SCOTUS

[All-American]

I thought checks and balances was supposed to save them from the consequences. It seems you are saying the scotus did indeed hurt those checks

Not at all what I said.

Checks and balances are intended to protect one branch of government from being overrun by another. At the end of the day, though, each branch draws its power, however filtered, from the people. The best-designed democracy in the world won't save the electorate from the consequences of their own choices.

[Maximus]

The best option, of course, would be to pick morally decent presidents that would not commit criminal acts.

If that is not what the people want, I don’t know that judges will save them from the consequences of their own choices.

I thought checks and balances was supposed to save them from the consequences. It seems you are saying the scotus did indeed hurt those checks

[Uncle Ted]

Harris to replace Sotomayor... what a great idea!

Embedded Tweet

[Northwestcoug]

The best option, of course, would be to pick morally decent presidents that would not commit criminal acts.

If that is not what the people want, I don’t know that judges will save them from the consequences of their own choices.

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that a majority of voters don't care about morality in their leaders, so long as they either hate or go after the right groups.

[All-American]

I'm just of the side that believes the much greater risk now is of presidents acting above the law and abusing their power while in office.

For example, ordering the military to go after political opponents is an immune act now.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/polit...ump/index.html

The best option, of course, would be to pick morally decent presidents that would not commit criminal acts.

If that is not what the people want, I don’t know that judges will save them from the consequences of their own choices.

[frank ryan]

I'm just of the side that believes the much greater risk now is of presidents acting above the law and abusing their power while in office.

For example, ordering the military to go after political opponents is an immune act now.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/polit...ump/index.html

It's antiquated to scold people for worrying about this SCOTUS being able to hold Trump accountable or worrying about any element or political structure holding Trump accountable.

Anyone who bothered to has been exiled and long ago sounded the alarm. I think we now have him being managed being insidious opportunists like Vance.

[BlueK]

I mean, that's not wrong, but a government prosecutor can do a lot of damage up to and before the point of acquittal. That's one of the reasons for immunity in the first place-- to make sure the prosecutions never even get started.

I'm just of the side that believes the much greater risk now is of presidents acting above the law and abusing their power while in office.

For example, ordering the military to go after political opponents is an immune act now.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/polit...ump/index.html

[tooblue]

Absolutely. While you’re at it, give me a list of all the prosecutions or disciplinary action that have ever gotten started based on violations of the Texas abortion law.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...an-miscarriage

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/women...ths-rcna178660

Of course, this is not exactly what you asked for but women did die due to fear of disciplinary action.

[All-American]

Your?

Thanks. Corrected.

[Pelado]

Absolutely. While your at it, give me a list of all the prosecutions or disciplinary action that have ever gotten started based on violations of the Texas abortion law.

Your?

[All-American]

Is it okay if I quote this in the abortion thread?

Absolutely. While you’re at it, give me a list of all the prosecutions or disciplinary action that have ever gotten started based on violations of the Texas abortion law.

[LVAllen]

I mean, that's not wrong, but a government prosecutor can do a lot of damage up to and before the point of acquittal. That's one of the reasons for immunity in the first place-- to make sure the prosecutions never even get started.

Is it okay if I quote this in the abortion thread?

[USUC]

That's a tricky one. I think it's probably safer to for her stay in throughout the term. Nominations can be a wild card and the risk is holding up a nomination until Trump takes office. McConnell is still minority leader and could potentially orchestrate a filibuster. Dems can't get rid of the filibuster because it's going to be a necessary tool for the next 2-4 years. I could be wrong about Senate procedure regarding judicial appointments, so take it with a grain of salt. Would be interesting to see play out. I'm surprised she's so old. She's always seemed young to me.

Let's move this convo to the right thread. I vaguely remember reading about a Justice in the 60s who resigned last minute to ensure the current president could pick his replacement before leaving office and it backfiring spectacularly where it didn't get done in time and the new president, of the opposing party, filled it instead.

Edit - it was Earl Warren

[All-American]

Any such cases wouldn't have been successful anyway without any provable crime

I mean, that's not wrong, but a government prosecutor can do a lot of damage up to and before the point of acquittal. That's one of the reasons for immunity in the first place-- to make sure the prosecutions never even get started.

[BlueK]

I am not aware of the existence of any such decision.

On the other hand, right now, I am very grateful for the Supreme Court's decision stating that Trump cannot prosecute Biden or Harris for official acts they took while in office.

Any such cases wouldn't have been successful anyway without any provable crime