3 ms·
Why would the FBI investigate anyone who would be pardoned by the president anyway?
by bb88 2y ago
Why would the FBI investigate anyone who would be pardoned by the president anyway?
- belter 2y agoDon't worry, Courts are going away also... "Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges" - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-mike-johnson-floats-eliminating-federal-courts-rcna197986 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-mike-johns...
- imglorp 2y agoYes and the legislature after that. These are all smart people, so it boggles the mind to wonder how they can install a totalitarian regime without knowing the next two steps in the playbook.
- chasil 2y agoJefferson might have been called a totalitarian had the word existed when he signed the judiciary act of 1802, which removed judges added by federalists. I have learned about it this week. https://gingrich360.com/2025/03/18/an-intolerable-judicial-dictatorship/ https://gingrich360.com/2025/03/18/an-intolerable-judicial-d...
- bb88 2y agoRelevant quote here: Jefferson wrote that making judges the ultimate deciders of law would “place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Seriously that's cognitive dissonance 101. "Elon Musk can't be an oligarch. He's a great Americ... I mean South African". I also hesitate why anyone would want a 360 degree view of Newt Gingrich. In real life or otherwise. /s
- chasil 2y agoGengrich is an interesting subject of study precisely because he worked so well with Clinton that the roaring '90s happened. Clinton fared poorly under Democratic control of the house in his first two years, which was lost in the midterms. Clinton prospered with Gengrich, and the .com era occurred under their aegis. Some bad decisions were made by them, no doubt.
- bb88 2y agoHaving been an adult in the 90s that is historical revisionism. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/newt-gingrichs-1995-shutdown-came-fit-pique/578923/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/newt-gi...
- chasil 2y agoGovernment shutdowns are a political act, designed to curry favor with supporters in the base. It is advocated by both sides, to this day. The obvious case in modern point is Schumer. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/23/chuck-schumer-democrats-funding-bill https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/23/chuck-schume...
- watwut 2y agoYes, there is no difference beetween what republicans were doing back then and what democrats were wanting now /s This is why bothsidism is ridiculous. Both sides are the same! Both are accusing the other one of something wrong! Oh, it does not matter than one is lying and other is saying the truth.
- unholythree 2y agoWell Jefferson certainly wasn't ever wrong about anything. He certainly wouldn't have held any beliefs contrary to 20th or 21st century values. /s Obviously the dude had a lot of good ideas, but just grabbing anything he said and acting like it's gospel is flawed for dare I say a pretty glaring reason...
- chasil 2y agoI'm not saying that Jefferson's words were elevated beyond his peers. His flaws certainly belie such an assertion. I'm saying that what Jefferson did was to remove problematic judges. Congress had, has, and will have the power to reshape the federal judiciary as they choose. They can erase all courts below the supreme, and they can add or remove justices to the highest court as they choose (excepting present members, which are lifetime). Thus the saying "pack the court." To challenge an executive that has friends in congress is a dangerous proposition for a federal judge. It could end badly.
- reverius42 2y ago> To challenge [the legality of an action by] an executive that has friends in congress is a dangerous proposition for a federal judge. > It could end badly. This implies that the courts cannot be an effective check and balance on the other branches. Aren't they meant to be?
- unyttigfjelltol 2y agoIt depends what you think is meant by the term "effective". Courts foremost serve a truth-finding function and buffer against arbitrary authority being applied to individual people. It's always been controversial whether a court can disparage a law of broad application or impugn the president directly. The "effectiveness" of those functions was always a little speculative.
- reverius42 2y ago> truth-finding function Lower courts typically deal with questions of fact and how they intersect with questions of law; higher courts (appeals courts and Supreme Court) typically deal with questions of law (ambiguity/interpretation) exclusively. Courts as an institution don't serve a "truth-finding function" so much as a "law-ambiguity removing function". > disparage > impugn Everyone seems focused on whether a court has the right to, like, insult the president personally. But that's not really the important part of what they're doing. They _of course_ have the right to question whether the law allows what the president is doing -- and questioning this is not disparagement or impugning.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- belter 2y agoAnd Law Firms.. "Donald Trump widens war on legal industry with order targeting Jenner & Block" - https://www.ft.com/content/4f1aca93-62b5-419f-9182-a3a10bbe77c6 https://www.ft.com/content/4f1aca93-62b5-419f-9182-a3a10bbe7... "Legal community shaken by a powerful law firm's decision to give in to Trump's demands" - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/legal-community-shaken-powerful-law-firm-paul-weiss-trump-rcna197490 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/legal-... "Trump’s crackdown on top law firms spreads to Congress" - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/24/retribution-big-law-capitol-hill-00246766 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/24/retribution-big-law... "The person predicted the impact could extend beyond Congress: “If you’re Google or Meta or Apple – you’re thinking, ‘Do I really want to use these firms?’ That could make it harder to work with the White House...."