“Sir, I’m going to need that order in writing from my sergeant.”
Star Trek did it better. (IMDB)
I mean, that’s pretty much a description of Trump’s idol, Putin; and we know what he can get away with. Just about anything.
I’m sure this won’t have any impact on Judges, going forward.
IMO, anyone who thinks that the chance of America sliding into full-blown fascism is either very large or too small to be worth worrying about is foolish.
I have little doubt that Trump will try to go further than he did in his first term to destroy democracy, and I have less than total faith that the institutions that didn’t stop him the first time will do so the second time. I think the most likely endpoint is that he orders the military to occupy American cities and kill his political opponents, and then either they do it, or they don’t, or they split down the middle and we have a civil war. I honestly have no clue which outcome is most likely.
That’s a bizarre thing to say. In his best election (1936), FDR won 61% of the vote and 523 electoral votes, and the Democrats won 3/4 majorities in both houses of Congress. Trump is unique in the degree of his absolute control over his own party, but MOST Presidents have enjoyed significantly higher levels of public and Congressional support.
These don’t seem like a coherent set of opinions.
ETA: I think I get what you’re saying now; that Trump will attempt to institute full-on fascism but it won’t be successful. I got confused because, to most people, the attempt by the president to do this is already a fascist government, whether it’s ultimately put down or not.
To be exact, I’m saying he will probably attempt to institute full-on fascism, and that it probably won’t be successful. To a vague approximation, I’d guess the chance of an attempt is 90%, and the chance of complete success is about 30% (though the chance of serious and lasting damage being done is significantly higher). So, not probable, but certainly a significant enough possibility to lose sleep over.
Never mistake “Will not be successful” with “Will not be entirely successful”.
Everyone here and everyone I know has tried to fix something, only to make it worse.
Trump has always been a toddler. But now he’s an armed toddler that knows how to shoot.
He has no aim, or has aim at everything. I don’t think he’ll call on the Supremes to do what he wants because there is a slight chance they will reject it.
We’ll see…
The court that granted him presidential immunity, which no president has needed and there was no need to even take the case…might be the people to stop him.
Yep, it’s good to have a sense of humor in these dark times.
New rule: you can’t rule by fiat if you can’t fit in a Fiat.
EXACTLY what immunity did he get? Can he go out and shoot someone in the face and the courts have to say, “He’s the President. He’s allowed to do that.”?
They don’t have to say it.
But they also don’t have to say differently.
So you can’t answer what SCOTUS said about any limitations on his immunity? Or point out in their decision where they say there is no limitation?
I also can’t say who will win the Kentucky Derby next year or what the price of saffron will be in Pakistan. Those are also things that didn’t come up in the post I made. If there is a stated limit by the Supreme Court as to what Trump can and cannot get away with, I would surely love to hear it though, as facts would be very welcome.
Here you go. All of the answers you seek are here.
Call on the Supremes? You better think…
(Think, Think…)
Let’s just go through the facts.
The (conservative majority of the) SC has spent the last 4 years doing everything Trump wanted; blocking and slow-walking anything which would have seen Trump face justice, and fast-tracking anything which helped Trump. They didn’t need to get involved at all; the SC don’t take many cases and it would have totally reasonable for them not to put their thumb on the scale.
On the immunity thing specifically, once again, no president previously has needed such a carve out, and I remember most legal experts going in, even conservative ones, thought it was a non-starter. But they not only pushed it through but mentioned it in other cases as something which HAD to happen.
Also, hypotheticals about murder were mentioned in the hearing, and so the SC could have explicitly constrained the immunity to not include that. They didn’t. They left it completely unbounded.
And all this happened while Trump was not even in power. So yes, I consider it hopelessly wishful to suggest that the SC might suddenly now do the right thing when there’s actual peril attached to standing up to Trump, and it’s the precise opposite of what they’ve done for the last few years. Oh, and as we’ve seen, at least 2 judges are corrupt as holy hell.
Personally, I’m going to hope for a more likely event, like Stephen Miller giving a tearful speech on the need for compassion and empathy.