“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.

  • 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