651–660 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prediction: trump wins presidency. Midterms swing hard towards Dems. Next president's Congress reforms supreme court.
How would a president reform the judicial branch? That power is in the legislature's hand.
Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. I don’t know if th…
The disallowing of considering even corrupt intent seems to be the real worry here. There's no distinction between using your power to promote general welfare and using it to line your own pockets or subvert democracy.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution is incredibly brief [1]. I propose the Supreme Court be reconstituted such that for each case a panel of judges from the appellate courts is chosen by lot. They hear that case, write their opinion, and then go back to that work. New case, new lot. Having a permanent bench of judicial oligarchs made sense before telecommunication. It doesn’t anymore. Every ancient democracy used ra…
But what would be more fun is for the current Supreme Court to adopt the “emanations from penumbras” philosophy of judging, and do that for a couple of decades.
The Supreme Court took what should be a straightforward and elegant decision — the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts — and turned it into angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin litigation about what constitutes official and unofficial acts. Starting on page 44 of the opinion, Thomas makes some very good points. I write separately to highlight another wa…
These are terrible points! Asserting that a special prosecutor is akin to a private prosecutor is absurd. They are just like other prosecutors, the only reason to use a special prosecutor is to avoid making the case seem political. Also, the fact that other Presidents did illegal shit and we didn't prosecute them, thus they are above the law is also absurd. The current ruling whips out the, "there's nothing in the co…
what, pray tell, is a "private prosecutor"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, the best way to avoid fascism is to become a fascist before your opponent does. In the name of democracy, of course.
Fascism is a political ideology and system (sort of) that requires a whole lot of people to keep it in place. A "lone President" assassinating his political rivals in a single act is just a regular old dictator move. No fascism required.
Since the prevailing view of Trump and MAGA Republicans is that they are fascist, it's not a stretch to point out that the proposal in the parent comment is far closer to "actual" fascism than the actions of an incompetent enabler.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution is incredibly brief [1]. I propose the Supreme Court be reconstituted such that for each case a panel of judges from the appellate courts is chosen by lot. They hear that case, write their opinion, and then go back to that work. New case, new lot. Having a permanent bench of judicial oligarchs made sense before telecommunication. It doesn’t anymore. Every ancient democracy used ra…
The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices is done specifically so that they aren't financially influenced by politics and party. I.e. their job doesn't depend on them ruling the "right" way. There are pros and cons to different approaches. There are differences at the state level for judges, being appointed vs elected. Each has problems. In TX, for example, judges are heavily influenced by mob mentality - th…
> (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such condu…
It's supposed to be hard to do. Impeachment is intended to be reserved for egregious violations or actions that most of congress (and by proxy, the citizenry) agree on.
My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As with all reforms in the US it's not gonna happen as the party that benefits will block it. Same with implementing ranked choice, outlawing gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, etc. Systems always work to justify and perpetuate themselves. It's part of why our jobs can be such BS sometimes.
> it's not gonna happen as the party that benefits will block it The right and left are both railing against our justice system. At different levels. For different reasons. But that’s political capital on the floor. > Same with implementing ranked choice We have multiple jurisdictions with RCV [1]. Your purported impossibility has happened. > Systems always work to justify and perpetuate themselves We have reformed o…
True insofar as it goes… but this elides the detail that the right just won a generational battle for the Supreme Court. There is zero chance that any Republicans back reform here.
Even the minimum viable reform to enact term limits after this lot dies off is dead on arrival.