SCOTUS first. By now you know SCOTUS won't hear any of the cases against Trump until June of next year. What does this mean in the real world? It means a president can break the law, not anwer subpoenas and the court will wait seven months to hear the case. Seven months in which a criminal can commit crimes against the country.
It's actually much worse than that. Those cases have been in various versions of the judicial system for some time.Since there are 3 cases, it's a variable number of months/years. I don't happen to know just off hand. So your problem is not just with the SC; it's with the speed at which the entire judicial system processes cases. As to whether the SC is deliberately slowing down this process to favor Trump, I don't know. But I doubt it. I'm assuming we would hear from some of the justices if that were the case.
Like you, I'm not happy with this. But I'm not certain it merits an overall charge for all members of the court that the court is corrupt.
Is there any legal justification for saying a legal subpoena is not legal? This case shouldn't even go to SCOTUS but if it does it should be decided within seconds since there is no legal justification for Trump's arguments.
Of course not. But the process by which subpoenas are judged "legal" can be a bit long and, in these cases, inordinately frustrating. To take just this case, the tax returns, it's my understanding that the subpoenas are not legal until the proper court says so. It's clearly been well beyond frustrating to see Trump use this process so adeptly. But it's the one we are stuck with at the moment. And likely to be stuck even worse as the federal courts are increasingly populated with very right wing Rep judges.
It's all well beyond frustrating. But "legal?" In our system, the courts get to make that decision.
You say Dems are just as bad as republicans, but Dems have never stopped a president from appointing any judges which is what Moscow Mitch did until Reid used the nuclear option - the nuclear option being majority rule.
I didn't say and, god help me, I don't believe it. If you can find a quote from me that suggests such, please point it out to me. It's either a mistake on my part or a misreading on yours.
If we are still just on the SC process, I think McConnell's failure to consider Obama's replacement for Scalia one of the great senate travesties of all time. Unfortunately, it was within senate rules. But it was disgusting. And such may well remain the norm so long as the overall senate count is so favorable toward small states. We're stuck with it since I don't see much chance the Dems will get control in 2020. Finger crossed they will. But, short of working hard for Dem candidates (I live in NJ so it will need to be candidates from other states--relatives in Texas worked hard against Cruz and will do so again).
I understand how calling all of this "corrupt" and so on (which I don't object to, just find it inaccurate) helps with the venting process. I do it also. Not much here but I've thrown more than a few soft objects at my tv set, hit the mute button when Trump speaks. And so on. But it's just venting. It's has no moral or political authority. And when done in public places like this one is harmless save for two problems, in my view. The first is the practice of over generalizing--the sc is corrupt, all dems are such and so on, all Trump voters are such and so on, etc. And second, venting that approves of personal harm. That goes without saying. |
