[taylodl]

The judicial branch can't prosecute, that's what the executive branch does, and it's the executive branch that's doing these things. The legislative branch has the power to keep the executive branch in check, but they're not exercising that power - which I'm saying is bordering on criminal. Obviously, the executive branch is unlikely to prosecute the legislative branch for not taking action against the executive branch. Our constitution has the implicit assumption that all three branches wouldn't be in cahoots with one another, and should they be, the electorate was expected to have enough sense to vote out the legislators and replace them with ones that would keep the executive in check. The million dollar question is how much pain and destruction will be endured until that happens?

[WOTERMEON]

4 years of it, if I remember correctly

[taylodl]

Two years - Congress is replaced every two years. 1/3 of the Senate is replaced every two years. Given that they've only been in office for two weeks, two years seems like a long way off.

[pseudalopex]

House not Congress. Elected not replaced. It is unlikely enough senators will be replaced in 2026.

[lazyasciiart]

Arrests don’t need prosecutors involved unless they need a warrant.

[tsimionescu]

Arrests need warrants. And if you're thinking about the police, that's also part of the executive, mostly. Judges can't do anything unless some other branch of the government asks them to.

[dragonwriter]

> Arrests need warrants.

Arrests need probable cause. They can either be done on a warrant or without a warrant (in the latter case, in the federal system, a complaint must be filed and the arrested person must be brought before a magistrate for a hearing on probable cause within 72 hours after arrest.)

[lazyasciiart]

Not even a little bit, do you think a judge gets involved before someone is arrested for a DUI? Or trespassing, simple assault, shoplifting, etc?