US Politics Thread

[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.