TinFoilHat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 26,593
- Team supported
- Manchester City
It was a rhetorical question, but thank you for the expansion of the matter.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.
Im not sure I understand what you mean, as its the other way around, if I thought I understood it.
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.Isn’t the fact that the Constructionists were allowed to hijack the process in that way damning of the USC itself?
Got 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.
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.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.
Looks like Gerald Ford was fifty years ahead of his time.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.Let's face it. The Supreme Court ruling makes Nixon innocent.
Let that sink in.