Akritas Kaidatzis

Constitutionalists keep saying that the constitution *protects*, *guarantes*, *prohibits* this or that.
No it doesn't. It's but a piece of paper. It cannot act.
It is always a person or body of persons or, ultimately, the people that act in the name of it.
It's useful to bear the distinction in mind

Can Judicial Resistance Last? The law can protect democracy—but only up to a certain point. After that, it’s up to the people. And there’s the challenge.

“Increasing numbers of political leaders and citizens are now willing to tolerate authoritarian practices in exchange for better protection of their security, social benefits, and political status. It’s this support for creeping autocracy … that must be addressed.”

No kings!

(OK, maybe one exception)

< Needless to say, what is *really* irrational is the #HousingCrisis itself, the governments that allow or promote it, and the interests that these governments favor.

#HousingCrisis affects an unprecedented number (& percentage) of people.
Governments doing close to nothing about it --when they don't actively promote it-- is one of the reasons why people are turning to right-wing populists, the far right, or whatever liberal centrists deem as "irrational". >

No kings

(OK, with one exception)

Centrists have a disproportionate influence on public opinion making.
Problem is not they totally miss the point about the causes of democratic decline -after all, that's just my opinion- but that they're so sure about being right that they become fanatic.
Liberal fanatic: oxymoron but, sadly, true

It says something about the state of representative democracy when a party membership of 100,000 is considered massive in countries the size of UK (or England)

I believe Jack Balkin said something similar some time ago

jackbalkin.yale.edu/populism-and...

While I consider myself a (left-)populist, I have to admit this is a valid and most thought-provoking critique.

It's super difficult (not impossible, though, I hope) to forego one's own privilege (class, race, gender, education etc.) even when talking against those very privileges.

Well said.

Seriously, now:
How different is the US from Venezuela?
And is it a difference in kind or in degree?

Extreme cases of autocratization or democratic backsliding should not distract us from relatively "lighter" ones.
Same with judicial politicization and usurpation of political power.
#Juristocracy *is* a global trend.
That the US pose a grotesque extreme doesn't mean it's not happening elsewhere

My own private Idaho.
Qatari style

For us non-native speakers, the association between con artists and con law begins to become apparent

🌹 "Democratic socialism and the law" is the topic of my inaugural lecture - next Wednesday 6.30pm, Great Hall, King's College, London.

➡️ Come along! There's even a reception afterwards. Check out the abstract, and register free here: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/inaugural-...

Let us know when you do 😀

Cool photos!
Are you exhibiting?

For context:
www.academia.edu/22225287/Dem...

It's funny how people believe that *more courts* will protect us from authoritarianism.
What we need is *less rich people* instead.
Liberal democracies would operate best if we could kill the rich. Since we cannot, we should strip them off of any political right.
Make their money illegal in politics

Can Judicial Resistance Last? The law can protect democracy—but only up to a certain point. After that, it’s up to the people. And there’s the challenge.

My new essay (with Bojan Bugaric): “How long can judicial resistance last when it is to come from unelected lower court judges, if it comes at all? We believe that the momentary flurry of judicial activity is fool’s gold.”

A member of the Greek Parliament being detained by Israeli defense forces with no reaction whatsoever by the Hellenic "Republic", incl. GR Parliament itself, is proof enough that the latter is but a sham institute, only there to rubber-stamp autocratization.

So much for "parliamentary" democracy

Just saying it's Greece's problem. Not the EU's business.

No other member state prohibits (or, at least, used to prohibit) private universities.
No other member state denies access to a large part of the country to its (and EU's) half population.

So what?
Since when did the EU become the MS constitutions' modernizer?

Only immunity of MEPs can be lifted in (and by) the EP.
Not of MPs or cabinet members of member states

Unpopular:
EU officials have no right whatsoever to debate member states' constitutions --let alone push, even indirectly, for their amendment.
There is a myriad other failures & shortcomings in #Greece's both legal & judicial as well as political systems that Ms #Kovesi could bring to the fore

I'm old enough to remember when American legal theory's main concern was whether government has the power to impose on people an obligation to eat brocoli

At least Blair had the sensitivity (probably the only one he ever had) to name his right-wing radical centrism "New Labour" (not to be associated with Labour --or labour, for that matter)

YouTube video by Madman Films Crocodile Dundee 4K - That's Not A Knife

youtu.be/HxlV_hoAnXI?...

No. That's not radical rhetoric.
Defund the streets-building and automobile industries.
Defund the "defense" industry.
Defund the police and surveillance industries.
Defund big: money, data, media, entertainment, capital.

*That's* a radical rhetoric

YouTube video by The Chats THE CHATS - SMOKO (OFFICIAL VIDEO)

It's so refreshing to know that punk rock is alive and kicking!

(Why did it take me so long to discover this gem?)

youtu.be/j58V2vC9EPc?...