It's not dead, it's just sitting on the couch tweeting its indignation
1531
gunsandgardeningMay 2, 2026
+310
"Couch....you say?" - JD Vance
310
Curious_Avocado2399May 2, 2026
+53
When Vance’s wife sends him to sleep on the couch is that a bad or good thing?
53
Malnurtured_SnayMay 2, 2026
+41
For her, or the couch?
41
Curious_Avocado2399May 2, 2026
+12
I think for all three his wife, the couch, and him
12
Malnurtured_SnayMay 2, 2026
+20
I think the couch is screaming in horror actually
20
3-orange-whipsMay 2, 2026
+13
We can't know how the couch feels, as no one has asked until now.
We go now to Pee Wee's playhouse and Chairy for comment. Chairy, what's your take on this?
(Everyone screams real loud as "take" was the secret word)
13
kaisadilla_May 2, 2026
+21
Vance's wife sends him to sleep onthe couch _when the couch misbehaves_.
21
Curious_Avocado2399May 2, 2026
+20
If Vance and his wife f*** on the couch is that a threesome?
20
cupcake_burglaryMay 2, 2026
+12
Vance: is it in?
Wife: no
Vance: I wasn't talking to you
12
bericbenemeinMay 2, 2026
+4
On = bad
with = good for him
4
DBMMay 2, 2026
+5
Either way something’s getting fucked, whether it’s the constitution or the couch
5
Love_LairMay 2, 2026
+5
To shreds, you say?
5
darksunshamanMay 2, 2026
+25
This is what "bread and circuses" looks like.
25
johnwcowanMay 2, 2026
+4
Except that we have to pay for both the bread and the circuses.
4
VillageLess4163May 2, 2026
+65
Nah, it saw what we chose to do with it and committed suicide.
65
pants6000May 2, 2026
+19
Yup, it jumped out a 33rd floor window with its hands and feet bound after writing a note that said "I'm not suicidal!"
19
PM_ME_UR_WUTMay 2, 2026
+5
Coroner determined no foul play.
5
cedarvhazelMay 2, 2026
+15
All these things happened all at once.
15
RadCheese527May 2, 2026
+24
It’s been happening in the US over the last 40-50 years, slowly eroding
24
IdiotMDMay 2, 2026
+10
Slacktivism. Watch me do it right now.
10
Pants88May 2, 2026
+6
This is exactly what people need to realize it is alive but needs to be shaken from complacency.
6
xEasyActionxMay 3, 2026
+3
More like re-tweeting someone else's indignation, and feeling content that its "doing its part".
3
chowneeMay 2, 2026
+112
US sure is being run like a third world dictatorship… with so many citizens cheering it on. I guess that’s also a feature of a third world dictatorship.
112
SSGASSHATMay 2, 2026
+25
Apparently, Americans missed that feature of dictatorships. We always heard that propaganda about the Nazis and Communists and thought that their people were bent slaves who were forced to live the way they did by the government. It never sunk in that many people fully supported the shit show around them, and that there isn't something special about Americans preventing that.
25
Coco_snickerdoodleMay 3, 2026
+7
Because it explicitly was frowned upon to view Nazi Germany from a realistic lens. I got kicks out of an english class for trying to make the point that Nazi Germany was more complicated than “dictator takes power.”
7
princesspeevedMay 2, 2026
+59
I wouldn’t say it’s dead yet. It’ll depend on the outcome of midterms and the next presidential election. I personally think Republicans will do anything to cheat their way to a win, and if so, and the country just shrugs and accepts it like last time, then it’s officially dead.
59
VillageLess4163May 2, 2026
+53
I hope you’re right, but with the SC gutting the voting rights act and states postponing elections until they can gerrymander them beyond recognition, I’m about as cynical as it gets.
53
Slighted_InevitableMay 2, 2026
+15
Yeap. There’s enough outrage that anything they do won’t stop a blue wave here, but then people will get complacent and probably blame the Dems for everything trump continues to do.
It all honestly this election coming up does not matter at all. Trump isn’t doing anything thru Congress he’s doing it through executive action and it’s basically impossible for us to win enough seats to impeach him or override a presidential veto.
So all this midterm election is going to accomplish is Democrats getting blamed for not stopping him as he continues doing whatever he wants.
