The Illusion of Rules in a Lawless Game
There’s something deeply unsettling about watching democracy crumble in real-time from across the Pacific. The recent ruling that Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was unlawful should feel like a victory for the rule of law, but honestly, it feels more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
The judge’s decision is clear: Trump violated protections for independent agency officials, and Slaughter remains a “rightful member” of the FTC. It’s the kind of ruling that would have meant something in, say, 2015. But we’re living in a different world now, one where “lawful” and “unlawful” have become increasingly meaningless terms when applied to those in power.
What strikes me most about this whole affair is the resignation buried in the public discourse. One user pointed out something that perfectly encapsulates our current predicament: the other fired commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, had to abandon his legal challenge because he couldn’t afford to have no income while fighting in court. Think about that for a moment – justice is literally only available to those who don’t have to work for a living. It’s a perfect metaphor for where we find ourselves.
The conversations I’ve been following online reveal a kind of collective despair that’s frankly alarming. People are watching what amounts to a slow-motion constitutional crisis and feeling powerless to stop it. The Supreme Court has already shown its hand by refusing to reinstate other officials Trump illegally fired. The pattern is clear: rules apply until they don’t, and the arbiters of those rules have chosen their side.
From my perch here in Melbourne, watching this unfold feels like observing a friend spiral into self-destruction. You want to help, but they’re determined to make every wrong choice possible. The American system of checks and balances – once held up as a model for the world – is revealing itself to be more fragile than anyone imagined when the people operating it simply refuse to honour their obligations.
What’s particularly galling is the naked hypocrisy of it all. The same crowd that spent years railing about the “deep state” and unaccountable bureaucrats are now cheering as their guy systematically dismantles the very institutions designed to provide oversight and accountability. The “unitary executive” theory – which mysteriously only seems to gain traction when Republicans are in office – is being deployed to justify what is essentially presidential authoritarianism.
But here’s what gives me a sliver of hope: every delay matters. Every court ruling, even if it’s eventually overturned, creates friction in the machine. It forces these authoritarian impulses into the light where they can be examined and challenged. The judge in this case knew her ruling would likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, but she made it anyway. That takes courage in the current climate.
The real tragedy isn’t just what’s happening to American democracy – it’s the global implications. For decades, the US positioned itself as the world’s beacon of democratic values. That moral authority is evaporating before our eyes, and autocrats everywhere are taking notes. When the supposed leader of the free world abandons the rule of law, it gives every two-bit dictator permission to do the same.
What frustrates me most is how preventable this all was. There were multiple off-ramps, multiple moments where institutions could have held firm and said “no further.” But time and again, the response has been accommodation rather than resistance. The business-as-usual approach to an extraordinary threat to democratic norms.
The silver lining, if there is one, is that this is finally waking people up to how fragile these systems really are. Democracy isn’t some self-sustaining machine that runs on autopilot – it requires constant tending, constant vigilance, and people willing to defend it even when it’s inconvenient or costly.
Perhaps this moment will force a reckoning with the unwritten rules and gentleman’s agreements that held the system together. Maybe future leaders will have the wisdom to codify these protections in law rather than relying on good faith and tradition. But that’s a conversation for after the current crisis passes – if it passes.
For now, we’re left watching a judge make a principled stand that everyone knows will be overturned, while the person it’s meant to constrain continues to operate as if laws are merely suggestions. It’s enough to make you lose faith in the whole enterprise, but giving up isn’t really an option. The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.