I feel there is some precedent for ripple effects into society if leaders aren't upheld to laws. This could potentially mean a lot more lawlessness among certain groups of citizens and quite...
I feel there is some precedent for ripple effects into society if leaders aren't upheld to laws. This could potentially mean a lot more lawlessness among certain groups of citizens and quite frankly, that is scary.
The potential for an authoritarian dictatorship loom along these same lines. No person should be greater than others.
We already live in a society where leaders aren't held accountable enough, I can't imagine a leader basically having no repercussion for attempting to overthrow an election or solidify power by...
We already live in a society where leaders aren't held accountable enough, I can't imagine a leader basically having no repercussion for attempting to overthrow an election or solidify power by illegal means. Of COURSE this would lead to authoritarian rule very quickly.
Yes actually. Obama probably should have been prosecuted for that. And granting immunity from prosecution fixes that? Having immunity just means rounding up congress, having them vote to make them...
A drone strike on a U.S. citizen abroad authorized by then-President Barack Obama?
Yes actually. Obama probably should have been prosecuted for that.
One particularly notable hypothetical came from Alito, who raised the prospect that an outgoing president who loses a closely contested race but fears indictment upon leaving office might try to remain in power, creating “a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy.”
And granting immunity from prosecution fixes that? Having immunity just means rounding up congress, having them vote to make them dictator for life, then shooting 5 no votes on the spot and revoting if it doesn't pass.
Yeah, I've been worried about that Obama drone strike. Killing a US citizen without trial was such a bad precident to set. Anyone could be labeled an enemy combatant and killed by the executive...
Yeah, I've been worried about that Obama drone strike. Killing a US citizen without trial was such a bad precident to set. Anyone could be labeled an enemy combatant and killed by the executive branch.
You've sent me down a rabbit hole with this comment that has certainly landed me on another list lol. Reading into the "Disposition Matrix" (kill list) developed under the Obama administration is...
You've sent me down a rabbit hole with this comment that has certainly landed me on another list lol.
As reported previously, United States citizens may be listed as targets for killing in the database. Suspects are not formally charged of any crime nor offered a trial in their defense.
An American journalist and Syrian Civil War war correspondent Bilal Abdul Kareem reported drone assassination attempts by the U.S. military, which killed random civilians that were present nearby, including two attacks on vehicles he was traveling in, including one where the car he was sitting in was blown up by a missile shot from a drone. In 2017, he filed a lawsuit against the United States government in the District of Columbia, claiming they had attempted to assassinate him, and requesting his removal from the Disposition Matrix.
The government filed a subsequent motion to dismiss arguing that the case could not go forward because the relief sought by Kareem (information about whether he was on the kill list, presentation of the evidence that was used to put him there, a description of the process that was used to put him there, and removal from the list) along with any evidence that might be used in the case were all protected by the state secrets privilege. The court sided with the government and dismissed the case, leaving Kareem without any recourse:
"Without access to the privileged information, Mr. Kareem is unable to establish whether he has targeted by the lethal force or what information was considered in reaching the alleged decision to target him. Mr. Kareem is "incapable of demonstrating that [he has] sustained a violation of" his constitutional rights without the information ... He 'has alleged, but ultimately cannot show, a concrete injury amounting to either a specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm. in this instance, in which the relevant information is solely in the control of the United States and is protected by the state secrets privilege, Mr. Kareem is left with no method to obtain it to pursue his case, which must therefore be dismissed."
Our mechanisms of justice are already completely incapable of penetrating the veils of the executive branch.
It's like any single link you click on that page brings you down a different path of public information exposing ongoing pure evil that you cannot do anything about and nobody around you will ever acknowledge. Every line of text in our constitution is an exercise in wishful thinking and a platitude in the face of the people holding real power, all of whom will continue to be idolized by one significant portion of your peers or the other for the rest of your life.
Let me start by saying that I believe that Trump should not be immune from prosecution. I personally believe he should face consequences for his actions, as should anyone in a position of power....
And granting immunity from prosecution fixes that? Having immunity just means rounding up congress, having them vote to make them dictator for life, then shooting 5 no votes on the spot and revoting if it doesn't pass.