Voting won’t save us
15
F9-0021May 2, 2026
+21
It's only getting done through executive orders because there's nobody in congress stopping it. When congress isn't theirs anymore, he's not going to keep getting to do things unchecked.
21
Slighted_InevitableMay 2, 2026
+22
This is exactly the problem. People don’t understand how our government works.
Congress can only stop him by putting through legislation and resolutions, but the president can veto any resolution or legislation. It takes a 2/3 majority to override a veto. Democrats almost certainly will not get that much. The map simply doesn’t provide the opportunity, especially with all of the gerrymandering.
50+1 isn’t enough and that’s consistently what we keep giving democrats then blame them for failing.
22
spinmoveMay 2, 2026
+6
Right, they'll pass a law and the executive branch will haaaave to follow it, just like how they are perfectly following the Epstein Files Transparency Act /s
6
OtherAdeptness7541May 2, 2026
+9
If voting couldn't save us, then they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop people from doing so. Vote.
9
brodhiMay 2, 2026
+24
Trump's plan has already been battle-tested over the last year and it works.
He is going to sign like 15 EO's the day before the election directing all kinds of agencies to go into battleground states and do clear voter suppression but it will take the courts far too long to get the EO's overturned and by that time the election will have happened and then what?
24
[deleted]May 2, 2026
+11
[deleted]
11
EddieVanzettiMay 2, 2026
+87
Democracy was murdered January 6th, 2020. The corpse was dumped in the pine barrens when Donnie Moscow wasn't put before a tribunal for high crimes and treason on January 7th at 12:01AM.
87
synthdrunkMay 2, 2026
+14
Columbia was mortally wounded when SCOTUS picked a w***** back in ‘00. It’s been a slow but steady bleed out.
14
microcorpsmanMay 3, 2026
+2
Wrong year.
2
patriot2024May 2, 2026
+9
Worse, it's undead. It's diseased but acting like it's alive. In a zombie state, if you will.
9
C5fiveMay 2, 2026
+19
No, just American democracy. Canada is fine, Australia and New Zealand are fine. Europe is fine. American democracy is dead. Mind you American democracy has been dead for 40 or 50 years, the corpse has just become bloated enough for everyone to smell it.
19
Slighted_InevitableMay 2, 2026
+21
You aren’t fine. The most powerful country in the world is being led by a demented demon.
21
VillageLess4163May 2, 2026
+28
I just hope they stay that way. The same billionaires are backing far right parties in all of those countries.
28
tokes_4_DEMay 2, 2026
+11
All the outside countries say that and yet the UK had brexit in the last decade, Canada was a bit more than 1% away from electing their own trump lite last election and he only failed because Trump rallied the entire country against conservatives with his insane tariffs and 51st state bullshit. Prior to that Canada's liberal party was in the toilet, Trudeau had everyone convinced they were toast and they nearly were. Germanys afd has more than doubled in support in recent years. Japan just elected a pretty conservative h******* anti immigration prime minister as well.
So I dont think the US is the only country In trouble at all right now. It's just the most obvious.
On the bright side, Hungary just gave orban the boot finally, it just took 16 years.
11
F9-0021May 2, 2026
+7
Compared to what you guys have, we never even had democracy. Our government just doesn't work compared to yours.
7
stitchface66May 2, 2026
+6
was it ever really alive?
6
Babylon4AllMay 2, 2026
+204
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people"
204
KizikMay 2, 2026
+98
"Protect & Serve" was a marketing slogan adopted by the LAPD.
It is not, nor has it ever **been** something police in the US are expected to actually uphold.
98
kharnynbMay 2, 2026
+18
it's so sad that that is the case over there, over here(finland) police aren't even allowed to do security work as police officers first duty is to uphold the law and prevent harm to citizens, so they can't protect property like security guards can.
