Federal Judges Warn Of The Dire Threat To Democracy

[HUAJIAO]

Federal Judges Warn Of The Dire Threat To Democracy

Talking Points Memo

Opinion by David Kurtz
1d

In the early days of the Trump presidency, efforts to obtain his tax returns or enforce the Emoluments Clause were slow, clumsy, and sometimes reluctantly undertaken by Democrats in Congress. I was inclined to excuse that slowness. But as the threat mounted and become more obvious and the reaction to it failed to rise to the challenge, my own sense of urgency began to change.

SNIP

Six months ago, it looked like the first weeks of the new year would be dominated not by the GOP primary but by pretrial preparations for a whopping four criminal trials of Trump. The race was finally on to hold Trump to account for his cheating in the last two elections before he cheated in a third one. As we sit here at the end of January, the landscape is not what we anticipated.

The Mar-a-Lago case is almost guaranteed to happen after the election. So is the Georgia RICO case. The Jan. 6 case is stuck on pretrial appeals, with the DC Circuit and Supreme Court failing to push things along. The lesser of the four cases – the hush money case in New York – may be the only one tried before the election. Meanwhile, there’s a chance Trump will be brought down by the Disqualification Clause but no one is confident the courts will enforce that against him either.

I’ve gone from annoyed about the repeated complaints about the slowness of the system to sharing those sentiments myself to having my hair on fire that the gravity of the moment calls for so much more than the legal system is prepared to offer. In a way this a mea culpa for urging my staff over the last few years to chill out. Things have not been this urgent since the 1860s. And we’re failing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/federal-judges-warn-of-the-dire-threat-to-democracy/ar-BB1hjiz4?ocid=socialshare&pc=ENTPSP&cvid=998c414f421f4c0dba972f7fa7fbda24&ei=54

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Judges that cannot accept precedent are beholden to something other than the Constitution

They should be removed for siding with those in rebellion against the USA

[Igel]

3. Really?

SCOTUS said that incarcerating Japanese after the start of WWII was Constitutional.

There's your precedent.

Loving overturned precedent. Brown overturned precedent. Obergefell overturned precedent. Effing Roe overturned precedent, as did Griswold.

All of those overturning, dissing stare decisis, shows a profound contempt for the Constitution? So it's okay to round up people based on ethnicity/nationality; okay to make interracial marriage illegal; okay to impose "separate but equal" in public schools; gay marriage can be outlawed?

Because heaven help us in failing to think that precedent isn't of the same status as the Constitution.

(Or we can think that justices make mistakes and those mistakes should be overturned. But hey, what do I know?)

[Mr.Bill]

2. Some Federal Judges

are the threat to Democracy.

[DC77]

4. Don't forget milquetoast

Merrick Garland. He is “above” politics.

Some reasons cited as a cause of the failure to adjudicate these charges before the election: A “wariness in confronting Trump and his legions of supporters, an unreasonable tendency to give him the benefit of the doubt, the judiciary’s own overweening sense that it is above politics, and a fundamental failure to appreciate that a strongman who attempted to seize power unlawfully once is a threat to the very existence of the legal system itself.”

Many people I have spoken to roll their eyeballs when I bring out the “F” word, fascism. Not paying attention! The failure of ordinary people, en masse, leads to bad things.