Let me start by saying that I believe that Trump should not be immune from prosecution. I personally believe he should face consequences for his actions, as should anyone in a position of power. That being said, history has shown that rulers have been incentivized to hold on to power due to to prosecution after they are to step down. Julius Caesar is a fine example of this. He had both legal debts as well as the possibility of being prosecuted for various crimes such as corruption, enacting policies without the senate, etc.
Granted, my solution to this problem is that if you are serving as President you can be actively prosecuted during your Presidency and during this time you lose the ability to pardon anyone. That being said, this would also cause a lot of problems. For example, what if instead of Mayorkas getting impeached Republicans aimed legal action at the sitting President. Who would doubt that the Texas AG would try to prosecute Biden for the illegal immigration issue?
Don't want to have this misconstrued as we shouldn't do anything - just that there are bad actors that aren't interested in doing the right thing. And there need to be considerations to make limit abuse.
Impeachment (with a corresponding vote-to-convict) is the mechanism designed to address this. Unfortunately, like everything else in the modern implementation and practice of the American...
Exemplary
Impeachment (with a corresponding vote-to-convict) is the mechanism designed to address this. Unfortunately, like everything else in the modern implementation and practice of the American Constitution, there are many, many, many people not acting in good faith.
What does that mean, good faith? Consider impeachment. If a President takes illegal actions, the proper response is for Congress to step in. That's one of the points of Congress; to act as a counterbalance to the Presidency, and the Supreme Court is to act as a counterbalance to them both. In theory they all balance the government so it functions.
But the whole process assumes good faith. That all actors within the system are not seeking to abuse the rules for self gain, or to avoid the rules, or to circumvent restrictions and problems. Without good faith, impeachment is either abused for malicious purposes, or not enacted when a potential impeachment target has political allies who can block the impeachment.
Note, political allies. Who would be acting for political purposes. Not for factual ones, or good faith ones. Simply out of an "own team" reason. Trump was impeached, barely, but the vote whet along party lines. As was the vote to convict in the Senate, which prevented him from being removed from office.
That's not good faith. Trump did things, and they seem to meet the general definition of bad actions and bad leadership. Of leadership and character and activities that are anti-American, against the best interests of the Nation as a whole. Jimmy Carter, as one famous example, gave up control over personal assets (modest though they were) simply to avoid the appearance of financial impropriety that might lead to even an assumption he was acting in bad faith.
Meanwhile, Trump did everything but issue an official directive under the Presidential Seal that anyone visiting Washington had better be staying in one of his properties (which he financially benefits from). Which is one of the least of the things he did that are arguably impeachable. Which he was not punished for by removal from office, simply due to bad faith actors in Congress shielding him from any consequences.
One of the points mentioned in the article, raised by conservative Justices, was "well if a President isn't absolutely immune, he can be politically punished by vindictive prosecution."
That's ultimately a separate issue, and they damn well know it. The point of a trial is to find facts and determine truth, and then take steps based on that. Can the trial process be abused? Oh most certainly. Which is another example of bad faith actions. A prosecutor anywhere in the country can more or less decide, on a whim as long as that whim has some paperwork behind it, to indict someone. And use that indictment to proceed to trial. Forcing that person to stand for trial.
Which is where checks and balances supposedly come back into it. Because those exact things happened in England and Europe back in the 1600s and 1700s. The Forefathers knew this, hated it, and tried to build a system with balance. Which is why there's a judge, who can rule on things and ride herd over the trial. And why there's a jury of your peers who can decide whatever they want, regardless of what the prosecutor or even judge would want.
It doesn't matter what a prosecutor rolls into court with. They can back up endless semi-trailers full of evidence, even actual truthful evidence. The fact is, in American criminal jurisprudence, if the jury votes not to convict, the defendant is not guilty under the law. Reference OJ Simpson as an extremely high profile example.
So while standing trial is a burden and hardship, especially if you don't have means to hire a high priced (and presumably highly skilled, since they're charging so much) legal team to manage your defense, it's still better than letting a prosecutor or judge unilaterally decide guilt or innocence. And it's better than anything else we've come up with, since the jury of ordinary people (your "peers") is less likely to show up with the kind of motive a bad faith prosecutor or judge might be burdened with.
As for power, that's why power is so Goddamned dangerous! It's power. That's why we call it power. It gives you power. And bad faith actors abuse power. That's what someone acting in bad faith does. They'll act out of selfish need, greed, malicious intent, and a whole host of negative things that have nothing to do with the good of the nation or the welfare of the citizens or the health of the government or anything positive.
Like Trump does constantly.
None of this shit would apply to a good faith President. Someone who acts in good faith, who stops to consider the appearance of impropriety, of illegality. A President who shapes their every official act (whatever they might think or even say in private) with a fundamental goal of upholding the faith and trust the American people place in them after having elected them. A President who seeks to be a good President, rather than simply just being a winner who wins and is immune to consequences.
The American Right Wing of politics has descended into extremism. Many, many, within it truly believe to their core that their intentions for the nation, the things they wish to do, are correct and everyone else is wrong. Not just wrong, dangerously wrong. And because they believe this so strongly, it's become fanaticism.
Now, if they believed as they do, but acted in good faith, we'd all be fine. The Right Wing would stand up and argue their points, debate them, present them, all within the framework of the American political system. If they didn't see their desires codified into law or official act, they'd just try again later as would be their right. But the debate would moderate things, the need to find consensus would moderate it. That's why we vote; to find consensus.
But they don't act in good faith. They're fanatics. They believe so strongly in their desires that they're willing to lie, cheat, steal, sometimes even kill. They're willing to defraud the entire nation, abuse millions and tens of millions of people ... anything that gets a win. That puts them any step closer to being able to enact their political wishes.
And under that mindset, they don't give a fuck about Trump. In fact, punishing Trump damages the extremist Right's cause. They need someone like him to push through to the place they want American taken; a place where they're in charge.
They don't want democracy. Which is defined by voting. Why do we vote? If I want vanilla and you want chocolate, the group can argue and hate each other, or we can vote. Maybe vanilla wins, maybe chocolate wins; and either way, the group can vote again next time.
The Right doesn't see it that way. They see that as an affront. Worse, as a crime; just one they can't actually charge you with. Though they very badly want to. When they want to close the border, or remove women's rights or voting rights, or round up non-Right citizens, or any of the other things they're eagerly pursuing, they see that as their just due. Because they believe that strongly their way is the one and only way.
It's textbook fanaticism.
They can't allow Trump to be held accountable. They need him to be reelected, and do what they now very much expect him to do.
Which is remove the rule of law officially.
All of this is why it's not melodramatic to say we're on the verge of civil war. That's what war is; a failure of diplomacy. A failure to find non-violent means of resolving a disagreement.
The places the Right wants to take us have a non-zero chance of triggering that war. But that doesn't matter, because they're right. And if they can get Trump back in office, they'll have a chance to have control of the military.
Now it's really fashionable for anti-gun people to assume the US Military is invulnerable, but that's not the case. Especially not in a civil war scenario. Looking at the history of American military deployments over the last century bears out how an opponent doesn't need tanks and fighter-bombers to resist.
Further, if Trump (or any fanatic leader) orders US units to fire into crowds of US citizens, deploy into US towns and round up US citizens to be taken to internment camps is going to accelerate that civil war. The idea of being a soldier is to simply obey, but each and every soldier is a person with a brain and morals. Some are not going to do the things the Right wants.
So there'll be units fighting amongst themselves, with tanks and fighter bombers and rifles and fuel air explosives and all that. That's what civil war means. It doesn't mean "the military" is a monolith faction that will just kowtow to the leader. Some of them won't. Some of them will join the resistance. Some of them will be engaged by fanatic fellow soldiers, which is why when the war starts it's likely going to start with news of units fracturing apart as some soldiers decide "yes, finally, we get to kick ass" and other soldiers decide "hold the fuck up; this is illegal, immoral, and just flat wrong."
Good faith on the part of SCOTUS and Congress and the Presidency, and indeed on the part of candidates and parties, would head all this off. But good faith is part of history. No one acts in good faith anymore. They're too busy trying to win.
"Rule for the ages" heh. If I had been in court, I'd have definitely shot myself in the foot with a retort along the lines of, "You're only making a rule until some future court overturns it." As...
Justice Neil Gorsuch conveyed concern that prosecutors, or political opponents, could have bad motives in pursuing political rivals. Michael Dreeben, a lawyer for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, responded that this fear was inapplicable in this case.
“I appreciate that,” Gorsuch said. “But you also appreciate that we’re writing a rule for the ages.”
"Rule for the ages" heh. If I had been in court, I'd have definitely shot myself in the foot with a retort along the lines of, "You're only making a rule until some future court overturns it." As if stare decisis has any merit these days...
Gorsuch is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Literally every politician is at risk of being harassed by a malevolent prosecutor -- hell, so are activists and minorities and even the...
Gorsuch is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Literally every politician is at risk of being harassed by a malevolent prosecutor -- hell, so are activists and minorities and even the prosecutor 's untidy neighbors -- so why would you carve out a special exception for the President?
If Gorsuch is so concerned about prosecutors misbehaving, he should be trying to regulate that, not proposing extra protections to someone who literally tried to overthrow our democracy. And as the special council argued, if anyone is in a privileged position to understand the law, it would be the President, who has the Attorney General and the rest of the Justice Department for council.
This is a delaying tactic the Supreme Court is using to protect Trump. They will decide Trump is not immune, but by which point in time it will be too late to prosecute Trump.
Even Trump’s name was barely uttered, and mostly in the context of the formal title of court cases.
This is a delaying tactic the Supreme Court is using to protect Trump.
They will decide Trump is not immune, but by which point in time it will be too late to prosecute Trump.
I feel there is some precedent for ripple effects into society if leaders aren't upheld to laws. This could potentially mean a lot more lawlessness among certain groups of citizens and quite frankly, that is scary.
The potential for an authoritarian dictatorship loom along these same lines. No person should be greater than others.
We already live in a society where leaders aren't held accountable enough, I can't imagine a leader basically having no repercussion for attempting to overthrow an election or solidify power by illegal means. Of COURSE this would lead to authoritarian rule very quickly.
Yes actually. Obama probably should have been prosecuted for that.
And granting immunity from prosecution fixes that? Having immunity just means rounding up congress, having them vote to make them dictator for life, then shooting 5 no votes on the spot and revoting if it doesn't pass.
Yeah that statement is highly nonsensical. Just wow
Yeah, I've been worried about that Obama drone strike. Killing a US citizen without trial was such a bad precident to set. Anyone could be labeled an enemy combatant and killed by the executive branch.
You've sent me down a rabbit hole with this comment that has certainly landed me on another list lol.
Reading into the "Disposition Matrix" (kill list) developed under the Obama administration is terrifying.
Our mechanisms of justice are already completely incapable of penetrating the veils of the executive branch.
It's like any single link you click on that page brings you down a different path of public information exposing ongoing pure evil that you cannot do anything about and nobody around you will ever acknowledge. Every line of text in our constitution is an exercise in wishful thinking and a platitude in the face of the people holding real power, all of whom will continue to be idolized by one significant portion of your peers or the other for the rest of your life.
Let me start by saying that I believe that Trump should not be immune from prosecution. I personally believe he should face consequences for his actions, as should anyone in a position of power. That being said, history has shown that rulers have been incentivized to hold on to power due to to prosecution after they are to step down. Julius Caesar is a fine example of this. He had both legal debts as well as the possibility of being prosecuted for various crimes such as corruption, enacting policies without the senate, etc.
Granted, my solution to this problem is that if you are serving as President you can be actively prosecuted during your Presidency and during this time you lose the ability to pardon anyone. That being said, this would also cause a lot of problems. For example, what if instead of Mayorkas getting impeached Republicans aimed legal action at the sitting President. Who would doubt that the Texas AG would try to prosecute Biden for the illegal immigration issue?
Don't want to have this misconstrued as we shouldn't do anything - just that there are bad actors that aren't interested in doing the right thing. And there need to be considerations to make limit abuse.