18
Mixer-3007May 2, 2026
+7
Actually, they can with official approval, and the job doesn’t conflict with policing and doesn’t affect their performance in their main job, so they can’t moonlight as a security guard all night and then come to the station in the morning and work again.
https://www.finlex.fi/api/media/statute-foreign-language-translation/688890/mainPdf/main.pdf?timestamp=1995-04-06T21%3A00%3A00.000Z
7
kharnynbMay 2, 2026
+7
they also can't stay on their security post if a crime happens across the street as a finnish police officer is "always on duty"
7
Bitmush-May 2, 2026
+2
One could quite easily argue that their upholding of the Law includes things like preventing Assault and Battery. This is the main protection and serving that I would think of and want when I see the slogan. Protection FROM illegality (me being assaulted or battered, or robbed), and the service part being that they are contracted to perform this service using money from taxation, according to laws enshrined by lawmakers who are representatively elected to that position, to wield such powers as given to them by The People.
It's a pretty water-tight system of rights and responsibilities.
How do they f****** snake out of it again ?
2
cosmos7May 2, 2026
+12
So say we all
12
somethingrandom7386May 2, 2026
+13
Yeah too bad the police don't protect and serve anybody but themselves
13
laxrulz777May 2, 2026
+57
I don't really see the issue here. They're not prosecuting in military court. Just a JAG lawyer prosecuting a non military court case. Weird but not particularly dangerous unless I'm missing something.
57
ZonaDesertRatMay 2, 2026
+42
Some of the absolute worst AUSAs I've delt with have been JAG assigned to work military cases for the DOJ. Most AUSAs at that level are already pretty trash... Overworked, under trained and under supported to accomplish even petty offense dockets.
While I know DOJ is short staffed, they are short staffed so badly because of their own desire and poor management. Put a unskilled JAG into that situation and it's a recipe for real disaster, and don't rely on the Judicial Branch to correct it, in a timely manner if at all.
42
felldestroyedMay 2, 2026
+19
Didn't you hear? Grades don't matter anymore, only loyalty to Trump. Liberty University grads rejoice!
19
AtechimanMay 2, 2026
+34
Its a bad precedent and can turn into a slow degrading of Federal Courts into Military Tribunals.
34
WetzillaMay 2, 2026
+17
The military is not supposed to be used against civilians. There's a law against it, the Posse Comitatus Act. There are exceptions made for JAGs to be used to be used to help prosecute civilians, but it's only in cases where the Army has an active interest, which they do not here. It's illegal, it's just that the judge claimed she had no way of removing the lawyer.
I don't know about you, but I think openly breaking the law is bad for democracy.
17
defaultusername-17May 3, 2026
+2
"Weird but not particularly dangerous unless I'm missing something."
you've never been on the receiving end of jag then.
sincerely, trans soldier discharged in 05 ( paul f****** manafort called me a national security threat, for being trans... i am not bitter or resentful though... )
2
TibreavenMay 2, 2026
+119
It's catastrophically bad.
JAGs will prosecute civilians as if they're military, because that's inherently what they're trained to do.
The natural lead-in for this is that the federal government can argue that since JAGs can be brought to prosecute civilians, the federal government can hold civilians accountable to military law instead of civilian law. This is a potential method to create a civilian populace beholden to what the military says is law, which allows the executive branch to bypass both Congress and local state law by claiming all JAG matters are military matters.
This doesn't immediately place all civilians under the UCMJ or anything, but it's another legal precedent that will help the federal government to bypass your rights to be tried under civilian law.
119
shoulda-known-betterMay 2, 2026
+175
Yea but it's the jag lawyer in a normal court.... It's not suddenly jag court and rules....??
Did I miss something
175
Economy-System1922May 2, 2026
+137
No you didn't. That was mad speculation and if anything the jag lawyers will struggle in civilian court.
137
Zolo49May 2, 2026
+44
I hate this administration as much as everyone else here, but as long as the rules of the court itself aren’t changing, the responses here feel like a bit of an overreaction. But we definitely need to keep an eye on it and raise all kinds of alarms if military rules themselves start creeping into civilian courts.
44
TibreavenMay 2, 2026
+19
"She agreed with the defense that the appointment of a JAG lawyer in Johnson's case violated binding regulations"
I mean, we're already passed that point. She made 2 contradictory statements, one referring to this decision as legal due to Congressional law, and another admitting that this appointment actually violates binding regulations.
So what's the answer? If it violates binding regulations, then we're already beyond the point of "rules of the court aren't changing" because she just said binding regulations don't apply anymore regarding JAG appointment in this case.
19
dantoddMay 2, 2026
+8
It means that there are military regulations preventing the officers from civilian practice but there are no laws or rules on the civilian side preventing jag officers from practicing so the military can stop them from practicing but not the courts
8
PluginAlongMay 2, 2026
+15
The law will always override a regulation. In this case, while there is a regulation put in place by some lower authority, a congressionally passed law will take precedence. Think of it like Congress passing a law that violates the constitution, the constitution will take precedence as it's a "higher authority".
15
DuntadaManMay 2, 2026
+8
Yeah this argument was lost back with the PATRIOT act violating the constitution massively and repeatedly and has been doing so for decades.
8
TtabtsMay 2, 2026
+3
Many parts of the PATRIOT act were declared unconstitutional and invalidated.
Just because you disagree with the result of the Constitutional review by the courts doesn’t mean that basic principles of supremacy no longer exist.
3
oldsecondhand5 days ago
+2
You put a lot of faith into captured institutions.
2
sadacalMay 2, 2026
+13
This is literally the first step of military rules creeping into civilian courts though. People keep waiting for some huge thing that everyone can point to and say that's too much, but historically it didn't happen that way. It was a million small things all building up to it and by the time you realize it's already too late.
13
MACHOmanJITSUMay 2, 2026
+13
Chip chip chipping away, next step will be jag court.
13
RaspberryFluid6651May 2, 2026
+11
This isn't new law, for what it's worth. According to the ruling the judge is saying that doing this is already allowed based on existing exceptions that Congress has carved out to the law that prevents this.
...it is disheartening that a lot of the Trump administration's perceived abuses of authority are apparently just bullshit Congress said was okay like ten years ago, but it's where we're at.
11
TibreavenMay 2, 2026
+9
Congress writing stupid laws giving up power to the executive branch is an entire field of study.
9
Hairy_S_TrueManMay 2, 2026
+5
>This is a potential method to create a civilian populace beholden to what the military says is law,
How? You kinda just made this part up. Judges use civilian law in civilian court.
5
laxrulz777May 2, 2026
+15
There's ZERO support for subjecting civilians to military law. This is just the DOJ finding warm bodies to prosecute cases because they can't hire lawyers
15
fevered_visionsMay 2, 2026
+3
motto of the last year
3
lowradsMay 2, 2026
+3
Maybe. It probably opens a whole can of worms regarding a two track system of jurisprudence.
Most people don't know why military courts exist in the first place.
3
jert3May 2, 2026
+5
Democracy isn't possible when the legal system has been compromised, as it has in the United States under the regime .
Maybe the biggest turning point was allowing a insurrectionist to become president, directly and plainly illegal. Now the constitution doesnt even matter anymore, your rights are mostly canceled, and the regime is lawless.
5
KingOfTheCouch13May 2, 2026
+2
Democracy? What’s that? Sorry, I’m from the future.
2
6gv5May 2, 2026
+1040
Like the military lawyers who were fired and replaced with puppets by Hegseth over one year ago? That means the outcome of any case is already written.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/22/us/politics/hegseth-firings-military-lawyers-jag.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/22/us/politics/hegseth-firings-military-lawyers-jag.html)
1040
illiter-itMay 2, 2026
+363
Don't forget, the executive branch doesn't believe in keeping records anymore either.
363
SarpatoxMay 2, 2026
+132
The trick is to constantly rewrite the past to make the party infallible.
132
czs5056May 2, 2026
+5
Just don't write anything to start with and you don't have to keep rewriting it.
5
WalkedIntoPostMay 2, 2026
+38
This is much more likely to be military lawyers who are closer to entry level.
They didn't purge every military lawyer by their politics (that would be functionally impossible), only the top layer of legal brass who serve as advisors to the highest level leaders of the military. The ones who got replaced don't prosecute cases, they work at the strategic level.
Don't get me wrong, it's very bad to have partisan toadies in those key roles, it's just not the complete purge of the military legal system it gets made out to be.
38
BorntoBombMay 2, 2026
+16
its irrelevant, because if trump is gone, assume its auto-pardons for anyone prosecuted.
thems tha breaks Trump. thems tha fuckin breaks
16
SardonnicusMay 2, 2026
+239
it pissess me off that this is all comming of the rails on the 250th anniversary of us. Or maybe it's poetic justice
239
Bulky_CaramelMay 2, 2026
+101
Even more fun. The average lifespan of a Country is 250 years. The Newited States will have citizens pay a subscription fee to attain rights.
