Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bb88 450 days ago
Why would the FBI investigate anyone who would be pardoned by the president anyway?
1 comments

Don't worry, Courts are going away also...

"Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges" - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-mike-johns...

And Law Firms..

"Donald Trump widens war on legal industry with order targeting Jenner & Block" - https://www.ft.com/content/4f1aca93-62b5-419f-9182-a3a10bbe7...

"Legal community shaken by a powerful law firm's decision to give in to Trump's demands" - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/legal-...

"Trump’s crackdown on top law firms spreads to Congress" - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/24/retribution-big-law...

"The person predicted the impact could extend beyond Congress: “If you’re Google or Meta or Apple – you’re thinking, ‘Do I really want to use these firms?’ That could make it harder to work with the White House...."

Yes and the legislature after that.

These are all smart people, so it boggles the mind to wonder how they can install a totalitarian regime without knowing the next two steps in the playbook.

Jefferson might have been called a totalitarian had the word existed when he signed the judiciary act of 1802, which removed judges added by federalists.

I have learned about it this week.

https://gingrich360.com/2025/03/18/an-intolerable-judicial-d...

Well Jefferson certainly wasn't ever wrong about anything. He certainly wouldn't have held any beliefs contrary to 20th or 21st century values. /s

Obviously the dude had a lot of good ideas, but just grabbing anything he said and acting like it's gospel is flawed for dare I say a pretty glaring reason...

I'm not saying that Jefferson's words were elevated beyond his peers.

His flaws certainly belie such an assertion.

I'm saying that what Jefferson did was to remove problematic judges.

Congress had, has, and will have the power to reshape the federal judiciary as they choose. They can erase all courts below the supreme, and they can add or remove justices to the highest court as they choose (excepting present members, which are lifetime). Thus the saying "pack the court."

To challenge an executive that has friends in congress is a dangerous proposition for a federal judge.

It could end badly.

> To challenge [the legality of an action by] an executive that has friends in congress is a dangerous proposition for a federal judge. > It could end badly.

This implies that the courts cannot be an effective check and balance on the other branches. Aren't they meant to be?

Relevant quote here:

    Jefferson wrote that making judges the ultimate deciders of law would “place 
    us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Seriously that's cognitive dissonance 101. "Elon Musk can't be an oligarch. He's a great Americ... I mean South African".

I also hesitate why anyone would want a 360 degree view of Newt Gingrich. In real life or otherwise. /s

Gengrich is an interesting subject of study precisely because he worked so well with Clinton that the roaring '90s happened.

Clinton fared poorly under Democratic control of the house in his first two years, which was lost in the midterms.

Clinton prospered with Gengrich, and the .com era occurred under their aegis.

Some bad decisions were made by them, no doubt.

Having been an adult in the 90s that is historical revisionism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/newt-gi...