Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Not how that works, and you don't have the state votes to make that happen. Stop posturing you gigantic piece of shit.
Not how you imagine it works. The rule of law is over. This is the New Order.
One of the methods floated was just defund it. Maybe the judges are wealthy enough to work for free but our Judiciary runs on the backs of many civil servants that aren't judges. If there is no budget then the courts effectively cease to exist.
Future opening to federal court proceedings:
"All rise. Presiding is the honorable Elizabeth Jackson."
"Thank you, bailiff. We're meeting today on case number 2940184, the US vs Kreiger on the crime of drug kingpin. Before we begin, first a word from our sponsor"
"Rachet Strap! The energy drink illegal in 3 states! The drink the forbidden energy!!"
"Prosecution, you may call your first witness."
I mean just ask Clarence Thomas. From what I’ve gleaned, he hasn’t paid for shit in years.
To republicans, the rule of law is not law in the legal sense of the courts, it’s the ability to force people to do what they want them to do via strongman tactics. Trump is the law.
I'm not sure there's anything in Article III that would really stop him. They don't have the votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster to legislation but it's not clear the Democratic party is willing to do those, so who knows.
Too bad the Democratic party didn't look into reforming the courts when they had majorities in Congress.
While I completely agree. Last time democrats were in full control was 2009-2011 and the time before that was 1993-1995.
Guy, who can't even control his masturbation urges, thinks judges have too much control.
It's creepier and more accurate to call him "the guy who uses his son to control his masturbation urges.
Gotta shift that Overton Window.
I think it is safe to assume that anyone peddling something like "I'm just asking questions" / "I'll interview anyone" is ultimately attempting to shift perception. It is a tried and true tactic of propaganda and control through media.
Statements from such politicians are no different. They serve no purpose but to make the claim seem less crazy the next time it comes up.
Some political context from The Dictator's Toolkit:
Independent judges are a nightmare for would-be dictators. They have the immense power to overturn the abusive actions of creeping authoritarian regimes by acquitting dissidents of bogus charges, holding regime officials accountable, or upholding free and fair elections.
Because of judges’ essential checking power, authoritarian regimes across the globe regularly attack them. At times, they do this very overtly, like, for instance, arbitrarily sacking thousands and arresting hundreds of judges, as in the case of Turkey after the failed 2016 coup attempt. Yet, more often than not, creeping authoritarian regimes use measures disguised as legitimate or reasonable that intimidate and harass judges or otherwise obstruct their work.
These disguised judicial attacks are particularly popular among “hybrid authoritarian” regimes. These are regimes that democracy and freedom indexes like V-Dem, the Economist, and Freedom House recognize have some elements of authoritarianism but are not fully authoritarian yet — largely because the elections that got them into or maintained in office were “competitive” enough that classifying them as authoritarian was inadequate. Thus, these hybrid authoritarian regimes, such as Hungary, Bolivia, Kenya, or India, benefit from the disguise of this “democratic” legitimacy.
This is one of the most terrifying possibilities. The idea that Congress itself could be used as a weapon against the courts on behalf of the President. Absolute insanity and a complete betrayal of what the checks and balances are supposed to be about.
Mike Johnson, you need to resign.
That doesn’t sound like an abuse of checks and balances to me, to be honest. This is exactly how the system is designed. They still need a majority to pass anything.
Flip the script for a moment; imagine we had ultra right wing judges who make insane judgements. Is it not the whole point of checks and balances for the legislative and executive branches to be able to exert some control over the judiciary branch provided they have an appropriate majority?
I don’t agree with Johnson, he’s a cunt, but this doesn’t seem like abuse per se, rather exactly how the system was designed. I’m not worried about it because they don’t have the votes.
If you have ultra right wing judges making insane judgements you impeach them, not dismantle an entire branch of government. This is not "how the system was designed" and if you think that, reread the constitution. Even if they don't have the votes, the fact that its being suggested should be setting off red alert alarms about the next stage that the Rs are aiming to put into motion.
That's not what's going on here. The courts are standing up for the law. The President is trying to use the congress as a weapon to ensure the courts cannot force him to follow the law. It's tyranny and we must not accept it.
What insane judgements? I don't think this is a very good example given his orders have ignored laws outright. The rendition thing is basic due process. Its from right wing judges enforcing law. It is by no means ultra left wing judges making insane judgements. I just don't think this example you are giving is apt to the current condition.
"gestures at the 5th circuit"
again its not apt to the situation in that its not ultra leftist making judgements against trump its right wing judges. at least in the case of the renditions. All the same if we are just talking completely unrelated and issue with the courts overall being to bias its not a proper way to deal with it by defunding the whole court system any more than you remove congress or the office of presidency to deal with something. There is processes to remove individuals from any of the branches and that is a within the system, appropriate process. Removing the system is anti system so would be appropriate for a revolutionary this is more usurper activity. That is the idea of taking power from within by removing it. Maybe there is a better word.
sry if I wasn't clear. what Johnson is trying to do is insane. I was just pointing to the 5th circuit that had been throwing out insane rulings and the judge every crazy gop team shops for.
I'm gonna come take a shit on your desk. Since you seem okay with shitting all over my democracy.
With all the anti-trans bathroom bills around the country, I'd be perfectly fine designating the desks of all Republican officials as gender neutral bathrooms.
We all have to do our part
Because being opposed to the most fundamental principles of the US Constitution is how they roll.
Some podcast on the NPR app said this might be a good thing. Trump is calling for impeachment of judges, which could happen. What Johnson is floating is an appeasement to Trump that's impossible.
No, it's not impossible. That's the reality and the problem.
