stolen from *eddit

  • ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The executive power being vested in a single person is a much bigger issue on paper. Jackson already proved the Supreme Court is toothless even when it works as intended.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I think what they are saying is that SCOTUS could simply declare someone (like the current president) to be king if they wanted, because there is no legal check on their authority

      • searabbit@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Of course. But Jackson proved you don’t even need a corrupt Supreme Court. The executive branch led by one person can decide not to enforce their ruling. I think our impeachment mechanism for removing someone from power isn’t enough to prevent a dictatorship (or even fraud in the case of Santos and Fetterman). Outside of federal judges who have very little political capital, there’s been zero full impeachments + removals of federal officials. I’m not counting resignations before removal in that.