611–620 of 1001 posts
Surely the "impeachment exists" arguments are in bad faith. Otherwise, I'm convinced they've abandoned reason. Impeachment process takes time, and in that window, the president can do whatever. POTUS can even mobilize the army (an official power) to block congress from meeting, since apparently the motive behind the use of official power doesn't matter. If they can't meet, how are they going to impeach.
I think a big problem here is that all existing laws and the system concerning presidents rests on one very important assumption. That the commander in chief is a decent, rational human being that carefully considers his actions and holds the interest of the United States and the Citizens in high regards. It all falls apart and gets too complicated to regulate when the assumption is that you can't trust the person in…
I don't think this is true. The constitution was designed with the idea of preventing a king from coming to power. The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.
And if the Republicans get their way with Project 2025, by all interpretations they'll create a King.
> The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.
It assumes at its core that even if individuals may pursue bad goals, that the larger society/organizations like parties or officials like the Electoral College will curtail their attempts.
Unfortunately, neither of these assumptions held true when faced with a demagogue like Trump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is factually incorrect, the president can be prosecuted for anything, he doesn't even have to commit a crime, but there's a special process for that called impeachment. This isn't new stuff and it has been understood to work this way for a couple hundred or so years, until very recently.
Impeachment is a political process to remove someone from office, it doesn’t send you to prison.
> The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immu…
Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.
I think the saddest thing is how lying under oath during a Senate confirmation hearing doesn’t revoke the confirmation. Basically Kavanaugh did what everyone said he would and he overturned US v Nixon even though he lied about it during his confirmation even though before he argued repeatedly it was a bad decision. So either he lied or he miraculously changed his beliefs for the duration of the Senate hearing. https:…
> So I think the first thing that makes a good judge is independence, not being swayed by political or public pressure. That takes some backbone. That takes some judicial fortitude.
> The great moments in American judicial history, the judges had backbone and independence. You think about Youngstown Steel. You think about, for example, Brown v. Board of Education, where the Court came together and knew they were going to face political pressure and still enforced the promise of the Constitution.
> You think about United States v. Nixon, which I have identified as one of the greatest moments in American judicial history, where Chief Justice Burger, who had been appointed by President Nixon, brought the Court together in a unanimous decision to order President Nixon, in response to a criminal trial subpoena, to disclose information. Those great moments of independence and unanimity are important.
[0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32765/pdf/CH...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Ever since Bill Clinton (and probably before that, I was too young) the President and a non-trivial number of presidential candidates were either under an investigation of some sort, or a threat of such an investigation. Obviously Bill, Hillary, constant threats of investigation of George W Bush and Obama, special counsel investigating Biden, and all the Trump cases. Notably nothing ever comes out of these. This…
[flagged]
The behavior of Ken Starr in this case was abhorrent. In my eyes, there was a degree of witness intimidation going on in this case.
Ironically, this SCOTUS ruling would have blocked Clinton's impeachment because Ken Starr was an Independent Counsel, which SCOTUS ruled cannot be used in such matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judges and prosecutors also enjoy absolute immunity in their official capacities.
Fact.
Judge ordering something can be brought to court to review if the order was lawful. Judge making judicial decision - that is, not ordering something to support that decision, but actually deciding - is immune, but that is decision of the limited scope - it's not an action. Decision itself can be reviewed, so there's principally less scope for possible intentional or unintentional errors.
It's remarkable the speed at which the court has discarded any semblance of legitimacy. Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf