No. In the likely event of Trump getting off the hook, you can bet that SCOTUS will come up with some obscure and obfuscated legal hand waving that the judgment pertains to the matter at hand and does not constitute a precedent. The goal isn’t to nullify laws that can be used against the Democrats later, but to keep the Republican nominee in the running, which can only be accomplished by temporarily displacing the law.
This is the real problem on our hands. If you like the rule of law, there’s no winning scenario here no matter who comes out on top, because we’re already talking about abusing the law or changing it to suit political aims, rather than the operation of a coherent body of law being impartially carried out. In a sense the damage to our judicial norms and the larger issue of the credibility of an international rules-based order is at stake, and we’re just not winning that battle lately. Too many bad actors.
No. In the likely event of Trump getting off the hook, you can bet that SCOTUS will come up with some obscure and obfuscated legal hand waving that the judgment pertains to the matter at hand and does not constitute a precedent. The goal isn’t to nullify laws that can be used against the Democrats later, but to keep the Republican nominee in the running, which can only be accomplished by temporarily displacing the law.
I fucking hate displacing the law. I swear it was right here a minute ago.
This is the real problem on our hands. If you like the rule of law, there’s no winning scenario here no matter who comes out on top, because we’re already talking about abusing the law or changing it to suit political aims, rather than the operation of a coherent body of law being impartially carried out. In a sense the damage to our judicial norms and the larger issue of the credibility of an international rules-based order is at stake, and we’re just not winning that battle lately. Too many bad actors.