Only political officials, not courts, can answer conspiracism when representatives abdicate

Evidence

Still, as a practical matter, political officials are the sine qua non when it comes to answering conspiracism. Courts protect against many violations of constitutional law and, of course, uphold due process in criminal proceedings. They are bulwarks against some of the cruelest and most arbitrary measures against migrants—separation of children from their parents, for example, by executive order. And these measures themselves come wrapped up in conspiracist claims. But judges do not “speak truth to conspiracy.” When political representatives have it both ways by passively acquiescing in conspiracist charges and avoiding straightforward refutation, no other institution can step in and do what they will not. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 339

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the reader’s general theme on institutions and their limits — echoes the law-merchant material on what courts cannot substitute for. — connects to: Only elected officials can effectively counteract conspiracy for partisan voters — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 390; Party officials uniquely positioned to rebut conspiracism instead acquiesce for electoral survival — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 329; Compliant elite silence, not belief, enables conspiracism to delegitimize democracy — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 138

Broader Connections