Of course closing your eyes is the easiest way to not see any forms or precursors of despotism. But then you also should not be surprised, when it develops to its more blatant forms.
However i do believe that you understand, that a court decision after the fact cannot heal the damage that an illegal action by the executive already did. You know, like deporting non binary people to be persecuted in Hungary, despite a court order to the contrary. If you manage to accept this as an example of problems in Germanys executive actions, then you would also see why the examples i gave in regards to Palestine constitute at least a path to despotism if you don’t want to consider the actions and their damages themselves to be despotic already.
that a court decision after the fact cannot heal the damage that an illegal action by the executive already did.
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
If you manage to accept this as an example of problems in Germanys executive actions
Of Berlins executive actions. The federation has nothing to do with it. And yes there’s plenty of rotten parts in the executive. May I remind you that I already called Berlin a failed state.
Palestine
Narrowing things down to Palestine doesn’t help your overall case. If you care about the rule of law, then the issue is broader. If all you care about is Palestine then don’t get into the rule of law, you’re damaging it by instrumentalising it for your pet topic.
As if this case would even be close to the Hungary case in terms of denial of rights, or what happened to Oury Jalloh. In this case, the administration didn’t create irreversible facts. Reign in your campism.
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
I don’t understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive. And then the executive action needs to be in accordance with the court decision. If the executive acts in a way that is in violation of the court decision, or they act on matters where a court decision is necessary, without having the court decided on it, there needs to be consequences.
You are narrowing things down to protests regarding Palestine. Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive, but it is not exclusive to people standing up for Palestinian rights. We also see attacks on the right to protest in regards to climate protests for instance. Palestinian rights are merely the issue, where thanks to “Staatsräson” they are testing the waters with how far the executive can go with despotic actions. They will not stop at this issue and instead expand on to any other issue of civil society not falling in line with the authoritarian demands.
This is why it is so crucial to understand the despotism that is developed here and to oppose it now, even if you want to ignore the issue of Palestine otherwise. Because it will affect everyone in the long run that dares to speak up about any issue.
I don’t understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive.
And that’s what’s happening: Noone has been deported.
Or do you want the administration to first ask a court each time before it does anything? Like, speeding ticket, ask a court first before telling the driver they have to pay up? Someone dumps garbage on the street, ask a court before issuing a fine and billing the perpetrator for the cleanup?
All you’d do with that is grind state action to a halt. And you wouldn’t change a thing, worse, you’d get courts used to rubber-stamping everything unread.
Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive,
No, they aren’t, the extradition to Hungary is a way worse case. That you can’t see this makes me conclude that you’re blinded by campism. You’re not judging the cases by what happened, legally, how big the fuck-up was, but by whether the people affected were closer to your pet political case. Be honest with yourself, here. I won’t judge you for having Palestine as pet cause, I will judge you for not being honest with yourself.
And that’s what’s happening: Noone has been deported.
They have been threatened with deportation and only by demanding a court to review the decision they got a temporary reprieve, that is if the executive doesn’t choose to ignore the court like they did with the deportation to Hungary. And it is already in the structure of the argument of the administration that they do not want to wait until a court has ruled on any criminal charge, or even let the investigators decide whether there is any reasonable evidence to even make a criminal charge in some of the cases.
This is at the core about taking away matters from courts, where the question of criminality or danger is subject to evidence and neutrality, rather than political affiliation and motivation.
Nowhere did i say that the deportation to Hungary is not worse. I said in case of repression against people standing up for Palestinian rights it is the most blatant, the most obvious. I recommend you to read through your past comments. They have been quite aggressive and filled with strawman arguments. I think by pointing out how despotic the deportation to Hungary is, you yourself acknowledge that Germany has a problem with growing despotism. Which brings us back to the very beginning of all of this discussion. The freedoms and rights granted by the EU and their member states are under serious attacks in particular in Germany. So instead of praising places like Germany as some beacon of freedom and rights, when the current political powers for the most part are eager to limit the very same freedoms and rights.
They have been threatened with deportation and only by demanding a court to review the decision they got a temporary reprieve
And the same happens when you get a traffic ticket: Until you challenge it in court, the order to pay up and the threat of garnishing your wages looms in the air.
And it is already in the structure of the argument of the administration that they do not want to wait until a court has ruled on any criminal charge
Criminal. Criminal. The administrative court will decide on whether or not the deportation will happen before the criminal case is finished. The administration, of course, is within its rights to have an opinion on that. So the affected people. But the administrative court will decide because this is an administrative matter.
This is at the core about taking away matters from court
No, it isn’t. I explained it like five times now. At this point you’re either deliberately misunderstanding the issue, deliberately misrepresenting the issue, or actually dense.
Administrative courts are courts. Can you acknowledge that.
I said in case of repression against people standing up for Palestinian rights it is the most blatant, the most obvious.
Not Oury Jalloh? Not Gustl Mollath? Do you even have sufficient knowledge of administrative failings and fuckups to make such a call. Very recently, and specifically Berlin, the Adenauer SRP+. Gods bless the ZPS.
I think by pointing out how despotic the deportation to Hungary is, you yourself acknowledge that Germany has a problem with growing despotism.
…you don’t. Or you’d know that it’s been like this for decades. Actually got better, pre-RAF was atrocious and let’s not talk about WWII and before.
