Legal experts: "Shameful" Supreme Court put US one vote away from "the end of democracy"
Legal experts: "Shameful" Supreme Court put US one vote away from "the end of democracy"
"Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed," says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig.
"Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed," says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig
It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”
You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.
You're viewing a single thread.
This illegitimate "supreme" court needs to be dismantled and rebuilt with normal justices. There is no place in a modern culture for conservatism or any other hate-based, oppressive ideology.
Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level. They seek only to control others and destroy progress. We should be speaking openly about the deadly dangers of conservatism and should exclude such toxic lifestyles from polite society.
Court expansion is the only straightforward way. Put the corrupt ones in minority.
Nope, shame them.
Legit Biden needs to challenge it directly and have Trump's daughter and her husband arrested and jailed on charges he must fully admit are false and politically motivated. Say the Saudi money was to pay for classified information or something, they would either have to rethink their choice or the precedent is set with a Democrat in office which would allow literal and complete political control of the government.
They aren't going to make such a ruling until after the election, if Trump wins they might grant immunity but they'll never make that ruling with Biden still in power. Biden wouldn't get away with it, there's nobody around that would support it (unlike GOP's unconditional support for Trump). They also won't have any problem striking down Biden's actions and then later approving Trump's (or just ignoring them)
Biden could do it now and it would be legal until ruled otherwise, the present court is myopic and it will bite them.
You underestimate how fast they would work to get it declared illegal
No, that's literally my intention.
They can't delay it that long, they have to issue a decision by the end of their current term, which ends when they go into summer recess in late June/early July. Granted, they could theoretically say "screw the rules" and not issue a decision until after the election, but that's literally never been done, and if it did everyone would start ringing the alarm bells because it's a crystal clear sign they're corruptly abusing their power for Trump's benefit. (Yes, I know they're already doing this, but what they're doing right now is blowing hard enough on a dog whistle to draw side-eye glances from passers by, while delaying a decision past the end of term would be like blowing a train whistle right next to your face.)
If they do decide to help Trump, the most likely path will be waiting until the last minute to issue a decision and then punting it back to the lower court for further review.
The outcome I've seen suggested is that they send it back to the lower court with minimal instructions, then waiting for the case to make it back to SCOTUS later
This is truly the only possible way. But, damn it would be nice to not have conservative pieces of shit anywhere near a position of authority over the normal people.
normal justices
I'll believe one when I see one. The profession is simply drowning in Federal Society freaks and Ivy League snobs.
Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level.
They've got a plurality, at least in the economic strata that control all the material wealth. I don't know how they stop participating in government while still retaining control of all this property.
. I don't know how they stop participating in government while still retaining control of all this property.
Excellent point. Historically, an infestation of unchecked conservatism has never been cured peacefully.
ACAB; All Conservatives Are Bad
You do realize democrats are conservatives right?
Elaborate, please? How are Democrats Republicans, and if they aren't, what is the difference? I genuinely don't understand.
It sounds like the poster is looking at "conservative" by it's more objective view. Conservative is often a brand more than a strict political position since it has connotations of fiscal austerity, calm and measured or more "traditional" in value than party X.
Conservatism outside the brand however has a political throughline that aggregates around a few specific ideas. Generally speaking what they are actually conserving (once you bust through the rhetoric that usually tries to disguise it) is the idea of heirachy and legitimizing pre-existing power structures that stack power vertically rather than scattering it horizontally.
Not all Democrats are highly "conservative" but those who aren't don't tend to do well internally inside the party long term. They do however like to trot them out when allowing for starry eyed dreaming hour because it's good for their image. The main party throughline is kind of middle of the scale. It's not to say they can't be forced to be less conservative by circumstance since as long as they are more "Progressive" in ways that align with that branding pattern than their opposition then they are bound to need to back that image up from time to time to get to keep that spot in the minds of their audience as being "left of center" .
But "Progressive" just like "conservative" has shallow surface level brand connotations that have nothing to do with the political compass.
He didn't say Dems are Republicans, he said they're conservatives. Not the same thing. However, Republicans are conservatives too.
And yet, it wasn't explained how Democrats are conservatives, whatever that means. I just hear Republicans are conservative, now this one rando is saying Dems are conservative, what does that even mean, anymore? What does democrat or republican mean if they are being accused of being the same? How are they the same?
Three US democratic party is fairly "conservative" relative to European social democracies. That's all.
And what does that mean?
You won't be getting universal healthcare, decent paid parental leave, comprehensive worker protections, or 4-8 weeks' holiday pay per year for the foreseeable future.
Just to define the term: Conservative = right of center on the political spectrum.
That "rando" meant that Democrats, which are considered "left" in the US, are actually pretty far towards the right by most other countries' standards. This is due to the Overton window shifting pretty far towards the right in the US in recent years.
Republicans are just even further towards the right.
In lay terms, without referring to graphics, what does that mean? ELI5, please? People keep saying left and right like it means something.
From Wikipedia:
Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished
Also from Wikipedia:
Right-wing politics are considered the counterpart to left-wing politics, and the left–right political spectrum is one of the most widely accepted political spectrums.[16] The right includes social conservatives and fiscal conservatives[17][18][19] as well as right-libertarians. "Right" and "right-wing" have been variously used as compliments and pejoratives describing neoliberal, conservative, and fascist economic and social ideas.
Man, you're in a politics community, left and right is like basic knowledge. I'm happy to educate, but did you even google it? If not, do that first and then I'll be happy to help clear stuff up, but please put in at least a little bit of effort.
You can't tell me that anything like a Conservative Democrat exists, much less that they control the leadership positions within the party. I won't believe it.
I sure do.
Neoliberals are conservatives. They have just a bit more tact than Republican conservatives, but they are still conservatives by every developed international standard. The Dems have a couple progressive members, but the majority are neoliberals, unfortunately.
We don't have a progressive party. We have a conservative party and a more conservative party.