101
The_ZenkiMay 2, 2026
+14
The average lifespan of an Empire is 250 years, says the internet, but I dont feel like this can be true as we have had the Roman Empire, the Byzantine, Chinese Dynasties, the entirety of Japan until like 100 years ago, the Egyptian Empire, the Persians, etc. Theres so many insanely long lasting EMPIRES i just dont see how it can average down to 250 years. If you can only last 10 years or 20 are you really an "empire"?
14
pzombie88May 2, 2026
+27
What you perceive as a monolithic empire with thousands year of history is usually not the case with closer look. Roman Empire started as Roman Republic and went through a lot of "revolutions" (either literal or gradual).
If fifty years from now the "USA" has a hereditary king with absolute power and instead of separate States you have baronies and duchies, would you consider it the same country as today?
27
OnlinePosterPersonMay 4, 2026
+2
I would not. But history could likely perceive it as such
2
OnlinePosterPersonMay 4, 2026
+3
Yes you can absolutely call a 10-20 year empire and empire. Alexander the Great’s empire is one of the most studied in history and it lasted a mere 12 years
3
SalamokMay 2, 2026
+38
Is this code for the DOJ is running out of lawyers willing to push their frivolous lawsuits and has to resort to ones they can order to do it?
38
biopunk42May 2, 2026
+252
The more I see these stories, the more I think we need to replace "Judge rules" with "Henchmen says"
It's more honest.
252
RenoRiley1May 2, 2026
+847
Because all the competent lawyers that could say no have been fired or quit they’ll bring in their military toadies who can’t say no. (They can actually but we know no one in our military will)
847
LegetoMay 2, 2026
+10
They could also active national guard JAGs who are actually competent.
I’ve said no in the military. It was about fixing an aircraft. Desk jockey wanted me to say it was safe and I said no it technically wasn’t. Was extremely uncomfortable situation to be in but I stood my ground and they couldn’t give me paperwork cause I was following the regs.
10
TransitJohnMay 2, 2026
+211
Our military are such f****** dishonorable cowards. Just absolute f****** cretins.
211
FanficsMay 2, 2026
+203
Still blows my mind that there was an entire chain of command that looked at the command "blow up that random fishing boat" and was like "welp, guess we're doing this." Not a single spine present. We need every single name.
203
Independent-Dust5122May 2, 2026
+174
there has been a record firing of generals and admirals in the past 12 months... thats not a coincidence.
174
GeneralPattenMay 2, 2026
+118
There have been multiple spines present. There have been high ranked officials who made the news for their resignations. These higher ranked spines were forced to choose between resignation or dishonorable discharge. Unreported are the lower ranked service members who disagreed with the policy and chose to retire, or leave once their enlistment contract expired.
The problem is, there are no shortage of folks who are willing to step in and fill those roles, and execute the plainly unconstitutional and illegal operations.
118
FanficsMay 2, 2026
+13
I don't know how sympathetic I am to those who quietly retire. All it does is clear the spot for whoever *will* push the button. You're not stopping people from being killed - you're just handing the gun to someone else.
These retiring generals care more about their pensions than the lives of civilians.
13
_SolaRSolaCeMay 2, 2026
+18
To be fair, it is very easy to say that when you are not in their position. I don’t disagree with you but its not always that simple either.
18
S-ludinMay 2, 2026
+5
their job first and foremost is to protect and defend the constitution. quitting their job when it's threatened.. idk they def had the wrong job and I think it's very easy to say that considering they left the job to people who will definitely put a match to the constitution on orders.
very easy to say people should go through with their oaths, esp when all of society has been bleeding out the ears to give them a nice cushy life for it.
5
Corgi_KoalaMay 2, 2026
+25
I always roll my eyes when people imply the military night protect us from facsism and authoritarianism. They've never sided with justice over the government and never will.
25
dirtyjew123May 2, 2026
+13
Usually the only time they turn is when they’re not paid or fed.
