28 Jul
11:08pm, 28 Jul 2024
32,876 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
He clearly hasn't, but in his mind he has!
|
28 Jul
11:10pm, 28 Jul 2024
5,554 posts
|
J2R
@larkim , you're right, the immunity thing is a little more restrictive than it is sometimes presented as being. The point is, though, who will stop him? It is, I think, pretty clear that the Supreme Court has now been so neutered by him that they will not stand in his way, whatever happens. It's often suggested that we in this country have a 'Good Chaps' consensus approach to government which does not stand up to rogues like Johnson, unlike America with its constitution and its separation of powers, etc., but I think that's nonsense. Given a sufficiently unprincipled and amoral rogue such as Trump, the American system can fall, too - the Supreme Court can be stacked with yes-men, all key posts in Government and civil service can be filled with nodding dog Republicans - and this is something Trump will assuredly do. The Founding Fathers could simply not conceive of someone as depraved as Trump being in that position. |
|
28 Jul
11:11pm, 28 Jul 2024
32,877 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Let's not forget that this is a man who is of the opinion that he can declassify Top Secret documents (which are his personal property, by the way) *by thinking it*.
|
28 Jul
11:44pm, 28 Jul 2024
17,537 posts
|
jda
"The US Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump has broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions as president in a decision likely to delay his trial on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election. The landmark decision on Monday shields Trump for “official” acts. Lower courts will now have to draw the boundaries between a president’s personal and official acts." Which seems a longwinded way of saying what I said. (Quote is from FT article which was top of the search results.) |
29 Jul
6:38am, 29 Jul 2024
20,991 posts
|
Dave W
"Back on the campaign trail following an assassination attempt earlier this month, the Republican presidential nominee addressed a crowd at a rally in Minnesota on Saturday and said: “A criminal is a criminal, they generally stay a criminal and we do not have time to figure it out.”" They? "We" surely? Trump. Never been known to actually think about what he says. A little ironic, don't you think? Or moronic is probably more like it. |
29 Jul
7:47am, 29 Jul 2024
25,318 posts
|
larkim
"broad" is not the same as complete, total etc. Read the actual judgements and you'll see there is plenty of reservation. The dissenting opinionby one of the judges framed it in very extreme ways which didn't help as that provided quotes and headlines. They have conferred a lot of immunity on the president which was previously either uncertain or already assumed to exist, but there are significant limits in there (which Trump would want to push, definitely). Avoid simplism. |
29 Jul
8:28am, 29 Jul 2024
167 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
The SCOTUS decision on immunity has no impact on the decision of the hush money trial. It may have a bearing on his sentencing. The 6th January trial has been knocked back and some elements of the special counsel case will no longer be relevant but there is a large amount still in play (such as all his interactions with state governors and Pence, SCOTUS decision is to put the case back to the lower court - its still on the table. It does not throw it out. I don't think it's the same as what you wrote JDA. Reminder also that all the cases brought relating to 2020 election fraud were thrown out, even those brought to SCOTUS. What this gives Trump is some time. Time to contest the election. Annoying, but I'd rather he runs and looses than is prevented from running by SCOTUS and further the conspiracy/victim play. |
29 Jul
8:33am, 29 Jul 2024
50,556 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
I agree with both sides (sorry, I'm a people pleaser, mostly!)  I think I'd summarise what the two "sides" thusly, and why you are both right * there are checks and balances on the President's power in USA, but there is a desire from Donald Trump to erode those (and Project 25 seems to be officially documenting that goal) * history tells us that not matter what the checks and balances in any society, there is a chance that a rogue operator can subvert those and significantly change the power dynamic to become a dictator, autocrat (or theocracy, military junta etc.) Whether through revolution or through internal subversion, the route to political change is always there. And yes, Hitler. So... I think the summary is, we don't know. Yes, Trump would like to realign some of the institutions of USA power to give himself greater autonomy. He and his supporters would call that "removing the libertarian barriers to progress" or "streamlining the mechanics of government to implement the laws that the people want" or any other language. Yes, Hitler. Will he be able to do so, or will enough right minded people (which needs to include those inside his cabal, so Republicans, including those made rich and/or powerful by him. Including the messianic followers, who think he can do no wrong)? Who knows. I definitely hope someone will thwart him - the voting public by bringing in Harris as president (possible, but on a knife edge). The Republican grandees, by removing him as a candidate (highly unlikely, as they seem to think he is their best candidate). His close advisers and appointees (seems unlikely as they have vested interests). His messianic followers (hopefully he'll make a gaff or someone like Harris will bring enough of them round - again, seems unlikely because views are so polarised in USA and many other countries). But definitely room for concern? G
|
|
29 Jul
8:35am, 29 Jul 2024
50,557 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
(A few sentences there that I didn't finish - will enough people challenge etc.)
|
29 Jul
8:46am, 29 Jul 2024
9,218 posts
|
Pothunter
If Trump was 30 years younger I’d be a lot more concerned. Not to say he couldn’t do a lot of damage in a short space of time, but Dictator for Life is likely to only be a few years. If he wins I’d expect a slow burn to stack the Supreme Court with even more “friendly” judges, and then a challenge on the two term rule arguing that the limit applies to consecutive terms not separate terms. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
