On the Supreme Court, justices go to great lengths to tout American democracy for the nation — while avoiding its trappings in their own work.

They do not organize themselves by party.

They do not negotiate with each other over rulings.

They do not endorse political views..
.. Justices say they follow the Constitution’s edict, that only by *avoiding politics* can the judiciary be an effective *referee for democracy.*
SCOTUS passed one partisan test:

Whether to take cases questioning the election, as demanded by a President who gave three of the justices their lifetime jobs.

The court rejected *even hearing* any of those suits, because Trump's lies had no merit.

The judicial approach that protected democracy in 2020 may *not* be enough in the future, however, when attacks on valid outcomes may require more than that 'hands off' approach in 2020 -- when the ballots simply needed to be counted, and sometimes recounted.
The next tests may be harder, for Justices who swear an oath to confront U.S. enemies both "foreign and domestic."

That's key because some of democracy’s greatest opponents are *fellow citizens* who want to overthrow its results when they lose.


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Ari Melber

Ari Melber Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AriMelber

29 Jun
More signs point to imminent charges in the Trump Org case...

Prosecutors "are likely to issue one or more criminal indictments this week.”

That is close to what Trump's own lawyer said -- this week or next.

And while prosecutors can give targets the chance to "make a case" against charges, it rarely, rarely reverses planned charges.
Corporations are *not* people -- but they *can* be indicted....

Read 7 tweets
25 Jun
NYT: The NY D.A. has now directly told Trump's lawyers the D.A. may indict the entire Trump Organization.

We have been reporting on how the D.A. may use his legal authority to "try to indict the Trump Organization" itself -- like in this June 2 report on Trump's exposure:

The former deputy to D.A. Vance wrote the guidance for when to indict an entire company, last week we broke down those legal factors for whether to indict Trump Org:

Read 5 tweets
20 Apr
Legally, today marks an extremely rare occurrence in America -- a police officer convicted of murder on the job.

Even in 2021, many do not realize *how* rare...
From 2005 to 2015, across thousands of police killings, the number of police officers convicted of murder for shooting a person was...

The fact is U.S. police are almost never convicted of murder on the job.

Data on murder convictions for police shootings by Prof. & former officer @philstinson:
Read 7 tweets
7 Apr
Would you say people commonly use social media in "meta" ways, or not really?
like a tweet about tweeting is meta (and regrettable, sorry)
do not retweet this.
Read 4 tweets
17 Mar
Many defendants are jailed before trial, but Jan. 6 rioters are *free* after indictments for:

R. Sanford, attacking police

C. Connell, attacking police

C. Alberts, *loaded* gun at Capitol

D. Blair, attacking police with a stick flying a Confederate flag

-- @SeemaAhmad40
Many capitol rioters indicted for violence "have been released -- while the Black and brown clients I represent" are *almost always jailed* before trial.

- Federal public defender @SeemaAhmad40:

Bail release can change an entire case, but it's not routine.

So consider the wide-eyed disbelief of seeing "so many Capitol rioters receiving bail release in cases involving *violence.*"

nbcnews.com/think/opinion/… @NBCNewsTHINK @SeemaAhmad40
Read 7 tweets
13 Feb
After winning a key vote to call witnesses, Democrats back down and decide to call no witnesses at Trump's impeachment trial.
In two impeachment trials of Donald Trump, Democrats widely insisted witnesses were key to a full and fair trial.

At the first trial, Republicans stopped any witnesses.

At the second trial, Democrats stopped any witnesses.
It's an unforced error to win a vote to add witnesses and then back down

It's contradictory, and for trial advocacy, it draws attention to the conflict between arguing this is 'crucial for the Republic,' but also this 'Must be rushed because senators made up their mind anyway.'
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!