truongpx396Apr 27, 2023
Robert Reich
RT @HeerJeet
What do "checks and balances" mean if one or more branches of government place themselves outside investigation? https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1651001749765775360
Justin Elliott on Twitter

“Chief Justice Roberts declines to testify before Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics in letter to @SenatorDurbin https://t.co/epTZGO7cnT”

Twitter
Apr 26, 2023 at 3:29pmWeb
Show threadMad Dog Ace RunApr 26, 2023
@rbreich
I truly beleive that our system of "checks and balances" is totally inadequate and pretty much a farce. After all the Supreme Court is not independent at all and is merely part of a political party at this point in time.
Show threadshanenApr 26, 2023

@rbreich

I was going to boost it until I saw it pointed at Twitter. I'm not giving Elon any free publicity. If Twitter shut down yesterday it wouldn't be soon enough for me.

Show threadArt Saves Us AllApr 26, 2023

@rbreich

Null and Void

Show threadBruceApr 26, 2023

@rbreich

ObviousMan answer:

It means that rules are for thee and not me.

Checks and balances require teeth. The Constitution has no teeth because the founders assumed that the SCOTUS justices would follow the laws and that, if they did not, then they would be impeached. We've proven that impeachment is impractical with the Republicans-can-do-no-wrong Republicans (which is all of them).

Show threadCDunnApr 26, 2023
@rbreich the problem here is that congress should be defending their authority & powers by appointing judges who respect the balance of powers and the constitution. But when one party no longer respects the processes that the constitution dictates, then everything collapses into corruption