Monica Lewinsky penned on op-ed Monday calling for a series of constitutional amendments, including age limits for elected officials and a ban on presidential self-pardons. In a piece in Vanity Fai…
I don’t think either party is willing to give up the self-pardon power even if it is discussed. That said, it is not clear that a president actually has that power.
That said, it is not clear that a president actually has that power.
If there’s one thing voters want out of the Dem party after trump…
It’s for them to codify shit instead of relying on the honor and good faith of the Republican party.
But like you said, the Dem party doesn’t want to give that up, because some day they might use it. They’re more worried about protecting themselves as individuals than protecting the country.
Which is one of the many reasons 1/3 of the country regularly doesn’t vote.
Exactly. Untested edge cases of laws that most legal scholars agree with are useless when fascists WILL push the boundaries of law and with the SCOTUS being bought and paid for by said fascists, it’ll probably go their way. Only obvious, iron-clad legislation can help to slow fascism’s attempt at subverting democracy.
Only obvious, iron-clad legislation can help to slow fascism’s attempt at subverting democracy.
Sweet, sweet summer child, one “Nope” from the people in factual power and the best legislation can be ignored. Just ask Obama’s duly appointed supreme court pick Merrick Garland.
It’s “We can’t pick a judge in the year right before an election” if it would be a democrat, but “it is imperative that we fill as many vacant seats as possible in this year before the election” when they’ll be republicans. The legal basis for that those interpretations? “Because we can, so fuck you.”
As soon as they make fox news trumpet it, every law is a legal fringe case that just so happens to have an interpretation that supports their point of view, spearheaded by legal experts like Trump’s crack lawyer team.
It’s “We can’t pick a judge in the year right before an election
That wasn’t a law, though. it was Congress being obstructionist and not confirming a judge. Much as they are doing now to DoD leadership.
BUT if there was a law on the books that was clearly written, even the current SCOTUS has shown to be hesitant in overturning clear laws that aren’t constitutionally dubious. We are still at the point in a fascist takeover where the fascists are trying to subvert the government. If we don’t clamp down and make that difficult, we’ll get to the takeover part and we’ll never recover.
I don’t think either party is willing to give up the self-pardon power even if it is discussed. That said, it is not clear that a president actually has that power.
This article presents both arguments- https://www.thoughtco.com/can-a-president-pardon-himself-4147403
If there’s one thing voters want out of the Dem party after trump…
It’s for them to codify shit instead of relying on the honor and good faith of the Republican party.
But like you said, the Dem party doesn’t want to give that up, because some day they might use it. They’re more worried about protecting themselves as individuals than protecting the country.
Which is one of the many reasons 1/3 of the country regularly doesn’t vote.
Exactly. Untested edge cases of laws that most legal scholars agree with are useless when fascists WILL push the boundaries of law and with the SCOTUS being bought and paid for by said fascists, it’ll probably go their way. Only obvious, iron-clad legislation can help to slow fascism’s attempt at subverting democracy.
Sweet, sweet summer child, one “Nope” from the people in factual power and the best legislation can be ignored. Just ask Obama’s duly appointed supreme court pick Merrick Garland.
It’s “We can’t pick a judge in the year right before an election” if it would be a democrat, but “it is imperative that we fill as many vacant seats as possible in this year before the election” when they’ll be republicans. The legal basis for that those interpretations? “Because we can, so fuck you.”
As soon as they make fox news trumpet it, every law is a legal fringe case that just so happens to have an interpretation that supports their point of view, spearheaded by legal experts like Trump’s crack lawyer team.
That wasn’t a law, though. it was Congress being obstructionist and not confirming a judge. Much as they are doing now to DoD leadership.
BUT if there was a law on the books that was clearly written, even the current SCOTUS has shown to be hesitant in overturning clear laws that aren’t constitutionally dubious. We are still at the point in a fascist takeover where the fascists are trying to subvert the government. If we don’t clamp down and make that difficult, we’ll get to the takeover part and we’ll never recover.