| ▲ | alfiedotwtf a day ago |
| Is a judgement worth the paper it’s written on when it’s ignored with zero consequences? |
|
| ▲ | ethbr1 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Why would it be ignored? Say what you want about the executive branch trying to weasel out of things and get the Supreme Court to lift holds, but they've so far been unwilling to out and out disobey finalized court orders. |
| |
| ▲ | c420 a day ago | parent [-] | | 'We lack the power': Justice Barrett basically admits SCOTUS can do nothing if Trump violates rulings https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/we-lack-the-power-just... | | |
| ▲ | pfdietz a day ago | parent | next [-] | | All they need to do is rule that violation of court orders is not protected by qualified immunity from civil lawsuits, a principle SCOTUS invented itself. | | |
| ▲ | wl a day ago | parent [-] | | Qualified immunity in no way limits a court’s contempt powers. | | |
| |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I suspect many of the more ridiculous rulings come less from Roberts agreeing with Trump, and more fear of actually placing Trump in a position to straight ignore the court, which he will do. There is likely a pragmatic view that if they appear to remain relevant they might continue to have some power, even though they already don't. | | |
| ▲ | Larrikin a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They could have let him go to jail before the election instead of ruling that the president is a king. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's pros and cons to that decision. At the very least, it's not great to send an ex-president who still has substantial support to prison while same ex-president is also spouting conspiracy theories about election fraud and deep state. That doesn't end well. On the other hand, a strong executive is a feature of the American political system and has its benefits. Imho, my hope is that the Supreme Court punted on that one by deliberately leaving "official acts of office" vague. And that if push came to shove, election related activities would be defined as not part of presidential duties. | | |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think this is a hindsight is 20/20 issue. In 2021, we really should've prosecuted Trump and sent him to prison. We wouldn't be dealing with the incredible litany of crimes and economic damage we deal with now if we had. But in 2021, I don't think anyone seriously imagined Trump would actually be President again, and if you don't think he'll actually have any power, yeah, in 2021 it probably looked like a bad optics thing that probably wouldn't make any positive impact to do. And not for nothing, we were also still very much in the middle of COVID-19 as an active crisis. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But in 2021, I don't think anyone seriously imagined Trump would actually be President again I don't think anyone who spends any significant time around the Trump cult would say this. These people are absolutely devoted to and worship him. When he lost in 2020, my first thought is, he's going to run again in 2024 and every election thereafter until he's dead, and he'll get tens of millions of votes each time. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It would have precedent in the Supreme Court... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Political_d... |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | binarymax a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are adding up. They can ignore them, and when they are out of office, the reckoning will come. |
| |
| ▲ | brian-armstrong a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That's why they're not leaving office. Check out Venezuela for a preview of what's in store for the US. | |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not for the President, unfortunately. Supreme Court precedent has effectively set him as immune from prosecution, and it's not like at his age he'd serve much time anyways. I expect a lot of his administration to spend their latter years in jail though. Siding with him has basically never paid off for anyone. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | jfengel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They won't ignore it. They'll comply with replacing the partisan message, and move on to dozens of other violations. It's not so much the judgments as that the courts can't keep up. |
|
| ▲ | usrusr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ties those who ignore it closer to the group in power: more to lose when they lose it. Every little erosion of law adherence creates more of that cheap loyalty substitute. |
|
| ▲ | Normal_gaussian a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For other parts of the world looking in, yes. |
|
| ▲ | add-sub-mul-div a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not every failure is meaningful on its own but it would at least spiritually be a very different country today if they wasn't such a pattern of sustained opposition and losing in the courts going back 2017. |
