4 ms·

If the lesson by now isn’t “be careful wishing for powers you don’t want the other side to use against you” then I don’t know what will drive that home…

watwut 7mo ago
The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one. As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.
- nothrabannosir 7mo ago
  Which actual law should send them to jail? The law is constantly applied to Trump and his administration. The judicial branch keeps reining him in: National guard, ice, tariffs—-literally TFA for Pete’s sake. Parent post isn’t about any specific law, it’s about wanting to see a result and working backwards from there: my political opponents should go to jail. Guess what will happen? The administration after that will send your politicians to jail. And the bananificiation of the US will be complete. If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Raise the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much! The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how it looks, and you’re not alone, but it applies. Edit: Let me rephrase: rather than try and find a single law by which to hang the executive , of which I’m sure there are a million, my impression is that for every one of them there’s a commensurate law which exonerates them. Congress keeps protecting the president. Congress is the most powerful of the three branches, by design . To genuinely see someone going to jail, From The executive branch , Congress needs to make a clear, unequivocal, statement.
  - watwut 7mo ago
    1.) Supreme court literally decided that Trump can not commit crime while in the office. Full stop. 2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president. 3.) This administration ignores the courts. > If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, They actually did made those laws. Supreme court decided to either rewrite those law or that they simply dont matter. > The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. Not the supreme court.
    - nothrabannosir 7mo ago
      > 2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president. There are cases for which Trump should have been tried, but the NY one about mislabeling funds was not one of them. It was a massive reach, and I bet you <10% of the people clamoring about how he's now a "felon" know what he actually did wrong. Meanwhile he pressured georgia secretary of state to "find votes", in a recorded call; he should have been tried for this but it didn't get brought to the courts. This was a failing of the executive: you cannot expect courts to rule on a matter which is never brought to them. Half the country voted for this. At some point this is democracy in action. If you commit election fraud and somehow nobody charges you, i guess the same will apply to you. :( The NY case had poor facts but was well fought. The Georgia case had good facts but was poorly fought.
      - watwut 7mo ago
        > Half the country voted for this. Actually, not half the country. > At some point this is democracy in action. Actually, no, winning election in democracy does not mean you get to be a tyrant to whome laws dont apply. Also, seems like my point about law not applying to Trump stands entirely. None of your arguments actualy disagree with that claim.
        nothrabannosir 7mo ago
        Yes just to be clear I edited that original commnt from “there’s no law he’s breaking” to “for every such law, there’s another one which exonerates him/them”, so technically speaking I think we agree: he is breaking laws. my impression from more closely following the actual Supreme Court (and federal) cases and reading the opinions as a total layman is that the laws and cases are rarely clear cut, nor isolated. They constantly pull in context and other laws and try and guess what congress meant. And many times the judges make very fair points. Things I thought were clear , actually aren’t. And I’m happy that they’re erring on the side of reticence when it comes to punishing the executive because that is a power that can (and will!) be used against the other side, in a constant escalation of partisanship. That was my original point. This all is why I’ve come to the impression that a congress with a strong point of view is the most robust way out. If congress passes clear laws with unequivocal language about what should and shouldn’t happen in which specific transgressions of power, the judiciary will uphold it. They may be partisan in the details if that’s how you want to see it, but they will absolutely not ignore clear language from congress. These are still real judges.

watwut 7mo ago

The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one. As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.

nothrabannosir 7mo ago
Which actual law should send them to jail? The law is constantly applied to Trump and his administration. The judicial branch keeps reining him in: National guard, ice, tariffs—-literally TFA for Pete’s sake. Parent post isn’t about any specific law, it’s about wanting to see a result and working backwards from there: my political opponents should go to jail. Guess what will happen? The administration after that will send your politicians to jail. And the bananificiation of the US will be complete. If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Raise the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much! The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how it looks, and you’re not alone, but it applies. Edit: Let me rephrase: rather than try and find a single law by which to hang the executive , of which I’m sure there are a million, my impression is that for every one of them there’s a commensurate law which exonerates them. Congress keeps protecting the president. Congress is the most powerful of the three branches, by design . To genuinely see someone going to jail, From The executive branch , Congress needs to make a clear, unequivocal, statement.
- watwut 7mo ago
  1.) Supreme court literally decided that Trump can not commit crime while in the office. Full stop. 2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president. 3.) This administration ignores the courts. > If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, They actually did made those laws. Supreme court decided to either rewrite those law or that they simply dont matter. > The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. Not the supreme court.
  - nothrabannosir 7mo ago
    > 2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president. There are cases for which Trump should have been tried, but the NY one about mislabeling funds was not one of them. It was a massive reach, and I bet you <10% of the people clamoring about how he's now a "felon" know what he actually did wrong. Meanwhile he pressured georgia secretary of state to "find votes", in a recorded call; he should have been tried for this but it didn't get brought to the courts. This was a failing of the executive: you cannot expect courts to rule on a matter which is never brought to them. Half the country voted for this. At some point this is democracy in action. If you commit election fraud and somehow nobody charges you, i guess the same will apply to you. :( The NY case had poor facts but was well fought. The Georgia case had good facts but was poorly fought.
    - watwut 7mo ago
      > Half the country voted for this. Actually, not half the country. > At some point this is democracy in action. Actually, no, winning election in democracy does not mean you get to be a tyrant to whome laws dont apply. Also, seems like my point about law not applying to Trump stands entirely. None of your arguments actualy disagree with that claim.
      - nothrabannosir 7mo ago
        Yes just to be clear I edited that original commnt from “there’s no law he’s breaking” to “for every such law, there’s another one which exonerates him/them”, so technically speaking I think we agree: he is breaking laws. my impression from more closely following the actual Supreme Court (and federal) cases and reading the opinions as a total layman is that the laws and cases are rarely clear cut, nor isolated. They constantly pull in context and other laws and try and guess what congress meant. And many times the judges make very fair points. Things I thought were clear , actually aren’t. And I’m happy that they’re erring on the side of reticence when it comes to punishing the executive because that is a power that can (and will!) be used against the other side, in a constant escalation of partisanship. That was my original point. This all is why I’ve come to the impression that a congress with a strong point of view is the most robust way out. If congress passes clear laws with unequivocal language about what should and shouldn’t happen in which specific transgressions of power, the judiciary will uphold it. They may be partisan in the details if that’s how you want to see it, but they will absolutely not ignore clear language from congress. These are still real judges.