Special counsel Jack Smith drops election subversion case against Donald Trump
Special counsel Jack Smith drops election subversion case against Donald Trump
You're viewing a single thread.
102 comments
-
Key detail: they're not dropping it because they're giving up, the judge dismissed it without prejudice, which means that in 4 years they can pick the case back up. Under a Trump DoJ the case would likely have ended with prejudice, closing it permanently.
-
Even more motivation for Trump to abolish term limits.
-
He can't himself since it's spelled out in the constitution in the 22nd amendment.
So tl;dr it would need 3/4 of the states to repeal that. More detail than that, but that's what it boils down to.
-
I really hope that's the case. But if there's one thing I've learnt, it's that Trump can seemingly do whatever the fuck he wants.
-
I really hope that’s the case
It is. It's in the constitution and barring civil war and a military take over of the government that amendment is not going away.
But if there’s one thing I’ve learnt, it’s that Trump can seemingly do whatever the fuck he wants.
Actually he can't. He most definitely can bloviate and spew whatever the fuck he wants, but when it comes to actually doing I think his track record is quite poor. For the most part he counts on toadies to fall in line and do his bidding, mainly so they can take the blame if it goes south. That he will be term limited is, IMO, the saving grace for those useful idiots - they know they can get rid of him and they only need to kiss his ass another 4 years.
-
-
More than likely he'd just go the direction of Russia/Putin and run behind a candidate he endorses but then effectively take control after the puppet candidate wins.
-
Oh that? That meant consecutive terms. Trump can totally be president again in 2028. Just ask SCOTUS.
-
You are speculating that SCOTUS will let some challenge slide. But it's the constitution and SCOTUS doesn't get to change what it says just because they are corrupt.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
Seems pretty crystal clear.
-
SCOTUS has the final say on what the Constitution should mean right now. They can decide however they want. The only remedies are through the legislature (impeachment, constitutional amendments, increasing the size of the court). But if they decide something, that's the law of the land even if it's blatantly wrong.
-
SCOTUS has the final say on what the Constitution should mean right now. They can decide however they want.
Not entirely. There are actually limits and checks on SCOTUS power, including the restrictions on what cases they can hear, the ability of congress to change the make up of the court and terms of appointments as well as change it's jurisdiction.
Now I grant it's easy to throw up one's hands and say "ah but that will never happen with a congress bowing and scraping to Trump" but I'd counter with two points: we can still gain majorities in the senate and house in 2026 and, crucially, if there's one thing you can count on it's the avaricious and rapacious nature of politicians.
I fully expect our entire country to slide into a deep recession and for there to be complete paralyzing chaos in the federal government over the next 4 years. That threatens the status quo, meaning congress critters ability to freely grift, make money off the stock market and remain in power. They won't like that.
-
SCOTUS has already started ignoring things like standing. I mentioned that the main check on SCOTUS is the legislature. I don't think Congress can get its shit together long enough to effect any real check. Last term they could barely elect a speaker and this term they have even slimmer majorities. Unless the midterms are a historically large blue wave, it's not going to matter. If a handful of defectors can kill the change, it's not happening.
-
Well I guess we should just throw up our hands and declare defeat then.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A distinction without a difference
-
102 comments