@BostonGlobe
I'd rather #Biden use his new immunity superpower to demand the DOJ appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the SCOTUS for conflicts of interest, incl but not limited to illegal corruption. Report to be published ahead of the election, or at least by year's end.
#SCOTUS is a dangerous swamp and the public needs all the facts. Impeachment proceedings can start in Jan under a #BlueTrifecta
@TCatInReality Biden doesn't need immunity or demands to do that.
The DOJ works for him. Biden already has the authority to conduct such an investigation.
Always has had.
@volkris @BostonGlobe
True, it's only a norm that the DOJ is independent.
I meant to highlight that the SCOTUS explicitly said such POTUS/DOJ discussions are allowed. #Biden should be explicit that is why he's breaking the norm - and only in an effort to increase transparency in the body producing such insane outcomes.
@TCatInReality
I'd go from the other direction: we should demand that Biden do his job, and hold him accountable for failing to do it, and use this as a great opportunity to show the public how dumb that norm is in the first place.
I'd approach it as ending the practice of allowing presidents to shirk accountability by hiding behind that norm.
@volkris @BostonGlobe
I happen to like the norm.
@TCatInReality Why?
What good comes from a norm that allows a powerful person to escape accountability?
Why is DOJ independence a good thing? Well, it's not binary but let's simplify and say the two ends of the spectrum are:
A) complete independence where accountability relies on good governance by the DOJ alone or
B) no independence where DOJ only acts at the direction of the POTUS
Then I see *far* more danger for lack of accountability and outright abuse under B. Just look what Trump was able to do. A more competent bad POTUS could imprison anyone.
1/2
@volkris @BostonGlobe
No, the obvious response is that the American public simply holds the POTUS to account and can replace them.
But that takes four years, during which time a bad POTUS can do untold damage. And of course, the Electoral College shows how hard it is for the majority to win the POTUS with several popular vote losers taking the WH.
So, IMO, it's always better to limit POTUS power and invest in good institutional governance
2/2
@TCatInReality no, it doesn't take four years.
If a president is screwing up then he can be impeached within a day. IF we elect representatives willing to do the job.
So it all comes back to focusing on electing better representatives and kicking out the reps who are screwing it up.
In the US system they're there to represent the people.
@volkris @BostonGlobe
So IF we elect good reps and IF they vote to impeach and IF thr new POTUS makes changes at DOJ, THEN the DOJ would be more professional?
Yeah, I just don't see how that is better than DOJ independence and non-interefence by the politicians.
Since your argument is based on so many layers of improbability, I have no interest in discussing this further with you. Have a nice day.
IF we elect good reps they will impeach presidents who botch the DOJ. That's part of being a good rep.
It's a single layer.
Alternatively we have an independent law enforcement organization untethered from that oversight system, cops unsupervised, which is pretty dangerous.
But we get the government we vote for, largely by electing good reps and declining to reempower bad ones.
