groundzeros2015 3 hours ago

Your desire for a higher oversight authority beyond the chief executive suggests you may have concerns about the efficacy of democracy.

And I don’t think that’s wrong. But let’s clarify. Either we trust the process to elect leaders who actually hold power or we think voting is broken and we need a body of leadership which exists independently of the democratic process.

▲

hvb2 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Your desire for a higher oversight authority beyond the chief executive suggests you may have concerns about the efficacy of democracy.

No that's not what I said. The courts can hold someone in the executive branch accountable. They're the check on their power.

Except the president, because of that one ruling.

So if the president commits fraud as part of an official act he's immune? No other person in the executive branch has this immunity. And it was given to the most powerful person.

	▲	groundzeros2015 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The president just tried to operate an executive order and it got shut down by the courts. The specific ruling is about the president being immune from criminal charges while in office. And yeah, you can’t be taking George Washington to court (or jail) while he is leading the revolution. It’s essential for the nation to have a functioning leader, especially among the fog of war. The Bible story of David and Saul presents another example of this principle. To bring it back though… what you’re telling me is we can’t trust a democracy to elect an executive.