Presidential Immunity Case Could Be the End
Once rule of law becomes meaningless in a certain country, as appears has happened here in the United States, it’s hard to plot a course for the future. Obviously, it’s not good, but how far can it go in the other way?
When the Germans lost the right to vote in the 1930s, they didn’t get it back until 1946, and the only reason they got it back at all was that the Nazis met sufficient military pressure from the Allies that they were eventually forced to surrender.
In the case of the United States 85 years later, it’s unclear where we’re going. As shown at left, the conservative justices who were on the Supreme Court bench when Trump was elected in 2016 were joined by three new ones, and this majority, for now at least, seems to have gotten the better of our democracy.
I would say that there were helpful definitions, until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the President of the United States enjoyed immunity from any crimes he may have committed as long as they were “official acts,” like stealing classified documents, attempting to overthrow the federal government, committing fraud for the purpose of affecting the outcome of an election, and inciting an insurrection.
Just a decade ago, none of this would have been imaginable.
From Senior Energy Analyst Glenn Doty:
Perhaps it’s because I’m in the business of writing material on electric transportation, or that I’m a natural extrovert (or some combination of the two), but whenever I have an easy opening to ask an EV driver about his level of satisfaction with his car, e.g., a shared parking lot, I take advantage of that opportunity.
In his statements to his supporters, Trump has no issue with insulting the living hell out of their intelligence. Here’s a great example, where he claims that the absence of sunlight at night eliminates the feasibility of using electricity for aircraft.
Just came across this cartoon, which echoes the thoughts in my recent post “
Sorry, but I disagree with the author of the meme here.
I wonder if environmental collapse, including climate change, could be considered “human aggression.”
I wouldn’t say that calling Trump a “whiner” because he refused to accept the result of the 2020 presidential election is exactly “tearing into” the former president. Anyone can challenge the tallying of votes.
