They tipped the balance of power and made themselves irrelevant. Bunch of idjits.
Even the Trump appointees seem like the sort of people who would want to defend the rule of law at least to preserve their own (and therefore the court’s) power, so I wonder how each of the six “conservative” judges was convinced to rule the way that he or she did. I don’t imagine all of them doing it for the same reason. Maybe some were rewarded for their votes and others wanted to see Trump wreck things (Alito and his flag come to mind) but did some actually think that it was a good idea or the correct legal decision?
They thought they were the high priests of fascism, but they forgot there’s only room for one person at the top of that pyramid.
Agreed. Everyone thinks they will be in the inner circle, until the inner circle shrinks to just 1.
deleted by creator
Every single one of the living presidents should have been charged with all kinds of shit, due to their official actions.
I’ll take “things you couldn’t say before December 29th” for $200, Alex.
That’s a good point, and I suppose that someone sympathetic to Trump might think that he was being unfairly prosecuted after other presidents hadn’t been.
I disagree with your implication that a former president should always be punished for having broken the law. The rules do need to be different for presidents than for ordinary people.
A prince, when by some urgent circumstance or some impetuous and unforeseen accident that very much concerns his state, compelled to forfeit his word and break his faith, or otherwise forced from his ordinary duty, ought to attribute this necessity to a lash of the divine rod: vice it is not, for he has given up his own reason to a more universal and more powerful reason; but certainly ’tis a misfortune: so that if any one should ask me what remedy? “None,” say I, “if he were really racked between these two extremes: ‘Let him see to it that it be not a loophole for perjury that he seeks.’ He must do it: but if he did it without regret, if it did not weigh on him to do it, ’tis a sign his conscience is in a sorry condition."
Montaigne’ Essays, book 3 chapter 1
It’s one thing to break a law with the belief (perhaps unjustified) that doing so is necessary for the good of the nation and quite another to do to because power protects you from deserved punishment, but how can the law itself make this distinction?
deleted by creator
Your comment is so much better than the article in every way. Thank you for it.
Both are good.
Congress and the judicial branch have fast tracked themselves on a course to redundancy for the past 85 days.
Let’s just say, hypothetically, SCOTUS had the best intentions when granting POTUS the free hand cause no one reasonable would misuse that right? Well, they’re now in the FAFO stage cause Trump has no bottom to how much he would misuse power.
Even for a justice on that court that might be all-in for donvict, that was such a fucking stupid move on their part. Utterly brainless.
