So do you agree that Trump tried to subvert democracy? What makes you think then he wouldn’t do so again and now that he’s had a term in office doesn’t have the benefit of experience that would let him do it more successfully?
To add and an example of Trump learning from experience. Later in his term Trump many Trump appointees were “acting” appointments that bypassed Senate approval. In a second Trump term he could do so again removing one of the guardrails.
Heck... trump has already (and on numerous occasions) said he won't accept the results of the election if he doesn't win.
And there's small chance Trump would appoint another Gorsuch, Kav, or ACB. MAGAworld hates them. They overturned Roe, but aren't pure enough (in the approve everything Trump wants) to be MAGA. It turns out they are just normalish conservative judges with differing methods of constitutional and legal interpretation. New judges all throughout the judiciary will be the the truly crazies, imo, because Trump has said so himself. To him, you're either a Trump judge or not a Trump judge - it's not about anything else.
This should make you feel better that this justice will be deciding cases regarding trump and efforts to overturn the election. As is thomas, whose wife was directly involved in the very same efforts.
What is it with the wives of conservative supreme court justices? They keep getting their impartial and apolitical husbands in such pickles!
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Consumer Watchdog’s Funding The Supreme Court rejected a challengeon Thursday to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded, one that could have hobbled the bureau and advanced a central goal of the conservative legal movement: limiting the power of independent agencies. The vote was 7 to 2, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion. Had the bureau lost, the court’s ruling might have cast doubt on every regulation and enforcement action it had taken in its 13 years of existence, including ones concerning mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans and banking. The central question in the case was whether the way Congress chose to fund the bureau had violated the appropriations clause of the Constitution, which says that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Justice Thomas said the mechanism was constitutional. “Under the appropriations clause,” he wrote, “an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes.” “The statute that provides the bureau’s funding meets these requirements,” he added. “We therefore conclude that the bureau’s funding mechanism does not violate the appropriations clause.” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented. The agency welcomed the decision, acknowledging the sustained attacks it had faced since it was set up to ensure that consumers were not taken advantage of by credit card companies, debt collectors and other financial firms. “For years, lawbreaking companies and Wall Street lobbyists have been scheming to defund essential consumer protection enforcement,” said Sam Gilford, a spokesman. “The Supreme Court has rejected their radical theory that would have devastated the American financial markets.” Critics of the agency called the ruling a missed opportunity. “This decision marks an alarming failure by the court to police the proper exercise of Congress’s constitutional powers,” said Dan Greenberg, the general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market public policy organization. The bureau, created after the financial crisis as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, is not funded by an annual appropriation but rather through an unusual arrangement in which it draws resources, up to an annual cap, from the Federal Reserve system. That system, in turn, does not receive congressional appropriations but is financed by interest on securities it holds, gains from securities transactions and various fees. Republicans and business groups have long contended that the bureau enjoys unchecked power. Justice Thomas wrote that the question in the case was a narrow one and that “an identified source and purpose are all that is required for a valid appropriation,” surveying historical analogies from English, colonial and early American history. In a concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, added that more recent history also supported the agency. Rest: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/politics/supreme-court-cfpb.html
The roberts court will usually rule in a way that doesn't benefit the republicans on a fairly minor ruling just before they come out with a major case decision that completely favors maga republicans (eg abortion). So expect this court to rule in trump's favor on immunity soon...
Remember it’s a massive conflict of interests that Judge Merchan’s daughter works for Democrats. It’s not a conflict of interests that Judge Alito and Thomas wives have supported Trump’s position they the election was stolen and in the case of Thomas worked for Republican campaigns.
