WoodScientist

She says it's too dogmatic.

There is much speculation on whether President Trump will simply refuse to comply with judicial orders. There's the famous line of Andrew Jackson, "The court has made their ruling, let them enforce it." JD Vance recently tweeted that he does not believe Musk's rogue DOGE agency should be subject to judicial review. The writer behind a lot of the philosophy of Trump and Vance, Curtis Yarvin, advocates that the president should simply ignore court orders and do what he wills. Many have lamented that if this were the case, that there is nothing the Supreme Court could do. That they would simply be powerless, and that the only hope would be that the military would step in.

But I can think of an option for such a scenario that I haven't heard discussed anywhere. If a president openly defies a direct order by a Supreme Court, could the court then call upon the ancient common law tradition of a Writ of Outlawry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw

In common parlance, we use the term "outlaw" to refer to someone that is simply a criminal or on the run from the law. But traditionally it was something a lot more specific. Back in ancient days where it was much more difficult to track down fugitives, courts would declare those who refused to subject themselves to the court's process as "outlaws." They literally were declared as outside the protection from the law. It was then legal for literally anyone to do whatever they wanted to that person, and they would face no legal penalties whatsoever. An outlaw could literally be killed, and their killer would face no penalties. The philosophy was that if someone was going to refuse to subject themselves to the law, then they did not deserve the protection of the law.

Could this be the answer to Jackson's quip? Ultimately the Supreme Court determines the working of the justice system. If a court rules that no lower court can hold someone accountable for crimes against someone, then anyone could harm that person with impunity.

Could this be a final and ultimate option for the Supreme Court to hold a rogue president accountable? Give the president plenty of chances and fair warning. But if the president simply refuses to abide by the court's rulings, then the court could activate this ancient tradition and declare them an outlaw. It would then be completely legal for anyone to do whatever they wanted to the president, including the Secret Service agents that surround him at all times. Could the Supreme Court rein in a lawless president by simply declaring that president outside of the law's protection?

With all the chaos in Washington right now, I'm low key worried about Musk and his goons managing to fuck up the FDIC. If that happens, we're looking at simultaneous bank runs on every bank in the country.

Is it possible for a US citizen, without actually traveling to a foreign country, to open up a bank account in Canada or Europe somewhere and transfer some funds there? I'm not quite at the point of "liquidate everything and get it out of the country." But having a hedge in the form of an emergency fund in a Canadian or European bank account is very tempting right now.

Is this sort of thing possible? Can you open up a foreign bank account remotely? Or is this the kind of thing you can only do by physically traveling to a foreign country, walking into a bank branch, and opening an account there? And can you open up a bank account in a country without having any citizenship or residency there?

Basically, is it possible for a US citizen, whose only nationality or immigration status is American, to open up an account in Canada or Europe without physically leaving the borders of the US?

Sorry if this is a silly or stupid question. I don't have a lot of experience with international banking.