“Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed,” says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig
It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”
You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.
Three were appointed, which is 1/3rd of the nine justices. However, to me the most relevant figure is that five of the nine were appointed by GOP presidents that got into office losing the popular vote (Roberts & Alito by GWB, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB by Trump).
These justices, the majority of the court, do not and have never represented the US either by vote or ideology (even secondarily via the presidential/nominating vote), yet they are lifetime-appointed positions with unparalleled power over our lives and the continued existence of American democracy. They can choose to allow Trump to crown himself king, but they are already an effective monarchy.
Roberts has been concerned about the Court’s legitimacy the last decade. He should be - it isn’t legitimate.
Roberts doesn’t give a flying fuck about his Court’s legitimacy. He cares about the appearance of his Court’s legitimacy.
Yes, sorry, that’s the better way to put it.
To him, it’s the same thing, because if the Supreme Court loses the appearance of legitimacy, they themselves have no practical means to enforce their decisions.
Unless they have a dictator-president and ineffective congress.
It feels a lot like they’re getting for that possible outcome—so they have a sympathetic king when the time comes.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate because of what you said. By association, the presidency is also illegitimate. And since the Senate is undemocratic and Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435, both of those are illegitimate.
Thankfully, they still have the monopoly of violence.
This is exactly it. This is what hamstrings the will of the majority and lends relevance to these lunatics we’re having to endure.
Many revere our founders, and I’m quite sure if they could comment on this mess they’d say something like “There are how many millions of citizens? And you stopped adding representatives at 435? That’s the problem. Why?”
We outnumber them, by a bunch. And they know that. Well, the smart ones allowing “democracy” to prevail knew it, I don’t know about these crazies going for the power grab right now.
We lack organization, ability to plan as one. The conspiracy theorist in me says they know that as well, hence why they are attacking ways of obtaining information and organization.