I’m also confused on what you mean by “getting behind political prosecutions”.
Even excluding politics, forum shopping to get a favorable judge or potential jury pool is a very real thing in the legal field. There is no such thing as truly impartiality. Every person has inherant bias in one way or another they may or may not even be aware of.
I am sure that Trump has committed an untold number of crimes (civil and criminal) in his lifetime and many while he was president. For obvious reasons he was not investigated while he was president. Once he was no longer president some entities have belatedly begun investigations that could, potentially, lead to indictments. Calling that sequences of events Democrats pursuing “political prosecutions” is mind-boggling.
Thread keeps making me think of this, but maybe Wag the Dog is more apt.
Nobody’s saying take him out beyond the sheriff’s office and shoot him, or have a show trial and jail him. We’ve been calling for Democrats to follow the law and do the right thing for months/years, which is to prosecute him for obvious crimes and let a jury decide.
Someone should photoshop that book cover to put a gravestone with his name on it.
I’m not calling it that. I’m calling for Democrats to refrain from asking Democrats to prosecute a politician
There will always be judges and juries who lean left and right. You can’t take the human element completely out of law. All I’m taking issue with is this:
I’m not even sure what this means. Democrats aren’t supposed to prosecute. Or am I misinformed about that? Even the J6 select committee while formed under a Democratic house is supposed to be a non partisan investigation and they can’t prosecute. The DoJ does (another entity which is supposed to act in a non partisan manner)
Every single federal judge has been appointed by either a Democrat or a Republican president and confirmed by the Senate. It’s a highly partisan process especially lately. Federal prosecutors are headed up by political appointees.
Our judicial system is highly partisan whether you want it to be or not.
cant you just send em all to an s3 bucket or something like a cache
I get that. They’re going to appoint judges that align with their political ideology. But they’re supposed to use that ideology within the confines of the law. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been pleasantly shocked more than once when a conservative court or judge has ruled in a non partisan manner and followed legal precedent when I wasn’t expecting it to. Many of these Trump appointed judges ruling against would be examples. I don’t follow this stuff like some of you, but I thought it was only since Trump and this overturning Roe bullshit that a conservative court went completely rogue? This particular SCOTUS is clearly corrupt
Bush v Gore would be an appropriate topic of study for you.
I was 4 in 2000 lol. But it couldn’t hurt to read up on it
Merrick Garland’s DOJ is or isn’t supposed to prosecute?
Merrick Garland is a ___________?
Letitia James is or isn’t supposed to prosecute?
Letitia James is a __________?
Nah it’s been happening for a while. Shelby v Holder was a key one. There was John Roberts saying that the voters have a built-in solution to gerrymandering: vote harder.
Citizens United is another you could argue was a bullshit corporate-friendly ruling that has had dire consequences.
And then accept the judgment of the special prosecutor about whether the DoJ has a case. We saw in the Durham investigation that there is a big difference between what an echo chamber considers to be crimes and what a jury does.
I’m willing to make a good faith effort to try and educate you if you do the work of reading up on it and have questions.
Listen to the 5-4 podcast. Start at the beginning. They have cases that were terribly decided by judges who had no business being on the bench going back a hundred years. And that doesn’t even cover the worst of the worst, like Plessy and Dred Scott.