Donald Trump’s bruising return to the White House has sent many longtime foreign allies scrambling to get their distance, and according to a new piece from The Atlantic, that distance will last long after Trump is gone.
Trump’s second term as president has been marked by notable and widespread disrespect toward nations once seen as close U.S. allies. Between his attempts to level massive tariffs against nearly every nation in the world and his frequent breaches of diplomatic norms, Trump has created a hostile global environment in which allies no longer feel safe trusting in the stability of the U.S.
In a new piece for The Atlantic on Tuesday, staff writer Vivian Salama argued that this new dynamic, in which the nations of the world are working to establish a safe distance from the U.S., is bound to become the new normal for years to come, even after Trump leaves office and is potentially replaced by a more traditional, dependable administration.
That does not logically follow. The Supreme Court is a panel for a reason, the check succeeded. Again you don’t seem to know what the checks and balances are.
Not in the slightest. Not sure how you came to this conclusion.
You’re just kind of babbling incoherently at this point. It’s getting harder and harder to keep track of the mental gymnastics you’re doing. You’re replying like an AI chat bot that’s filled it’s context window.
The checks that are supposed to prevent compromised judges from sitting in the Supreme Court have failed. This we have agreed.
The panel voted 6-3 to reverse a federal constitutional right. The panel check failed.
If my simple reasoning is getting to much for you then maybe you should take a break.
We have not agreed. The system does not rely on or promise in the absolute certainty that every Supreme Court justice can be ensured to be impartial. Thats why the Supreme Court is a panel, and mechanisms exist to remove judges. In order for the panel to fail, a majority of Supreme Court justices must be compromised. The fact that there are two problematic members on the panel is within what the panel size was designed to mitigate.
No they did not do that. Abortion access has never at any time been an explicit right in the United States constitution. What the panel did was reverse an earlier decision that a constitutional right to something else entirely merely allowed abortion access as a consequence. The panel check did not fail because the panel did only what was within its power to do. If we want abortion access to be a constitutional right, we have to actually put it in our constitution. Roe v Wade was never more than a bandaid without a permanent solution. We absolutely should enshrine abortion access into our constitution, but before you condemn us for not having yet done so, you should know that the EU does not have a law allowing it in all member states either. In fact two EU member states have restrictions similar to the US.
What you’re doing isn’t reasoning. You’re just misunderstanding the facts on a fundamental level and then drawing unreasonable conclusions from a pool of ignorance.
But there are supposed to be checks to ensure impartiality. These have obviously failed.
The fact that there exists a second layer of checks doesn’t mean the first can be ignored
The U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual’s right to privacy, which includes the right to decide whether to have an abortion.
Pure projection.
Like what? Which checks are those specifically? We can’t violate checks that exist only in your head.
Incorrect, having multiple avenues of remediation is the entire point of the system. Thats why they’re referred to as “Checks and balances”, it’s implicit in the name that the system balances faults with remediations. The existence of faults is an assumption of inevitability, not a promise that they can’t and won’t exist. This is a great example of your inability to reason.
It does not. It protects an individual’s right to privacy, it doesn’t say anything about abortion. Saying it applies to abortion was an interpretation made by the Supreme Court, and thus can be reinterpreted by the Supreme Court. Thats the basis of how our legal system was designed. The legislative branch is the body of government that must actually enshrine the right to abortion access into the constitution.
Let’s take a look at Justice Clarence Thomas. Conservative billionaires have treated Thomas to “at least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”
He should be impeached, but that check has failed.
You have an inability to accept that some checks have already failed
Judges who were not under the pay of Conservative billionaires disagree with you.
They do not disagree with me. You can just go and read the fourteenth amendment. It’s not like a lost document. It says nothing about abortion. Roe V Wade was a net positive for us as a society, but it was never a solution.
It hasn’t. He’s still open to impeachment.
You have an inability to prove any have
It says nothing about personal computers but privacy still applies.
He is still a judge. Check has failed.
No it doesn’t. The protections for personal computers comes from the fourth amendment. The fourteenth amendment just acts as a bridge to the fourth for the states. Likewise if we actually add an amendment to the constitution protecting abortion access, the fourteenth would apply it to the states. But the fourteenth doesn’t either on its own. You continue to prove you don’t understand any of the things you’re talking about.
Can’t have. He can still be impeached, and there is an interest among opposition government. The check still exists.