On the heels of AG Barr’s troubling speech to @FedSoc, here’s a thread about why I consider myself a member of the Resistance to Trump and Trumpism and what I mean when I say that I am part of this Resistance. (1/17)
@FedSoc Some people have taken to using “the Resistance” as a term of derision, to belittle or puncture the pretensions of people who are working against Trump and Trumpism. I claim the concept proudly. I’m a Resister. (2/17)
@FedSoc What does it mean to be a Resister? It means different things to different people. This thread, as noted above, is about what I mean by it. (3/17)
@FedSoc To me, this Resistance has two premises. Premise 1: The Trump presidency is morally repugnant and a threat to the rule of law. Premise 2: I am obligated to exert myself, above and beyond my normal level of civic engagement, to meet the threat. (4/17)
@FedSoc Take Premise 1 first: that Trump is morally repugnant and a threat to the rule of law. Lots of people have written about this. My own best attempt is here: michiganlawreview.org/the-republic/. (5/17)
@FedSoc I recognize that many people disagree with my judgment that Trump is morally repugnant and a threat to the rule of law. But I do not think it a matter of reasonable disagreement. So if you are one who disagrees, I hope you will think again. (6/17)
@FedSoc Now, about Premise 2. That premise, you’ll remember, is that I am obligated to exert myself, above and beyond my normal level of civic engagement, to meet the threat to the Republic that Trump and Trumpism pose. (7/17)
@FedSoc We Americans can meet and beat this threat. But nobody is coming to save us. We need to do it ourselves. And it will take a lot of effort by a lot of people. We can’t just go on as normal and expect things to turn out OK. (8/17)
@FedSoc It is not enough to criticize and shake our heads and tweet. We need to devote time and energy, actively, to work that has real-world impact. Each week we need to answer the question “What did I do this week to address the problem?” (9/17)
@FedSoc Much of my own contribution to the resistance takes the form of litigation and other forms of legal work, because that’s a skill I happen to have. (10/17)
@FedSoc I don’t want to be a litigator or an activist. I want to be a scholar and a teacher. Litigation and activism take time from what I really want to be doing. But I am morally obligated to do what I can to help. (11/17)
@FedSoc Next, meeting the threat requires us not to normalize the pathological. This point, as much as anything, is why “Resistance” is a fitting label for what’s necessary. Avoiding normalization requires active resistance, as a mental state and as a program. (12/17)
@FedSoc Critically, and contra AG Barr: the methods of my resistance uphold the values in whose name I resist. I use the tools of the law, not the tools of the lawless. I do not abandon my ethical compass or my sense of decency. I don’t need to; my cause forbids me to. (13/17)
@FedSoc I’ve worked with many lawyers on efforts to fight Trump. Despite AG Barr’s charge, never has anyone in any conversation I’ve been part of in those efforts suggested doing something illegal or unethical because the ends justify the means. Not once. That isn’t who we are. (14/17)
@FedSoc Instead, my resistance is based on the idea that within the bounds of ethical, upstanding, clear-eyed behavior, we must see what this Administration is doing to damage the Republic and fight against it. Actively. As if our country depended on it. Because it does. (15/17)
@FedSoc No, I don’t think that my work or my resistance can save the Republic. But I believe that the work and the resistance of a hundred thousand people can. My job is to be one of them. (16/17)
@FedSoc Maybe that’s true of any Resistance, more or less. I deeply wish this one weren’t necessary. But it is. So I’m proud to be in it. Frankly, I don’t see how I could justify any other stance. (17/17)
