US Politics Thread

[ChicagoBlue]

This all stems from an 18th Century document that has been found pitifully wanting.

The Founding Fathers gave future Americans plenty of ways to allow the living breathing document to change with the times, and it did, until strict Constructionists decided they wanted their White Christian Patriarchy back and made certain 38 states would never be able to affirm any potential Amendments, unless it was an ultra-conservative change, of course!

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

With this latest decision, could the US turn into an authoritarian state under a malign figure?

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Makes Nixon’s resignation seem almost quaint now, as Watergate wouldn’t even be a crime now, would it?!

No that is something of an unintended consequence that I’ve seen a few legal commentators discuss, it basically exonerates Nixon in full. Obviously, he was pardoned so it’s always been more of a thought experiment anyway.

If the Supreme Court of today were the Supreme Court of 1972 then Nixon need not have resigned.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

And arguably its biggest flaw was to allow Congress to decide how the Supreme Court functioned. You know, the bit that’s supposed to be independent.

I’m sure it made sense at the time.

It did make sense at the time , and for a long term worked effectively and in the best interests of the nation.

But that was in a world that is unrecognisable today.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The Founding Fathers gave future Americans plenty of ways to allow the living breathing document to change with the times, and it did, until staunch Constructionists decided they wanted their White Christian Patriarchy back and made certain 38 states would never be able to affirm any potential Amendments, unless it was an ultra-conservative change, of course!

Isn’t the fact that the Constructionists were allowed to hijack the process in that way damning of the USC itself?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I wonder if they’ll maintain that if individual States decide they’ve had enough of the shitshow and want to secede from the Union.

I suspect not.

Secession is not as easy as it sounds, as it’s not something a State can unilaterally accomplish.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

And arguably its biggest flaw was to allow Congress to decide how the Supreme Court functioned. You know, the bit that’s supposed to be independent.

I’m sure it made sense at the time.

Im not sure I understand what you mean, as its the other way around, if I thought I understood the checks and balances.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

A President can only pardon Federal crimes, not State crimes. One can commit a Federal crime in any State, but State crimes are particular to the respective State.

That bit I did know - that's why I was asking.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Secession is not as easy as it sounds, as it’s not something a State can unilaterally accomplish.

I know it’s not, but I wouldn’t rule efforts to accomplish it out within the next couple of decades if things carry on like this.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

With this latest decision, could the US turn into an authoritarian state under a malign figure?

I guess a more technical answer is yes providing the Supreme Court rubber stamps it.

There’s a presumption of immunity on all official actions which means provided the President of the time can convince the Supreme Court he is acting in his official capacity then he has a free pass. That scope is deliberately poorly defined.

The catch seems to be that any President can force through a change to the Supreme Court and fill it with the required number of yes men.

Their safety net of everybody being equal under the law is gone, they are one bad actor away from the edge.

 

[TinFoilHat]

CNN poll makes Harris more likely to beat Trump than any other Dem candidate

 

[ChicagoBlue]

No that is something of an unintended consequence that I’ve seen a few legal commentators discuss, it basically exonerates Nixon in full. Obviously, he was pardoned so it’s always been more of a thought experiment anyway.

If the Supreme Court of today were the Supreme Court of 1972 then Nixon need not have resigned.

It was a rhetorical question, but thank you for the expansion of the matter.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Im not sure I understand what you mean, as its the other way around, if I thought I understood it.

I’m talking about Article 3 Section II

“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Congress decides the structure and regulation of the SC, including how many judges sit, how they are appointed etc. That’s why it’s changed size a few times over its history.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Isn’t the fact that the Constructionists were allowed to hijack the process in that way damning of the USC itself?

It boils down to the quaint notion that only the best men would be chosen to high office and they would always work in the best interests of the fledgling country.

Today, the politics of personal aggrandizement and ideology rule the day.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I’m talking about Article 3 Section II

“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Congress decides the structure and regulation of the SC, including how many judges sit, how they are appointed etc. That’s why it’s changed size a few times over its history.

Got it.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It boils down to the quaint notion that only the best men would be chosen to high office and they would always work in the best interests of the fledgling country.

Today, the politics of personal aggrandizement and ideology rule the day.

Let’s be specific. It’s Trump that has made this so. Not Biden, Obama, either Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, nor those who ran against them. But now in the future, the potential for charlatans is exponentially higher, because the precedent has been set by Trump AND CONFIRMED AS A VIABLE APPROACH TO GOVERNING by the highest court in the land.

There has always been personal aggrandizement and ideological stringency as part and parcel of the motivation to get oneself elected. But now they can be the SOLE reasons, with NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

This is a potential national calamity.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Let's face it. The Supreme Court ruling makes Nixon innocent.

Let that sink in.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Let's face it. The Supreme Court ruling makes Nixon innocent.

Let that sink in.

Looks like Gerald Ford was fifty years ahead of his time.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Let's face it. The Supreme Court ruling makes Nixon innocent.

Let that sink in.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Let's face it. The Supreme Court ruling makes Nixon innocent.

Let that sink in.

There is a 100% chance he would have claimed he was conducting an official duty because he claimed it then: "national security" and "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" to cut off the CIA and FBI investigations as to where Watergate led. Whether ultimately that would have stood up as an "official duty" from which he was therefore immune from criminal liability is another matter. But . . . cutting off the Congressional investigation and the special prosecutor would have been the result of the claim -- which he would have made instantly -- and therefore I doubt we'd ever have known the full extent of what he did. He'd NEVER have resigned, because I doubt there'd have ever been enough evidence uncovered to impeach him. He wouldn't have ended up being blackmailed by Hunt; he'd have let the burglars take the fall and McCord could have pointed fingers and others in the administration might have fallen but Nixon himself would always have the immunity as a trump (pun intended) card to play if the blame were be laid at his doorstep.

It's just incredible. "If the President does it it's not illegal" isn't precisely the result of this decision but by muddying the waters with no definition of an "official duty", It might as well be.