Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -96
3/18/2025, 3:15:54 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
323d
This is Kamala-level word salad and whataboutism by @StephenM . He knows better which means he's gaslighting.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
323d
If the Trump administration continues with these obviously unconstitutional actions, then it will lose the legitimacy, public support, and power it needs to pursue free speech diplomacy, which would be a very disappointing outcome @SecRubio @marcorubio
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
325d
President Donald Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department to persecute his political enemies, say the media. “Trump calls for jailing his perceived opponents in Justice Department speech,” reported NBC. “The president intends to bend the vast powers of federal law enforcement…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
323d
It's up to the courts not the Administration to determine whether it is non-justiciable. The administration must comply with the order until a higher court reverses it or sets it aside. That's how our system works.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
323d
Every single Trump advisor, including and especially @StephenM, knows perfectly well that what they did is unconstitutional.
Rapid Response 47
@RapidResponse47
·
323d
WATCH IN FULL: White House Deputy Chief of Staff @StephenM schools Fake News CNN's @kasie on the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.

The statement involves a discussion on constitutional authority and the role of district court judges, touching on public issues related to governance and legal interpretation. The tone is confrontational, with accusations of constitutional violations and political bias.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement accuses a judge of violating the law, which could be seen as harmful if not substantiated. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement questions the actions of a judge and the administration, potentially infringing on privacy and dignity. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and understanding, focusing on accusations rather than constructive dialogue. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in personal attacks, particularly against the judge and political figures, rather than constructive criticism. [-2]