13
Phoneas__and__FrobMay 2, 2026
+3
Oath breakers...that's what they are, f*** them
3
KinkyPaddlingMay 2, 2026
+14
They should have couped Trump on January 21, 2025. The fact that they let a traitor reasoned the title of Commander In Chief is evidence of their moral void. They betrayed their oath.
14
NeumaniumMay 2, 2026
+19
I don’t know if you have served but the military cannot just say no. They can refuse a unlawful order, and somehow I doubt being a prosecutor in civilian court would fall into that category. Officers just like enlisted are required to follow orders and perform their duties. Well they can say no but if convicted in a courts martial they may end up making big rocks into small rocks in Leavenworth Kansas, and then when they are finally allowed out could end up with a discharge that is the equivalent of a felony conviction.
Military Lawyer are officers and they just like enlisted have to serve a minimum amount of time. An officer after they finish that time applies to the government to be allowed to leave active duty. I find it highly unlikely that the current administration is allowing any military officer being allowed to leave.
19
[deleted]May 2, 2026
+17
[removed]
17
DeadlegggMay 2, 2026
+35
So much for defending the country from all threats.
35
rednecronomiconMay 2, 2026
+27
Support fascism or find another job. Tough choice.
27
zekthedeadcowMay 2, 2026
+48
Granted, I've been out for a while but as a former Legal NCO one of the key phases in the article is 'Ill-advised' You do not want random JAGs prosecuting because The JAG Corps covers both prosecution and defense as a single organization and they are used to having a shit-ton of discretion with a fanatical obsession with procedure.
48
SilverAgedSentielMay 2, 2026
+16
Will the JAG have the correct kind of resources to do this actually, The guy standing in the courtroom is only a part of the prosecution , he'll need people reviewing discovery, and motions, depositions. Will that use Minnesota office staff, or the DOJ staff or Military staff?
16
zekthedeadcowMay 2, 2026
+7
If they cover administrative hearings instead of trials it would free up the State AAGs who probably do things like license suspensions which aren't going to be reviewed until they walk in the room anyway. The agency's administrative employees and investigators are responsible for the procedural due diligence of identifying a violation and effecting notice. ... mainly it just requires a licensed attorney to present the case and question witnesses. Which is basically the issue... JAGs are licensed attorneys somewhere in the US... just not particularly that state... this case is basically saying "That's close enough for government work."
... and just because something is a terrible idea showcasing poor leadership and decision-making doesn't mean it's illegal.
My main question would be what budget they get paid from... because they would be accruing a military pension by doing civilian DOJ work.
7
DistanceToEmptyMay 2, 2026
+153
Just wait until the Trump administration starts using military judges in trials of civilians!
153
Cautious_Condition82May 2, 2026
+16
They are using them as immigration judges, so...
16
BorntoBombMay 2, 2026
+16
No, In fact , you cannot, and as soon as we get rid of this Justice department, we will pardon that person.
tthats a fact.
16
mxby7eMay 3, 2026
+2
I imagine Trump will be seeking Treason which is punishable by death. He also announced he was bringing back firing squads within the last few weeks. America may be entering its Military Tribunal era of collapse.
2
jumpy_monkeyMay 2, 2026
+59
> “As both a military attorney and an attorney of this court, hypothetically, if you were ordered to do something unethical, could you refuse to act?” Elkins asked.
>
> “Yes,” Hakes-Rodriguez replied.
>
> “Does the chain of command influence your decisionmaking?”
>
> “No,” Hakes-Rodriguez answered.
>
> “I want to make one thing very clear about Army regulations, he added later. “They’re subservient to DOJ instructions. This has the blessing of the [Defense Department.]”
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/04/03/judge-to-rule-on-doj-use-of-military-lawyers-in-civilian-prosecutions
Oh then problem f****** solved I guess.
Perhaps the judge missed the part where they can't find federal prosecutors for these cases because so many resigned when they were ordered to prosecute cases they thought were being prosecuted for political reasons.
59
DrollFurball286May 4, 2026
+3
“This has the blessing of the \[War Department\].”
There, fixed that quote.
3
FunkywurmMay 2, 2026
+26
Typical MAGA. They having been “edging” the constitution since day 1. Little-by-little pushing the constitutional goalposts to see what they can get away with. This is just another example of MAGA seeing how mush control they can take.
