Trump gets gagged, McCarthy gets booted. What's next in Trumpworld?

I caught part of that! Found it too painful to watch much of right now. I think Rory Stewart made the direct comparison with the Orange Guy's bad behaviour (not his military or poetic skills, obviously...).

I am sure posters here will be interested in a timely? 3-part documentary about how "Caesar broke Rome".

Remember the Roman Republic lasted over 5 centuries and was designed to be immune to tyrants.

Will history books in 1,000 years time be writing "Remember, the American Republic lasted over 2 centuries and was designed to be immune to tyrants" ?

Now Julius Caesar was undoubtedly an amazingly over-talented man in so many ways that Trump isn't. Quite aside from Trumps lack of military respect (I think it's safe to say his soldiers don't love him) the idea that people will be learning English grammar from "The Art of the Deal" is a fantasy.

("All Gaul is divided in three parts")

However, the real tyrant - the real dictator - will let someone like Trump break the house, and then step into what's left and put their boot in your face.

I can easily see Trump being elected and martyred on the same day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0gjlmkv/julius-caesar-the-making-of-a-dictator

It's not illegal if the President government does it

Rwanda.

@lljkk this is what I posted in my next post 15/11/23 12.06

What we do have is laws made by a democratically elected Parliament, including laws about the constitutional role of the monarchy. How laws work in practice is addressed by the judiciary, which set precedents based on a careful reading of the wording of the law in relation to the specific matter in question, such as whether it is legal to deport people to Ruanda.

My understanding is that the UK or English or Scottish constitutions are written down, but in many different places.

Machiavelli tells us so ....

His trouble is simply that once you have given someone a lifetime appointment, there's not a lot of reason for them to continue to brown-nose you. There is nothing further that he can do for, and nothing he can do against, any of the justices he appointed, so why would they feel any need to do what he wants any more? Before the appointment, yes, promise him the world on a stick; after it, quite fail to recognise him on the golf course. Or more importantly, in court.

I hope Trump has sleepless nights from now on.

Good news on Santos, I wondered if that was going to happen. Jim Jordan kicking up. Course he is

RIP Justice O'Connor. She sounds quite a woman, she really does.

Yes - RIP Sandra Day O'Connor - reading her obituary shows just how far to the right the Supreme Court has moved. A conservative appointed by Ronald Regan but would be classed as centre left nowadays, I suspect.

From Washington Post:
She rejected the idea of eliminating the right to abortion, for example, in part because “an entire generation has come of age” relying on it. She co-wrote the principal opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), setting a new standard for judging abortion cases but reaffirming the core holding of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973.


Justice O’Connor’s successor, Samuel A. Alito Jr., would in 2022 excoriate her decision for having “enflamed debate and deepened division,” in his majority opinion wiping out abortion rights.


Reagan appointed Justice O’Connor as a conservative. But she would not qualify for the right flank on today’s court. She wrote an opinion justifying race-conscious admissions in law schools. She supported, for the most part, traditional boundaries between church and state. And while usually deferential to the prerogatives of the states, Justice O’Connor had little tolerance for state laws that trampled on equality.

In other news
US appeals court says Trump must face civil lawsuits over US Capitol attack.
Ruling clears way for Trump to face lawsuits from police and lawmakers seeking to hold him responsible for violence.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/01/trump-civil-lawsuits-jan-6?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Belated Happy Thanksgiving to those celebrating from me too

What we do have is laws made by a democratically elected Parliament, including laws about the constitutional role of the monarchy. How laws work in practice is addressed by the judiciary, which set precedents based on a careful reading of the wording of the law in relation to the specific matter in question, such as whether it is legal to deport people to Ruanda.

Your analysis is spot on. The MAGA cult already accept anything TFG says as the truth. Him lying in court will just reinforce the deceit - "Trump said this UNDER OATH so it is unquestionably TRUE"

You know, when you put it like that, it is ridiculous. It's a miracle we have such stable government really.

We don't have a written constitution in the UK&NI, do we?

From what I can see the SCOTUS 'code of ethics' is a bit of a joke. Especially since they're going to govern themselves AND they haven't specified exactly how violations would be dealt with. 'All sound and fury' as far as I can see. I think they only did this because the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Cmte were planning to draft one for them!

Just copy out the preamble to the UK constitution which starts "We can do whatever we like".

I wont' charge you for that. Consider it goodwill between tyrannies.

I'm amazed they finally got one; they've been saying wtte "we are totally incorruptible, so we don't need a code of ethics, and anyway nobody has the power to make us have one" for centuries, as far as I can make out.

(The less self-important courts got their code of ethics some time about fifty years ago.)

However, since there is no mechanism for enforcing it, it's really not that much more meaningful than the unwritten code they've operated under (or in some cases ignored) anyway.

I am to discover the Supreme Court has only just got a code of ethics!

It's reminiscent of a school playground yard. And not even a High School schoolyard.

Meanwhile, I've seen some excellent people on CNN who seem to be grown ups, many of them, I'm happy to say, women. And Biden and Blinken have done reasonably well over Hamas, considering the difficulties they have to face in pleasing the folk at home, not offending the Israeli gvt etc.

Which was why he rambled on to avoid answering directly

He couldn't have really used the 5th in a civil trial. Well, he could, but the judge is then allowed to infer the worst from it.