The Supreme Court’s Majority Has Ruled Itself Out of Business
The Supreme Court’s Majority Has Ruled Itself Out of Business
www.thedailybeast.com
The Supreme Court’s Majority Has Ruled Itself Out of Business
22 comments
-
Even the Trump appointees seem like the sort of people who would want to defend the rule of law at least to preserve their own (and therefore the court's) power, so I wonder how each of the six "conservative" judges was convinced to rule the way that he or she did. I don't imagine all of them doing it for the same reason. Maybe some were rewarded for their votes and others wanted to see Trump wreck things (Alito and his flag come to mind) but did some actually think that it was a good idea or the correct legal decision?
-
They thought they were the high priests of fascism, but they forgot there's only room for one person at the top of that pyramid.
-
Agreed. Everyone thinks they will be in the inner circle, until the inner circle shrinks to just 1.
-
The Mad King was obsessed with it. He loved to watch people burn, the way their skin blackened and blistered and melted off their bones. He burned lords he didn't like. He burned Hands who disobeyed him. He burned anyone who was against him. Before long, half the country was against him. Aerys saw traitors everywhere. So he had his pyromancer place caches of wildfire all over the city.
-
Where’s Jaime
-
-
-
-
From the way it was framed in the ruling itself, it seems like they were trying to legitimize the actions of past presidents, as well as insulate Trump from prosecution.
Every president in recent history, and many more beyond that, were guilty of crimes committed in the name of the office. Whether it be human rights violations, war crimes, or simply playing fast and loose with their Constitutional authority. Every single one of the living presidents should have been charged with all kinds of shit, due to their official actions. Bush for Iraq. Obama for his drone program. Trump for his handling of Covid. All of them are responsible for the deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians both in the US and around the world.
By all legal accounts, they should all be rotting in prison for what they did as president. But they aren't. It's always been a matter of unnoficial precedent that once they leave office, the slate is wiped clean. That seems to be what they were clarifying with the Trump ruling. All is forgiven, as long as it was an "official act", in the service of the country.
The problem is, rather than close that loophole in the system, they chose to legitimize it. And now we have someone who has no problem abusing that privilege, in power again.
-
Every single one of the living presidents should have been charged with all kinds of shit, due to their official actions.
I'll take "things you couldn't say before December 29th" for $200, Alex.
-
RIP
-
-
Your comment is so much better than the article in every way. Thank you for it.
-
Both are good.
-
-
That's a good point, and I suppose that someone sympathetic to Trump might think that he was being unfairly prosecuted after other presidents hadn't been.
I disagree with your implication that a former president should always be punished for having broken the law. The rules do need to be different for presidents than for ordinary people.
A prince, when by some urgent circumstance or some impetuous and unforeseen accident that very much concerns his state, compelled to forfeit his word and break his faith, or otherwise forced from his ordinary duty, ought to attribute this necessity to a lash of the divine rod: vice it is not, for he has given up his own reason to a more universal and more powerful reason; but certainly ’tis a misfortune: so that if any one should ask me what remedy? “None,” say I, “if he were really racked between these two extremes: 'Let him see to it that it be not a loophole for perjury that he seeks.' He must do it: but if he did it without regret, if it did not weigh on him to do it, ’tis a sign his conscience is in a sorry condition."
Montaigne' Essays, book 3 chapter 1
It's one thing to break a law with the belief (perhaps unjustified) that doing so is necessary for the good of the nation and quite another to do to because power protects you from deserved punishment, but how can the law itself make this distinction?
-
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that they should "always" be prosecuted for their crimes...only that the Supreme Court should have closed that loophole. There are many ways they could have drawn a distinction between justified actions and those that should be prosecuted.
Instead, they ruled that all "official acts" should be exempt from repercussions. That didn't just leave the loophole open...it guaranteed it could be abused, without consequence.
-
-
Bush for Iraq. Obama for his drone program. Trump for his handling of Covid.
Biden for his funding of genocide (which is, surprisingly, illegal under US law), to complete the list.
-
-
22 comments