Go ahead, argue the Palestinian case, I applaud that. But stop shooting yourself in the foot, hurting the Palestinian case, by making bullshit arguments that are both factually incorrect and tone-deaf AF. Just because it makes you feel good in the moment or something like that doesn’t mean that you’re helping. A bad thing done in the name of a good thing is still a bad thing. Dunno maybe read some Kant or something.
Of course closing your eyes is the easiest way to not see any forms or precursors of despotism. But then you also should not be surprised, when it develops to its more blatant forms.
However i do believe that you understand, that a court decision after the fact cannot heal the damage that an illegal action by the executive already did. You know, like deporting non binary people to be persecuted in Hungary, despite a court order to the contrary. If you manage to accept this as an example of problems in Germanys executive actions, then you would also see why the examples i gave in regards to Palestine constitute at least a path to despotism if you don’t want to consider the actions and their damages themselves to be despotic already.
Precursors of despotism like, *checks notes*, the rule of law being adhered to.
Touch grass.
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2025/bvg25-013.html?nn=68666
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
Of Berlins executive actions. The federation has nothing to do with it. And yes there’s plenty of rotten parts in the executive. May I remind you that I already called Berlin a failed state.
Narrowing things down to Palestine doesn’t help your overall case. If you care about the rule of law, then the issue is broader. If all you care about is Palestine then don’t get into the rule of law, you’re damaging it by instrumentalising it for your pet topic.
As if this case would even be close to the Hungary case in terms of denial of rights, or what happened to Oury Jalloh. In this case, the administration didn’t create irreversible facts. Reign in your campism.
I don’t understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive. And then the executive action needs to be in accordance with the court decision. If the executive acts in a way that is in violation of the court decision, or they act on matters where a court decision is necessary, without having the court decided on it, there needs to be consequences.
You are narrowing things down to protests regarding Palestine. Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive, but it is not exclusive to people standing up for Palestinian rights. We also see attacks on the right to protest in regards to climate protests for instance. Palestinian rights are merely the issue, where thanks to “Staatsräson” they are testing the waters with how far the executive can go with despotic actions. They will not stop at this issue and instead expand on to any other issue of civil society not falling in line with the authoritarian demands.
This is why it is so crucial to understand the despotism that is developed here and to oppose it now, even if you want to ignore the issue of Palestine otherwise. Because it will affect everyone in the long run that dares to speak up about any issue.
And that’s what’s happening: Noone has been deported.
Or do you want the administration to first ask a court each time before it does anything? Like, speeding ticket, ask a court first before telling the driver they have to pay up? Someone dumps garbage on the street, ask a court before issuing a fine and billing the perpetrator for the cleanup?
All you’d do with that is grind state action to a halt. And you wouldn’t change a thing, worse, you’d get courts used to rubber-stamping everything unread.
No, they aren’t, the extradition to Hungary is a way worse case. That you can’t see this makes me conclude that you’re blinded by campism. You’re not judging the cases by what happened, legally, how big the fuck-up was, but by whether the people affected were closer to your pet political case. Be honest with yourself, here. I won’t judge you for having Palestine as pet cause, I will judge you for not being honest with yourself.
They have been threatened with deportation and only by demanding a court to review the decision they got a temporary reprieve, that is if the executive doesn’t choose to ignore the court like they did with the deportation to Hungary. And it is already in the structure of the argument of the administration that they do not want to wait until a court has ruled on any criminal charge, or even let the investigators decide whether there is any reasonable evidence to even make a criminal charge in some of the cases.
This is at the core about taking away matters from courts, where the question of criminality or danger is subject to evidence and neutrality, rather than political affiliation and motivation.
Nowhere did i say that the deportation to Hungary is not worse. I said in case of repression against people standing up for Palestinian rights it is the most blatant, the most obvious. I recommend you to read through your past comments. They have been quite aggressive and filled with strawman arguments. I think by pointing out how despotic the deportation to Hungary is, you yourself acknowledge that Germany has a problem with growing despotism. Which brings us back to the very beginning of all of this discussion. The freedoms and rights granted by the EU and their member states are under serious attacks in particular in Germany. So instead of praising places like Germany as some beacon of freedom and rights, when the current political powers for the most part are eager to limit the very same freedoms and rights.
And the same happens when you get a traffic ticket: Until you challenge it in court, the order to pay up and the threat of garnishing your wages looms in the air.
Criminal. Criminal. The administrative court will decide on whether or not the deportation will happen before the criminal case is finished. The administration, of course, is within its rights to have an opinion on that. So the affected people. But the administrative court will decide because this is an administrative matter.
No, it isn’t. I explained it like five times now. At this point you’re either deliberately misunderstanding the issue, deliberately misrepresenting the issue, or actually dense.
Administrative courts are courts. Can you acknowledge that.
Not Oury Jalloh? Not Gustl Mollath? Do you even have sufficient knowledge of administrative failings and fuckups to make such a call. Very recently, and specifically Berlin, the Adenauer SRP+. Gods bless the ZPS.
…you don’t. Or you’d know that it’s been like this for decades. Actually got better, pre-RAF was atrocious and let’s not talk about WWII and before.
Go ahead, argue the Palestinian case, I applaud that. But stop shooting yourself in the foot, hurting the Palestinian case, by making bullshit arguments that are both factually incorrect and tone-deaf AF. Just because it makes you feel good in the moment or something like that doesn’t mean that you’re helping. A bad thing done in the name of a good thing is still a bad thing. Dunno maybe read some Kant or something.