It Could Be a Win-Win When SCOTUS Rules on Presidential Immunity.

If Trump loses the case, he's in deep cow manure.

And if SCOTUS agrees with him that a sitting president can do "whatever the hell he wants..." 🤔

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

helenS · 36-40, F Best Comment

a sitting president can do "whatever the hell he wants..."

That would be an absolute monarchy in which the monarch rules in their own right or power. Incompatible with the spirit of a republic.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@helenS

That would be an absolute monarchy in which the monarch rules in their own right or power. Incompatible with the spirit of a republic.

I completely agree with you. But what to do if SCOTUS rules that way?

SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F

@beckyromero Biden immediately bypasses Congress and appoints three more judges to wipe out the Republican majority, if he can do whatever he wants.,

helenS · 36-40, F

@beckyromero I really don't know what to do. I used to think that installing a full-fledged tyranny in America is impossible because most Americans are republicans (note the lower-case "r" please). I'm not sure about that anymore 😐
Thanks for "Best Comment", Becky 🌷

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@helenS

Had we gotten rid of the filibuster in the Senate before the Republicans won the House in the mid-terms, a Democrat-controlled Congress could have then expanded the Supreme Court.

But there are too many Democrats, even President Biden himself, who are relucant to do away with the filibuster because they want Democrats to be able to use it if the Republicans win the majority in the Senate.

However, these aren't normal times any more. A GOP-Senate with a President Trump wouldn't hesitate to do away with the filibuster. Sen. Mitch McConnell, despite my distaste for him, would be hesitate. But he won't be in charge of the Senate any more.

helenS · 36-40, F

@beckyromero I would love to just sit and watch. But I can't: things which happen in America matter in Europe too.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@helenS

Unfortunately, too many Americans don't realize that the opposite is true as well. That things which happen In Europe (and Asia) matter in America. You think we'd have learned this lesson taught to us before in 1939, with an exclamation point in December 1941.

helenS · 36-40, F

@beckyromero Isn't non-interventionism (or, to use a more pejorative term, "isolationism") a time-honored tradition in America? And it may have worked well in the 19th century. It's not a good option in the 21st century though. And yes, you are right, 1941 comes to mind.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@helenS

The America First isolationists were bashing President Roosevelt right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of them, Nazi sympathizer Sen. Gerald Nye (R-ND) was giving a speech on the afternoon of December 7, 1941 and even refused pre-speech warnings by reporters that the Japanese were bombing our ships and bases in the Pacific at that very moment!

https://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/this-week-in-pittsburgh-history-attack-on-pearl-harbor-hits-home-and-ends-a-movement/