

Because while there have been a few noticeable rejections, such as the tariff ruling, its been a majority of heads he wins, tails his opponent loses, with this court.

> while there have been a few noticeable rejections, such as the tariff ruling, its been a majority of heads he wins, tails his opponent loses, with this court

While "the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with the Trump administration," it has been far from the "control" rhetoric posited above. Most of this was on the emergency docket. Major cases have been decided against Trump, from reimbursements for DOGE cancellations to restricting Trump's use of the Alient Enemiest Act and National Guard [1].

Those notables are not consistent with a fascist court, but a very right-wing one. Between those two are a lot of ground.

[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/looking-back-at-2025-the-...

> Those notables are not consistent with a fascist court, but a very right-wing one. Between those two are a lot of ground.

That’s an opinion you can have but that I don’t share. I also would posit that the current SCOTUS thinks they still can maintain control while ceding further and further power to an imperial presidency when Trump is in charge.

The existence of some major cases being decided against Trump when the majority have been decided for him and the opposite logic is applied to presidents on the other side, are only part of why this current conservative government keeps checking off the 14 points of ur-fascism

Sure? That is obviously one of the things that needs to be remediated as part of reclaiming our country.

My original comment was talking about what ought rather than what is, in case that wasn't clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com