WASHINGTON-In 1836, slaveholders took Dred Scott, an enslaved person, from Missouri, a slave state, to the territory that became Minnesota. The law governing that territory prohibited slavery.
No buddy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the people from fuck nuggets like Trump.
Yeah. As utterly stupid as the argument sounds, he can’t be prosecuted for any official acts and he can pardon anyone who enacts his will, so his administration can deny anyone their constitutional rights and escape accountability.
That’s not the same as saying folks don’t have rights, but effectively they can be denied any meaningful opportunity to exercise them, without consequence. Someone has a right to a trial? You and what army are going to get to his cell to take them before a judge? No army? Then good luck getting him to court because anyone preventing you from doing so is immune to legal action and anyone NOT preventing you is fired.
The Supreme Court has issued some terrible rulings in the last twenty years. “Democracy is autocracy” is some 1984-level shit.
Only for federal charges. If people are breaking state laws to push his agenda, he cannot pardon them. It’s a little thing, but it’s something.
For now.
No President has ever tried to issue a pardon for state crimes. Given this President and this Supreme Court, I would not be nearly as confident that that rule would hold if push were to come to shove. Especially in a political climate where virtually every institution that we expected to hold their ground has basically caved in to Trump at the first sign of pressure. I could easily see an argument made by this administration in front of this Supreme Court that the Supremacy Clause grants Trump the right to pardon state crimes easily being successful on a 6-3 split.
And I could also see Trump just physically imposing his will by sending people down to the state to physically free whoever is being held with a very similar mindset: “Are you going to stop me? You and what army?”, having anybody who attempts to stop him arrested.
Well, I feel like the Supreme Court brought this upon themselves. They made Trump untouchable and now he’s using what they gave him.
Yeah. As utterly stupid as the argument sounds, he can’t be prosecuted for any official acts and he can pardon anyone who enacts his will, so his administration can deny anyone their constitutional rights and escape accountability.
That’s not the same as saying folks don’t have rights, but effectively they can be denied any meaningful opportunity to exercise them, without consequence. Someone has a right to a trial? You and what army are going to get to his cell to take them before a judge? No army? Then good luck getting him to court because anyone preventing you from doing so is immune to legal action and anyone NOT preventing you is fired.
The Supreme Court has issued some terrible rulings in the last twenty years. “Democracy is autocracy” is some 1984-level shit.
Only for federal charges. If people are breaking state laws to push his agenda, he cannot pardon them. It’s a little thing, but it’s something.
For now.
No President has ever tried to issue a pardon for state crimes. Given this President and this Supreme Court, I would not be nearly as confident that that rule would hold if push were to come to shove. Especially in a political climate where virtually every institution that we expected to hold their ground has basically caved in to Trump at the first sign of pressure. I could easily see an argument made by this administration in front of this Supreme Court that the Supremacy Clause grants Trump the right to pardon state crimes easily being successful on a 6-3 split.
And I could also see Trump just physically imposing his will by sending people down to the state to physically free whoever is being held with a very similar mindset: “Are you going to stop me? You and what army?”, having anybody who attempts to stop him arrested.
It’s the job of Congress to hold the president accountable.
I hope you’re not holding your breath waiting for that to happen…