Neither scotus nor the federal courts can bring charges, only oversee trials for said charges, or in the case of scotus, determine whether laws are constitutional and were followed during trial.*
Therefore the executive, as has always been it's role would have to bring charges.
- Obviously courts can bring contempt charges, but only during and after a trial.
If you think you have to let murderers free because of democracy, you don't support democracy, you support murder.
An investigation ending in a jury trial is not, by any standard, despotic nor authoritarian.
However refusing to bring charges against someone in your same political class because they ran against you or might do so in the future absolutely is authoritarian and is the sign of an oligarchy wherein those with enough money are free from consequences.
You stated a falsehood, outright misinformation. I am attempting to let you understand why your incredibly short sided point of view is wrong.
In your world, with the words you have stated, all presidential candidates are immune to prosecution. That's obviously incorrect, therefore you entire basis of objections is wrong.
So in order to commit any crime, including murder, which Trump can be charged with as he committed a felony where individuals died, you just need to run for office.
Weird, I've heard this line of reasoning on fox news before.
Advocating for suspected criminals to face charges and go to trial in a timely manner is authoritarian.
Well that's just absolutely ridiculous. I sincerely hope you understand this is why Trump won and why the US won't exist by the end of the decade. Please don't fuck up something so simple in your next country.
They actually can, it's called doing their job and charging the individual with high crimes against the US that they've committed. There's no difference between a presidential candidate and a citizen.
Except it wouldn't be, since he was not a political opponent after jan 6th. He also absolutely had a role, the idea the head of the executive branch doesn't control the doj is and always has been an open lie. The existence of pot shops in legal states is the most obvious proof of that.
They try to be anarchists but they're mostly from western countries so they have permanent programming they refuse to shake off (i.e. calling anyone that doesn't think eurocentric anarchism is the only real left wing ideology a tankie.). Compared to .world's Hillary Clinton though they're like Marx.
Biden decided a longer than 4 year investigation without charges was the move. If smith filed charges on some, but not all the crimes Trump committed, courts would have had something to go off of to bar him from running.
It has them there tankie writing on the meme, I don't think blahaj will appreciate it.
Since we're not in a .world comm, there were just a lot of fucking Nazis. The US has always been significantly further right wing than it's contemporary nations, at least since the 1800s, but since the 1920s it basically accelerated to light speed. Every minor progressive victory was a half century or more after other countries, and immediately hated by more than half the country; hence why so many rights in the US are tenuous scotus decisions and not laws.
The rest of the world after the 1950s has viewed you guys as the next Nazis. Hell even in WW2 you were only the good guys by comparison, and even then the Soviets were the protagonists of that era with all their flaws.
Only very recently and only in aesthetics has the US really made any strides, and because you chose aesthetics over legislation that progress was easy to destroy. You had a far right wing black president people called progressive because of the color of his skin, you 'legalized' gay marriage without legislation, you had all other companies doing rainbow capitalism to show how open and progressive your society was, despite having the highest wealth inequality in the world – and that's no easy feat, North Korea exists.
The fall of the US to fascism was inevitable, because both the ruling class and the majority populous has always fully supported fascism, they just hate the aesthetics.
Anarchists tend to be smart enough to not use the word tankie.
There are exceptions of course.
Nope, this discussion is over since I hit your censor and have violated us law on misinformation.
Right, so if I get a copy of your birth certificate, walk in front of your house after saying you shouldn't exist, and burn your birth certificate you're completely okay and wouldn't think it's a threat against you, right?
If I say 'i hate (insert your race)', and get material that is commonly associated with your local race and culture, and set it on fire in your front yard, you have no problems, right?
So the KKK did nothing wrong, according to your logic.
I'm not saying you really believe that, only a literal bigot would, but that's what you're arguing in order to justify your anti Muslim or anti religious hatred.
I didn't mention Trump, though liberals did elect Trump. Conservative liberalism is still liberalism; Americans shortened it because, well, they can't really handle big words.
As far as the civil rights act that was a median 40 years after the rest of the world... Who cares? Congrats you eventually, after nearly all other western countries did so, adopted a half hearted version of equality that has, 60 years later, failed to make the demographics included equal. Such a big accomplishment. Almost as if you did the bare minimum, reluctantly, and didn't fight the immediate erosion of it.
And you're right, the liberals of the 1930s were more progressive than the liberals of the 2020s in the US... Weimar liberals didn't think twice about providing low cost healthcare, trans gender care, or support for gay marriage and relationships. American liberals (at least the elected officials) didn't support gay marriage until 2014.
Are you? Did you skip history class? Did you just not get taught how Hitler was appointed and why liberals felt he was the moderate choice that more closely aligned with them than the actual left wing people they were using state power to suppress?