|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Give me the fed crim code and four weeks and I'll indict half of Washington. I agree with indicting what is nakedly criminal, but there are very few instances where a politician has done something that is nakedly criminal. There is always some pretext, some explanation, or some mix of politics and official business, that raises the question: "Are we criminalizing politics?"
Criminalizing politics is what strongmen do. It's the kind of shitty behavior Trump would engage in if he could. I think the wall between politicians and prosecutors should be wider than a football field, have a moat beyond it, and after that several electrified fences.
People running around claiming opponents should go to jail is the surest way I can imagine to turn this already delicate republic into a full on fucking joke. The very last thing we need is more lawyers running around accusing people of crimes.
But I fear Adder is correct. We're a nation governed, sadly, by too many lawyers, and they are hammers who only see nails. And our politics is now total war, so I think we're going to see a lot more criminalizing of politics in the future.
|
If there's a good criminal case against someone who was in office, the next government should bring it, even if it means they are indicting someone from the other political party. Part of what is delicate about this republic is the rule of law, and lawyers accusing people of crimes is only a problem if they're wrong.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|