“Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed,” says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig

It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”

You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at  oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls.

    Ranked Choice only matters when you’ve got a third position that successfully triangulates between the other two positions.

    But when Democrats already do all the triangulation and Republicans simply push conspiracy theory to the farthest rightward fringe, and Republicans still win by large margins in big states, there’s no material benefit to ranked choice voting.

    Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican’s nightmare?

    Any 3rd party simply becomes the whipping boy of the other two parties. Ranked choice won’t change that. Republicans will still despise Libertarians and Democrats will still despise Greens.

    And a private corporate news media that profits off fear and resentment won’t make these peripheral parties more appealing.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        When one party is winning 50%+ of the vote by fielding increasingly far-right candidates to an audience of increasingly far right voters, the only thing Ranked Choice Voting accomplishes is to change the mechanism by which a new far-right candidate wins the seat.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ranked Choice only matters when you’ve got a third position that successfully triangulates between the other two positions.

      Hold it! phoenix-objection-1phoenix-objection-2

      Uhh…

      What on earth are you talking about? phoenix-bashful

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        Guy A: 52% of the vote because Far-Right

        Guy B: 48% of the vote because Moderate and we have this lingering progressive block dragged along for the ride.

        Ranked Choice Guy: “If we can just convince 2% to go for Guy C and then Guy B and then Guy A, then Guy B will win!”

        Guy C: Splits Guy B’s vote in the first round, but doesn’t win any of Guy A’s vote, because he’s not the Most Far Right Guy.

        Guy A Still Wins.

        Ranked Choice Accomplished Nothing.

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          This basically describes how things work now… It should be more like GuyA: 42% GuyB: 38% GuyC: 20%

          So guyC gets cut and most of his votes go to guy B

          Starting with guyA having 52% means he would have won outright

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            So guyC gets cut and most of his votes go to guy B

            That holds when you have a 58% “moderate-left” swing.

            It doesn’t hold when you’ve got a 52% “far-right” swing.

            Starting with guyA having 52% means he would have won outright

            Right. And that’s the problem Ranked Choice Voting can’t solve. When you have a poll of far right voters who control the election, you’re still going to get far-right candidates.

            The question is why states like Florida and Texas and South Dakota and West Virginia are so chronically overwhelmed with far-right voters. And the answer we’ve seen - time and time again going back to the end of Reconstruction - is that states don’t want minority groups or young people or poor people to participate in elections. So they disenfranchise these groups, by hook or crook.

            And absent a fix for this systematic disenfranchisement, you’re just shifting around deck chairs on the Titanic.

            • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              I see what you’re saying… Yes I agree, the election system itself needs to be corrected so everyone has equal opportunity to vote

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      But when Democrats already do all the triangulation

      They don’t. And politics isn’t so easily boiled down to a single axis - Democrats are focused on social issues that are easy to repeal. This will save the lives of minority groups right now, but allow billions to die from climate change.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Democrats are focused on social issues

        What part of the Russia-Ukraine War, the Inflation Reduction Act, or the CHIPS Act strike you as “social issues”?

        This will save the lives of minority groups right now, but allow billions to die from climate change.

        Climate Change is and always has fundamentally been an economic issue. We’re not trying to keep the Earth from spiking ten degrees because we’re obsessed with the Spotted Owl. This shit is threatening trillions of dollars of accrued real estate and trillions more of agricultural output.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          focused on social issues that are easy to repeal

          I mean focused in the literal sense, and didn’t mean to imply exclusively. You did provide examples of things the Republicans can simply undo, rather than improving our representation in goverment.

          Climate Change is and always has fundamentally been an economic issue.

          It’s fair to say that everything has at least some economic component. Climate change is a bit more than that because our lives have no value in their calculations. The trajectory we’re on now already maximizes the net present value of real estate.