←back to thread

99 points mitchbob | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
yannyu ◴[] No.45252221[source]
In addition to everything that is terrifying about Kilmar Ábrego García's case, we have the VP and President of this country making clearly biased remarks on an active criminal case against a resident of the United States who is married to a US citizen. Is there a more clear case of violation of due process and civil rights?
replies(2): >>45252596 #>>45254008 #
nickff ◴[] No.45252596[source]
>" the VP and President of this country making clearly biased remarks on an active criminal case against a resident of the United States"

I am sorry to break it to you, but this happens all the time, and is not a violation of due process. You can find examples of many Presidents declaring opinions on the guilt or innocence of a variety of people before their trials. [1] It makes sense that this is allowed, as the Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch, so all prosecutions are done with the tacit or explicit approval of the President. It would be more problematic if the judges in the case expressed views on guilt or innocence before hearing the case.

[1] https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/04/25/obama-decla...

replies(4): >>45252651 #>>45252666 #>>45252667 #>>45252763 #
throwway120385 ◴[] No.45252651[source]
Just because something is common, we shouldn't accept it if we believe it to be wrong. Slavery was once widely tolerated, as was marital rape. But people in those days decided that these things were wrong and should not be tolerated. Had they listened to arguments like yours we would still be living in those conditions.

There's also an argument to be made for holding our political officers to a much higher standard than the general populace.

replies(3): >>45252688 #>>45252693 #>>45252751 #
mothballed ◴[] No.45252688[source]
That sounds nice, but US is mostly a democracy, and to the extent it is a constitutional republic those principles only hold to the extent people are willing to acknowledge them and assent to be ruled under them.
replies(1): >>45252703 #
throwway120385 ◴[] No.45252703{3}[source]
So you're saying we shouldn't ask people to acknowledge them and to be ruled under them? If you keep arguing on those grounds then we're going to be saying "that's nice but we live in the real world" all the way to a failed state.
replies(1): >>45252754 #
1. mothballed ◴[] No.45252754{4}[source]
People are not acknowledging and ruled under the constitution as written and intended and the amendments thereafter, for a very long time.

For one very obvious example, observe that it is illegal to notice an opium poppy is growing in a forest, then take and smoke it, and somehow that magically being interstate commerce.

At this point the government as we know it would totally collapse were it not the people willfully and deliberately violate the tenants of the constitutional republic we live under. And most of them, seem to agree with that.