Does anyone doubt that MAGA would hold kangaroo military tribunals for Democrats if they could?
They learned that democracy only really works if everyone plays by the rules.
26
Jokul_WolfMay 2, 2026
+12
Cool, go after the CiC and try him for treason under the UCMJ.
12
Feisty-Barracuda5452May 2, 2026
+186
Stupid c*** of a judge secure in her ivory tower.
186
moreobviousthingsMay 2, 2026
+115
That’s what republicans said when “liberal” judges were ruling based on the Constitution. So republicans have rammed through federal appointments that won’t be bothered by constitutionality. Recent appointees in confirmation hearings have refused to say that Trump is ineligible to serve (himself) a third term. None of this can continue to be tolerated. But who supports this corruption? At least
86 republicans.
115
JebryathHSMay 2, 2026
+24
>Recent appointees in confirmation hearings have refused to say that Trump is ineligible to serve (himself) a third term.
One thing that's very interesting about this is that the Twenty Second Amendment was passed because conservatives were terrified another FDR would come along. Rules for thee, not for me, I suppose.
24
DogsAreOurFriendsMay 2, 2026
+30
But not under the UCMJ I hope.
Damn paywall.
30
Time_News_8452May 2, 2026
+24
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if this is related to trump wanting to bring back firing squads.
24
wookieSLAYER1May 2, 2026
+7
Great now prosecute this administration
7
Babylon4AllMay 2, 2026
+43
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people"
43
wwhsdMay 2, 2026
+15
So say we all.
15
123ihavetogoweeeeeeMay 2, 2026
+10
Which one of those groups serves and protects the people of the United States?
10
NotalentassMay 2, 2026
+4
The police serve to protect property rights and those of the business owners, always have.
4
JustDocMay 2, 2026
+19
Military law is nothing like civilian law.
19
itsFromTheSimpsonsMay 2, 2026
+5
This definitely isn't a first step in an effort to blur the lines between civilian justice and military justice
5
StrDstChsr34May 2, 2026
+5
They’ve run out of regular lawyers so they have to resort to military one? Wow. That tells you just how many career prosecutors have resigned from justice department.
5
GrayHairFoxMay 2, 2026
+6
Asking as I don’t know - do military lawyers have to pass a bar exam? Thanks.
6
Zolo49May 2, 2026
+47
Can’t read the article due to the paywall, but as long as they’re in a civilian court and have to play by those rules, does it really matter whether the prosecutor is military or civilian? Somebody’s going to have to explain to me why this is bad. (Military trials for civilians would of course be EXTREMELY bad.)
47
SaltyShawarmaMay 2, 2026
+88
It's power creep. Move the line a few centimeters at a time until you've moved far enough past the line to be trapped.
88
Acceptable-Peace-69May 2, 2026
+53
Remember when they were only going to go after the violent, criminal undocumented immigrants? Today they are ramping up deportations of naturalized citizens and going after birthright citizenship.
The first step is getting people accustomed to seeing military attorneys in court. Using them for noncitizens is a no brainer (I believe they are already using military judges or plan to for immigration hearings). National security? Of course, why not?
I never used to be a slippery slope theorist, but this administration has changed that. We can’t be too careful with trusting the motives of this government.
53
Lashay_SombraMay 2, 2026
+3
One reason it could be bad, administration is running out of lawyers as many are quiting due to the orders being given, gives them a new , potentially more obedient , supply
3
Corosis99May 2, 2026
+10
It's bad because military lawyers can't say no, and aren't bound by the same ethics and licensing requirements as civilian prosecutors. If a civilian lawyer breaks the law they can be disbarred and removed from practice. A military lawyer has to pass the bar initially, but they can keep their job so long as the government likes what they are doing.
It's essentially a pool of lawyers for the government that MUST do what they wish and have less oversight and accountability.
10
TtabtsMay 2, 2026
+9
Pretty sure you just made that up?
>Each officer of the Navy appointed as a member of the JAG Corps, each officer of the Marine Corps designated a judge advocate, and each civil service and contracted civilian attorney who practices law under the cognizance and supervision of the JAG shall maintain a status considered “in good standing” at all times with the licensing authority admitting the individual to the practice of law before the highest court of at least one State, Territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia.
