259
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
259 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19118 readers
2527 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was never the Democrats job to do that. It was congress's. Democrats did try. And they absolutely could have done better in many areas. I'm not defending them on that. But we need to also recognize that a large portion of Congress was flattered and extremely impressed that Trump was able to sic so many people on them. That they had no choice but to eagerly and gladly defend him while sucking up for him. Conservatives love an authoritarian. And without a few conservatives. Democrats were and never did accomplish much of anything.
What I am trying to say is, it doesn't matter whose job it was. People vote for a leader. It was up to the leaders to make it happen. That happened to be the president. It's nothing more complex than that.
The chief executive of the US has been a Democrat for 4 years, and it was absolutely their responsibility to prosecute (or ensure prosecution happens to) anyone that broke the law, or to at least protect the country. The norm has been for Presidents to maintain a firewall between themselves and prosecutorial decisions, but that's not constitutionally mandated as far as I can tell.
It's a norm because prosecution is both an executive and judicial function. It straddles both branches and you want it to be neutral in exercising prosecutorial discretion. When the chief executive steps in to direct prosecution, it has a strong tendency to become political and lead away from democracy.
Seems like the same happens when we cling to that norm too closely, as well.
To be clear I'm just talking about federal prosecutors. State and local tend to be political and, as a result, that tends to be where you see way more corruption. Ironically, it's also why state AGs will have policies that are entirely different from the governor's: they're a separate political office.
I'm not saying you're wrong, per se. In theory it is good to keep that distance between the executive and the prosecutorial decisions. But I hold that view in the same way that I hold the view that war is bad. Sometimes it is necessary when you're given no other choice. Not to belabor the point, but this man is a danger not only to marginalized groups, but to American society and the world at large. The constitution imbues the presidency with the authority and power to take action and if this wasn't the time to use the power afforded to it, then I don't know man...
The correct solution for an outlier event is to set up a proper Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The U.S. still thinks it's above that, but it's not. A TRC would have worked after 1/6 because it was an inherently partisan event. You cannot have it be bipartisan for the same reason the Nazis didn't get to be judges at Nuremberg and neither Shining Path nor the former government officials in Peru got to sit on their TRC. The group that perpetrated the violence shouldn't get to adjudicate it.
No, it fucking wasn't Congress' job -- at least, not just Congress' job. It was the DOJ's job. And guess who appoints the motherfucking Attorney General?
Wow starting off contradicting yourself. It's an interesting argument Style. Not sure how it's going to work though.
All right so I'm not going to defend Merrick garland. I wish that he had done better too. Unfortunately he is kind of what you want. Someone who will try to stay out of the way and seem impartial at least. We're going to see first hand what having a blindly ideological and engaged Department of Justice will look like and why it's a bad thing very soon.
That said Merrick Garland did not appoint the judge that sabotaged the case. Merrick Garland and the Democrats did not appoint the Supreme Court Justices who sabotaged the case. And it's neither the executive branch or a political party's place to act as a balance or check to the whole f****** judicial branch of government. Even with that whole checks and balances crap is b*******. It was the congress's job. The Congress which Democrats never solidly controlled in any meaningful sense unfortunately. Especially due to Senators Manchin and the sinema.
There are plenty of actual things to blame Democrats for. That they didn't put on the sort of performative play that we would have liked to have seen is way at the bottom of the list.
The primary way the case was "sabotaged" was by granting long delays to credulously consider every bullshit motion Trump made, which ultimately resulted in Trump successfully running out the clock until he could gain power again and kill it for good.
And guess what: that was only successful ENTIRELY BECAUSE Merrick motherfucking Garland DIDN'T EVEN OPEN A GODDAMNED INVESTIGATION UNTIL A FULL YEAR AFTER THE COUP ATTEMPT, DIDN'T APPOINT SPECIAL COUNSEL UNTIL 11 MONTHS AFTER THAT, AND DIDN'T GET AN INDICTMENT UNTIL HALFWAY THROUGH 2023!!!!
The fix was in from the very beginning, and it was precisely when Biden appointed a Republican stooge to slow-walk the whole godforsaken thing!