Impeachment (with a corresponding vote-to-convict) is the mechanism designed to address this. Unfortunately, like everything else in the modern implementation and practice of the American Constitution, there are many, many, many people not acting in good faith.
What does that mean, good faith? Consider impeachment. If a President takes illegal actions, the proper response is for Congress to step in. That's one of the points of Congress; to act as a counterbalance to the Presidency, and the Supreme Court is to act as a counterbalance to them both. In theory they all balance the government so it functions.
But the whole process assumes good faith. That all actors within the system are not seeking to abuse the rules for self gain, or to avoid the rules, or to circumvent restrictions and problems. Without good faith, impeachment is either abused for malicious purposes, or not enacted when a potential impeachment target has political allies who can block the impeachment.
Note, political allies. Who would be acting for political purposes. Not for factual ones, or good faith ones. Simply out of an "own team" reason. Trump was impeached, barely, but the vote whet along party lines. As was the vote to convict in the Senate, which prevented him from being removed from office.
That's not good faith. Trump did things, and they seem to meet the general definition of bad actions and bad leadership. Of leadership and character and activities that are anti-American, against the best interests of the Nation as a whole. Jimmy Carter, as one famous example, gave up control over personal assets (modest though they were) simply to avoid the appearance of financial impropriety that might lead to even an assumption he was acting in bad faith.
Meanwhile, Trump did everything but issue an official directive under the Presidential Seal that anyone visiting Washington had better be staying in one of his properties (which he financially benefits from). Which is one of the least of the things he did that are arguably impeachable. Which he was not punished for by removal from office, simply due to bad faith actors in Congress shielding him from any consequences.
One of the points mentioned in the article, raised by conservative Justices, was "well if a President isn't absolutely immune, he can be politically punished by vindictive prosecution."
That's ultimately a separate issue, and they damn well know it. The point of a trial is to find facts and determine truth, and then take steps based on that. Can the trial process be abused? Oh most certainly. Which is another example of bad faith actions. A prosecutor anywhere in the country can more or less decide, on a whim as long as that whim has some paperwork behind it, to indict someone. And use that indictment to proceed to trial. Forcing that person to stand for trial.
Which is where checks and balances supposedly come back into it. Because those exact things happened in England and Europe back in the 1600s and 1700s. The Forefathers knew this, hated it, and tried to build a system with balance. Which is why there's a judge, who can rule on things and ride herd over the trial. And why there's a jury of your peers who can decide whatever they want, regardless of what the prosecutor or even judge would want.
It doesn't matter what a prosecutor rolls into court with. They can back up endless semi-trailers full of evidence, even actual truthful evidence. The fact is, in American criminal jurisprudence, if the jury votes not to convict, the defendant is not guilty under the law. Reference OJ Simpson as an extremely high profile example.
So while standing trial is a burden and hardship, especially if you don't have means to hire a high priced (and presumably highly skilled, since they're charging so much) legal team to manage your defense, it's still better than letting a prosecutor or judge unilaterally decide guilt or innocence. And it's better than anything else we've come up with, since the jury of ordinary people (your "peers") is less likely to show up with the kind of motive a bad faith prosecutor or judge might be burdened with.
As for power, that's why power is so Goddamned dangerous! It's power. That's why we call it power. It gives you power. And bad faith actors abuse power. That's what someone acting in bad faith does. They'll act out of selfish need, greed, malicious intent, and a whole host of negative things that have nothing to do with the good of the nation or the welfare of the citizens or the health of the government or anything positive.
Like Trump does constantly.
None of this shit would apply to a good faith President. Someone who acts in good faith, who stops to consider the appearance of impropriety, of illegality. A President who shapes their every official act (whatever they might think or even say in private) with a fundamental goal of upholding the faith and trust the American people place in them after having elected them. A President who seeks to be a good President, rather than simply just being a winner who wins and is immune to consequences.
The American Right Wing of politics has descended into extremism. Many, many, within it truly believe to their core that their intentions for the nation, the things they wish to do, are correct and everyone else is wrong. Not just wrong, dangerously wrong. And because they believe this so strongly, it's become fanaticism.
