It's not just the election. Essentially every political issue is now decided not by the people's elected representatives but by unelected judges. And we accept this as normal. How long can you still claim to have a republic when your judges (instead of the people) get the final say on political issues?
We have the tools to reign this in. The words of Andrew Jackson ring loudly: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it." That no politician will embrace this attitude (not even Trump thus far) implies that rule-by-black-robe is beneficial to the ruling class across the board.
The radical left brazenly violates the constitution, and the more they violate the inalienable, the more the justices have to get involved. It's a symptom of the times.
See Eric Holder's 'Collateral Consequences Memo,' a.k.a. the 'Too big to prosecute' doctrine, which still the official policy of the DOJ, which explicitly states that certain individuals, even if they have clearly broken the law, cannot be prosecuted if the putative consequences are deemed to be too harmful.
It would be very interesting to learn the names of those persons whose crimes were not pursued on the basis of this doctrine. It is clear that thousands of individuals and institutions instrumental in the financial catastrophe of 2008 were not prosecuted for fraud on the basis of this doctrine
This adds to the evidence. Only one name is necessary: Eric Holder, and his now official document. If it applies to a part of the Executive branch without the full power of the branch vested in it, it applies to POTUS.
It's not just the election. Essentially every political issue is now decided not by the people's elected representatives but by unelected judges. And we accept this as normal. How long can you still claim to have a republic when your judges (instead of the people) get the final say on political issues?
We have the tools to reign this in. The words of Andrew Jackson ring loudly: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it." That no politician will embrace this attitude (not even Trump thus far) implies that rule-by-black-robe is beneficial to the ruling class across the board.
You don't have to vote democrat, Alan.
For goodness sakes, you vote for that radical left party every four years, then you rail against radical left judges and policies.
If you are going to call yourself a civil libertarian, then vote for a libertarian. Or vote for an independent like Robert F. Kennedy jr.
It's like eating a cake, telling everyone how awful it is, then eating the cake again.
It doesn't make any sense.
No one has to vote for any particular party.
The radical left brazenly violates the constitution, and the more they violate the inalienable, the more the justices have to get involved. It's a symptom of the times.
"No one is above the law?"
See Eric Holder's 'Collateral Consequences Memo,' a.k.a. the 'Too big to prosecute' doctrine, which still the official policy of the DOJ, which explicitly states that certain individuals, even if they have clearly broken the law, cannot be prosecuted if the putative consequences are deemed to be too harmful.
It would be very interesting to learn the names of those persons whose crimes were not pursued on the basis of this doctrine. It is clear that thousands of individuals and institutions instrumental in the financial catastrophe of 2008 were not prosecuted for fraud on the basis of this doctrine
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2010/04/11/charging-corps.PDF
For a cogent explanation see Prof. Sharon E. Foster's paper 'Too Big To Prosecute: Collateral Consequences, Systemic Institutions and the Rule of Law.
https://www.bu.edu/rbfl/files/2015/07/Foster.pdf
This adds to the evidence. Only one name is necessary: Eric Holder, and his now official document. If it applies to a part of the Executive branch without the full power of the branch vested in it, it applies to POTUS.