1303
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
1303 points (98.2% liked)
politics
18898 readers
6577 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.