Most of their decisions are around laws that can be rewritten to correct whatever negative outcome was seen in the court. This meets your simple majority and presidential signature standard.
For claims of constitutionality there is still a check via amending the constitution… Which is not far from your proposal of 2/3 of Congress. You just also have to clear 3/4 of the states.
I think the problem is the idiots that are supposed to be the check are fully supporting what the courts are doing–and the idiots don’t actually represent the interests or will of the people.
But the brands value is in the personality. Killing info wars only creates an opportunity for him to create Schminfo Schwarz with little hiccup. Buying sets and whatnot with business partners is trivial. People make podcasts in their closets at home.
It doesn’t count. You need to wage war or aid/comfort the states enemies.
If they can prove he did something with the documents, eg sold Intel to Iran, for example, there’s likely a case. Saudi it gets complicated since the US doesn’t call them an enemy.
Either way, nothing in the case comes close to justifying a treason charge, though he clearly was acting against the best interests of the country.
I don’t think that’s fundamentally disqualifying. What’s the proposal on who could reasonably try this case? Are appointees by political opponents okay? Only appointees pre Clinton?
The bigger problem, regardless of who is on trial, is she was never supposed to be on the bench.
Thanks, and your math makes sense, but I think this is a misinterpretation by op. It’s fair to say that as a percentage of expenditure… But not tax dollars.
Social security gets complicated because it’s set up as a trust fund and has investments that grow to support disbursement rates. It also means that the expenditures should be carved out, same as the inbound tax. This should shift the calculations meaningfully.