politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
There's not a goal post being moved. I'm describing now where the line has always been for a constitutional crisis: a judicial contempt order that gets disregarded by the executive branch. And the path to that is basically:
Steps 1 through 3 are pretty routine, and happen all the time.
And there are off ramps that avoid that constitutional crisis. Maybe it's a case where the court's ruling gets overruled on appeal. Maybe the court finds that it doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on that issue. Maybe the executive branch backs down. One of those has happened so far in all of the cases that have ended.
It's the cases that are still active where things might go off the rails. This particular Salvadorean deportation case has made it further than any other (past the fifth step I described above) ~~and is the one where DOJ has suspended its own lawyer for admitting that he didn't have the answers the judge was looking for.~~ In a closely related case, DOJ has suspended its own lawyer for admitting personal frustration with his client (that is, ICE/DHS). These are concerning and worth pushing back on at every turn, and to sound the alarms when that line is actually crossed.
This defeatist attitude, that Trump has already won and is unaccountable, is counterproductive. We're still busy fighting, and we can still win because we haven't lost yet.
Ok, sorry I only replied a single line yesterday (trying a new android keyb and I am too slow). I did not mean to dismiss your thoughtful replies with a one liner.
Now, you know about this more if you are indeed a lawyer but I do not buy the idea that Trump and co are trying to be careful to not to cross the line into illegality. I mean, they have publicly called for judges to be removed
If any regular folk had pulled 1/2 of what trump has done, we would have had those contempt charges coming like a bullet. I mean, they are claiming national security for not answering questions about the kidnapped Venezuelans yet they broadcasted the entire saga as a super bowl commercial online and on tv
Sure, I get if the "good side" were to be as cavalier with the law as trump is, the entire thing falls apart even faster. But I have no doubt in my mind the "rule of law" in the USA is over. For decades, the law applies to you in reverse proportion to your wealth, the richer you are the less the law applies. The bottom has now fallen off and SCOTUS basically declared trump a king while in office.
I am willing to bet my bottom dollar these judges "considering" contempt charges will ever drop them or, if they do, trump would ignore with no consequence.
I mean you have examples like this which seem to be pretty clear cut... when should we expect to see actual consequences?
https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-slammed-for-covertly-withholding-fema-funds-from-blue-states/
I'm not willing to make that call, yet. It's on life support, with the doctor in charge coyly hinting at whether he's going to finish it off himself, but it hasn't happened yet.
And in this case, the Supreme Court bailed out the President. They went ahead and said all 9 justices disagree on whether the courts have the power to review this dispute (rejecting the most extreme and most unaccountable theory of executive power), but said that the proper forum is in Texas, not in DC. So this DC judge who was weighing contempt was stripped of jurisdiction to do so.
That's not a constitutional crisis, which is what I'm very concerned about being that uncrossable line, but it is still separately a bad result.
These are nuanced distinctions, and I don't want to make it seem like I'm only watching out for a constitutional crisis and ignoring all the other ways that Trump is hurting the rule of law, but I think that violating court orders is a special kind of harm that needs to be viewed as its own especially dangerous thing.
are we there yet? I'm actualy asking because you seem to know your stuff
I'm Canadian but as you know, the world is getting splashed by the open blender the USA is right now... for all our sake, I am wishing hard you are right and I am wrong.