idk it just seems to me that laws, like tech, should be created with the question "what would the worst person i know be able to do with this power" in mind and it's truly incredible how much this opinion fails at that basic task
What if (and hear me out) that is exactly what Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett & Gorsuch thought about, and they are eager for it.
rebulicans are a minority party with no policies to sell beyond hate, fear & lies. They openly model their political strategy on that of Victor Orban.
Having set up an association and having written its constitution with exactly that in mind, how could this be abused, I learnt two things.
1) As devious as you might envisage, there's no substitute for actual malicious intent.
2) The rules only work for people who respect them.
This Lex Trump is designed for use by one person only.
It's an Enabling Act ("Ermächtigungsgesetz" for the history buffs out there) in the American idiom.
This sort of "systems thinking" is a critical skill in government and the law. The idea that 3 justices have it and the other 6 don't is almost impossible to believe.
This leaves open the very real and heartbreaking possibility that the majority knows exactly what they're dancing around.
When the worst person you know holds the key to the kingdom of god you have planned to install your entire anxiety free life and when you are the law…….
Jim Jeffries summed it up nicely when talking about how you might be able to drive fine after a few drinks, but Dave sure as hell can't. So no drunk driving.
I have asked myself lately - is our democracy so good that we can actually vote ourselves into a dictatorship? Are there no guardrails to the type of person we can elect? (I know there was a lot of interference from Russia etc the first time but Americans apparently are ready to let him in again
Okay but you have to remember who you’re dealing with here. Amy Coney Barrett definitely saw that bullshit kitty litter for school kids who identify as cats story and thought it was true, and a personal attack on her very soul that must be answered with as much institutional violence as possible.
But he specifically wants the worst person to wield the power granted to achieve shared goals. This decision is specifically tailored to that end. I don’t think there’s another plausible way to read it.
I've complained for years about Congress's lack of "Red Team."
There should be standing committees dedicated to figuring out the worst possible results from the Blue Team legislative committees draft texts. Do hearings about how to exploit it all ahead of time, not just years later.
This "opinion" is literally "what do we have to write to keep Trump out of prison."
- some language about immunity
- some language blocking evidence already been used to prove guilt
- dismissal of any criticism as hysterical
- mystical path to actual prosecution, vaguely delineated
They don't even need to imagine!
The individual literally named in the case is one of the worst people on the planet. He's got a track record of doing or attempting some of the worst shit imaginable. This isn't some distant hypothetical!
The fundamental problem
Is that the court has arrogated to itself the power to make law. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the court that power.
Robert's knows exactly what the "what ifs" are under that decision. He is, and always has been, a corrupt thug of the right in a nice suit with a fancy degree on the wall. He figures the right, like Trump, will make "good use" of what they can get away with under it
"oh, but the worst people would be prevented from having such power?" - Ok then, how? What actual checks are in place to keep that from happening. And what if a majority of people want them to exercise that power in such a manner? Tell me that your honor.
If you take a step back and look at the landscape of John Roberts' decisions, he knows the 'what ifs', then, you realize this is exactly the map he laid out a GPS, one dimensional route. He weakened VRA, he concurred the architect of Citizens United, and he raped the Constitution Monday, 7/1/24
laws in the past were created to judge criminality today in america laws are created to protect criminals seems like a real change in laws or is it those who interpret or make the laws as most are criminals maby we just need to clean house of all criminals removal of them