[cg505]

The good-faith interpretation of Musk's actions goes something like: "All of these cuts are consistent with the overall goal and eventually planned. So, Musk is just cutting things as he thinks of them." Unfortunately, it means that the best way to avoid getting cut, for now, is just to avoid drawing Musk's attention, for any reason. The ISS thing from yesterday [1] is a clear example - something that was already planned and has just been bumped up.

To be clear, I don't really buy this interpretation, especially since over the years Musk has shown himself to be quite vindictive.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/20/elon-musk-iss-deorb...

[drawkward]

there is no good-faith interpretation of unconstitutional action.

[soganess]

I don't want this to be a defense of elon musk. Everything he is currently doing is unequivocally wrong and he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

That said, there have been multiple cases where 'unconstitutional' actions had good faith interpretations. The obvious one being the Underground Railroad. Less obvious was Lincoln suspending habius corpus in 1861 (I don't know if the term executive order existed back then, but this sure felt like one). It would be another two years before Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863 was passed.

Overused? Sure, beyond belief. But dropping a "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" feels particularly appropriate right about now.