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.
I knew this SCOTUS was a joke, but this is unbelievable even for them. I cannot fathom that I've lived to see the day that a former president's lawyer argues that the sitting president ought to be able to perform political assassination and any number of justices, let alone a near, majority say "well that makes sense to me lol".
You gotta love the brazen, balls-to-the-wall craziness of the "accountability leads to lawlessness" argument. Especially coming from the supposed religious party, it's a stunning assertion, devoid of morality or even a sense of direction. It's just another version of the stupid fucking "too big to fail" argument.
The argument is this: Yes, the people in charge have committed crimes, but they're the top of the food chain now. If we take them out, there will be a power vacuum - the very chaos we are supposed to prevent! (no it's fucking not, retards, THAT's just the free market in action, you know, the thing you always masturbate about, you're supposed to be protecting these enterprises from falling into criminal behaviour, incentivising correct behaviour, and generally FIXING SYSTEMS not making them worse)
Idiots. What use preserving a corrupt system? It's just an admission that they're paying you. "Why would I change it now that I'm in a position to benefit from it?" Here's why: accepting money to hurt your own people is TREASON. Put that shit in your pipe and smoke it.
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.
With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls. More people voting equals more democratic votes.
How we vote is controlled at the state level, so why haven't blue states passed electoral reform? Don't the democrats want more votes? Why would the democratic party say no to these extra votes?
Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican's nightmare?
Just saying, if 45's acts are deemed political activity protected from prescription, 46 is still in office and is handed carte blanche to engage in all manner of unseemly counterfuckery. At the extreme, I believe Seal Team Six was mentioned, but I'm sure Biden could find lots of fun and creative ways to abuse unfettered executive power.
Pretty obvious that they have no shame. Just like trump.