They can perhaps keep their employment and be assigned to other duties, but they of course can’t practice law in the courts without a license.
9
LegetoMay 2, 2026
+3
As someone in the military (active duty and then national guard), I bet this is so they can activate the JAGs that are in the national guard so they can use them and not pay lawyer fees. They get competent lawyers who work at a law firm regularly instead of the awful ones in active duty.
3
Horror_Match9867May 2, 2026
+5
Judge orders attorneys to wear suits in their courtroom. Military abides, then is technically out of uniform by military standards, and court martial follows.
5
BlarghnogMay 2, 2026
+4
Yea, this isn’t a good thing. We don’t want military lawyers interfering in civilian affairs. Just think about the implications.
Is this going to be challenged to the Supreme Court?
4
MalrottianMay 2, 2026
+9
Next will be the DOJ memorandum that military lawyers can operate in civilian courts but are immune to censure and penalties except by the military. I hate this timeline.
9
DukwdriverMay 2, 2026
+3
Any one know what laws they are saying make using military lawyers to prosecute non-military cases ok?
3
NarrowContribution87May 2, 2026
+19
You guys aren’t seeing the silver lining here - military lawyers are typically hot garbage compared to their civilian counterparts. They also have limited or no experience outside the military justice system. A competent civilian attorney is going to wipe the floor with these clowns.
19
FriendlyDespotMay 2, 2026
+10
Alternatively this sounds like it would let the administration give competent attorneys commissions and have them represent the government as military attorneys in civilian court, with fewer professional ethics issues for the attorneys to be concerned about. Not sure the government could make it lucrative enough for most competent attorneys to be interested.
10
Goodeyesniper98May 2, 2026
+6
Where are all the Jade Helm conspiracy theorists who thought Obama was going to do exactly this?
6
Splunge-May 2, 2026
+6
And all the people who thought Bill Clinton was using FEMA and cryptic road signs to set up military camps to round up civilians.
6
daemos360May 3, 2026
+2
The whole Jade Helm thing was the absolute weirdest thing to experience as someone actually participating in the exercise at the time.
2
HUT2MoonMay 2, 2026
+2
Look every day there is some bananas crazy shit going on at DOJ or this administration. But this headline is slightly misleading. It’s just a standard detail assignment. Unusual but DOJ is hurting for competent lawyers since everyone with a spine has quit.
2
killerkadoooganMay 2, 2026
+2
If they can't get people to fulfill their duties they want them to willingly, relying on JAGs to do their work isn't any better and moreso probably a violation of the constitution and the oath they swore.
2
troveofcatastropheMay 2, 2026
+2
"If Congress passes statutes giving the Department of Justice the authority to appoint active military personnel as SAUSAs to prosecute civilians, that is the law," she wrote.
It doesn’t say what the exceptions were passed that I saw but I’m not subscribed.
They’re going to appeal. Seems like the Posse Comitatus Act is pretty clear but I’m no lawyer.
2
defaultusername-17May 3, 2026
+2
ugh... even in her own ruling she mentions how it's bullshit... but she's prevented from ruling otherwise due to precedent.
f****** garbage timeline.
2
daftbucketMay 3, 2026
+2
Maybe we could just stop having the highest incarceration per capita in the entire developed f****** world?
2
bunchoutMay 3, 2026
+2
[Here](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrnnylqve/05012026johnson.pdf) is the Magistrate’s Opinion. His statutory argument seems spot on. He did find that the policy violated army regulations, but that did not give him the ability to disqualify the JAG officer.
Not sure whether that’s correct or not, but presumably if the other side had a legal argument for that, he would have addressed it.
Pretty clear he thinks it’s a bad idea but his hands are tied.
2
acrazyguyMay 3, 2026
+2
Not gonna pay for the article. But based on just the headline, I don’t get what the problem is. It’s not like a “military lawyer” has the ability to sidestep due process. They would just be a lawyer who happens to be from the military
2
Joey_LibianiMay 4, 2026
+2
I feel like Pete Hegseth showed Donald Trump Starship Troopers, because that’s the vibe they are pushing.
2
vasta2May 2, 2026
+2
You are a democrat, I mean domestic terrorist!
JAG judge that was put in place by trump/kegsbreath: yep, clear as day
Firing squad for you!
179 Comments