Now, if they believed as they do, but acted in good faith, we'd all be fine. The Right Wing would stand up and argue their points, debate them, present them, all within the framework of the American political system. If they didn't see their desires codified into law or official act, they'd just try again later as would be their right. But the debate would moderate things, the need to find consensus would moderate it. That's why we vote; to find consensus.
But they don't act in good faith. They're fanatics. They believe so strongly in their desires that they're willing to lie, cheat, steal, sometimes even kill. They're willing to defraud the entire nation, abuse millions and tens of millions of people ... anything that gets a win. That puts them any step closer to being able to enact their political wishes.
And under that mindset, they don't give a fuck about Trump. In fact, punishing Trump damages the extremist Right's cause. They need someone like him to push through to the place they want American taken; a place where they're in charge.
They don't want democracy. Which is defined by voting. Why do we vote? If I want vanilla and you want chocolate, the group can argue and hate each other, or we can vote. Maybe vanilla wins, maybe chocolate wins; and either way, the group can vote again next time.
The Right doesn't see it that way. They see that as an affront. Worse, as a crime; just one they can't actually charge you with. Though they very badly want to. When they want to close the border, or remove women's rights or voting rights, or round up non-Right citizens, or any of the other things they're eagerly pursuing, they see that as their just due. Because they believe that strongly their way is the one and only way.
It's textbook fanaticism.
They can't allow Trump to be held accountable. They need him to be reelected, and do what they now very much expect him to do.
Which is remove the rule of law officially.
All of this is why it's not melodramatic to say we're on the verge of civil war. That's what war is; a failure of diplomacy. A failure to find non-violent means of resolving a disagreement.
The places the Right wants to take us have a non-zero chance of triggering that war. But that doesn't matter, because they're right. And if they can get Trump back in office, they'll have a chance to have control of the military.
Now it's really fashionable for anti-gun people to assume the US Military is invulnerable, but that's not the case. Especially not in a civil war scenario. Looking at the history of American military deployments over the last century bears out how an opponent doesn't need tanks and fighter-bombers to resist.
Further, if Trump (or any fanatic leader) orders US units to fire into crowds of US citizens, deploy into US towns and round up US citizens to be taken to internment camps is going to accelerate that civil war. The idea of being a soldier is to simply obey, but each and every soldier is a person with a brain and morals. Some are not going to do the things the Right wants.
So there'll be units fighting amongst themselves, with tanks and fighter bombers and rifles and fuel air explosives and all that. That's what civil war means. It doesn't mean "the military" is a monolith faction that will just kowtow to the leader. Some of them won't. Some of them will join the resistance. Some of them will be engaged by fanatic fellow soldiers, which is why when the war starts it's likely going to start with news of units fracturing apart as some soldiers decide "yes, finally, we get to kick ass" and other soldiers decide "hold the fuck up; this is illegal, immoral, and just flat wrong."
Good faith on the part of SCOTUS and Congress and the Presidency, and indeed on the part of candidates and parties, would head all this off. But good faith is part of history. No one acts in good faith anymore. They're too busy trying to win.
And damn the consequences. Just win baby.
What do you think impeachment is for? That could be the simple trigger to initiate it in-office.
I think term limits are sufficient but need to be enforced
"Rule for the ages" heh. If I had been in court, I'd have definitely shot myself in the foot with a retort along the lines of, "You're only making a rule until some future court overturns it." As if stare decisis has any merit these days...
Gorsuch is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Literally every politician is at risk of being harassed by a malevolent prosecutor -- hell, so are activists and minorities and even the prosecutor 's untidy neighbors -- so why would you carve out a special exception for the President?
If Gorsuch is so concerned about prosecutors misbehaving, he should be trying to regulate that, not proposing extra protections to someone who literally tried to overthrow our democracy. And as the special council argued, if anyone is in a privileged position to understand the law, it would be the President, who has the Attorney General and the rest of the Justice Department for council.
Think that cat's out of the bag mates
This is a delaying tactic the Supreme Court is using to protect Trump.
They will decide Trump is not immune, but by which point in time it will be too late to prosecute Trump.