6 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

As of now, none! "And there’s no corrective recourse?"

An independent judiciary is critical to democracy, THAT is why there is no immediate 'corrective recourse'.

Expand full comment

If the Supreme Court rules that Trump has immunity from prosecution for crimes committed during his Presidency and/or after the courts become irrelevant.

Trump pardoned 143 convicted criminals, 4 of whom bilked over $1.4 billion from Medicare/Medicaid and were convicted of fraud. Will we ever find out what the quid pro quo was for any of these pardons.

Trump has already promised to pardon all of the January 6th rioters.

And who would be able to overturn his executive orders even if they were illegal?

Expand full comment

King chump

Expand full comment

Absolutely — democracy can't function without an independent judiciary. But judges must be ethical, and requirements are too lax and not aggressively enforced. And how is a judge so lacking in experience assigned to one of the most serious espionage cases in the nation's history? The judicial system needs reform.

Expand full comment

Cannon's problem is not inexperience, it is bias. Totally agree, enforceable written higher standards. Now it is left to the Roberts to supervise court system and he is 'part of the problem and not the solution'. Term limits, a written ethics book, an independent enforcement-investigative arm that is independent of all branches of government, like the Federal Reserve.

Expand full comment

Does independent mean slow track, or the nazification of the judiciary?

Expand full comment