>

The SC is not on the precipice of being ignored, and I don’t think anyone would want that kind of precedent set anyway. Just look at a country like Israel where the SC said Netanyahu should be tried for corruption and they were ignored. Luckily there seems to be somewhat of a balance returning there as Netanyahu did comply with a SC ruling that he must fire a minister who was ordered by a judge, after a criminal conviction, to stay out of politics.
What our SC is  just a few more vastly unpopular opinions away from, imo, is the expansion of the court being taken seriously and something people campaign on instead of leaving as a maybe.
To your first point the SC has already dipped their toe in the water of forcing Conservative Christianity on our country and with little regard for civil procedure or precedent. I’m referring to the high school assistant football coach who was suspended after he refused to comply with his HC telling him not to hold prayer on the field as it was becoming a distraction and brought a state politician with him on to the field to do it. His case he brought to the courts was that he was fired and so it was thrown out at the lower levels for not stating a proper cause of action but the SC took it up when given the option anyway (even though it goes against the most basic rules of civil procedure) and then when they put out their legislation from the bench the assistant coach didn’t even follow through with what he was awarded (the court forced the school system to reinstate him) and is instead making a killing on the conservative speaking tour circuit.
When? In 2078? >

The day after he dies... "we were going to indict him tomorrow, I guess we'll just have to move on now". -Garland >

thats 100% the plan, people need to start to realize trump won, and he will die an old, rich, free man. >

You guys need to have some optimism. We are seeing convictions for sedition, depositions from high officials etc. It's moving up the ladder and will get to trump. This is the first time they are attempting to prosecute someone who had the most powerful position in the free world. It is going to take time, but I believe justice will be served. >

It’s been 2 fucking years and we’re almost in the next election cycle. They waited too goddam long. >

Too many moving parts.  One way or another it will happen, my only question is 'what happens if they convict him.'  This could be an issue, hopefully not. >

what makes you so sure? Honest question. >

I'm not sure if they will.  I asked, 'what happens IF they convict him.'  My guess is that they DQ him from running first, which in my view, is a victory for the country.  After that I don't know, I'm in the camp that there might be violence if you throw him in jail so perhaps telling him you can't play in 'the system' anymore pretty much ends him and keeps the peace, hopefully... >

There might be violence if you don't throw him in jail too. Not by people angry he's not in jail. By people emboldened by Trump getting away with it. >

Trump could be charged for so many things.  Sedition.  Tax fraud.  Racketeering.  Etc.  Seems like they are always asking if they should charge him.  I'm sure a significant majority of Americans are screaming CHARGE HIM.  Yet all we get is whiny questions about whether he could be charged.  Spineless prosecutors. >

He’ll probably never be charged, especially in a red state. Outside of how much money he spends on fighting stuff in court, he has supporters who will do crazy things for him and if the executive or legislative branch of your state gov won’t have your back (it’d probably be political suicide) then you could be in significant danger. 
Even at the federal level, there would be numerous nut jobs trying to kill you if you really went after Trump. If you don’t have an ironclad case (few are) that you could get threw quickly (also not going to happen because trumps legal tactic is delay, delay, delay. A normal popular legal tactic among the rich that attempts to make it impossible for the opposing party to afford seeing the case through) then why risk it? >

I don't disagree with a thing you said.  But my commitment here is such that I'd rather see this country in deep unrest over the trial and conviction of Trump than exist in a country that is content with the minority rule of radicals.  Just me I suppose.... >

No that’s a perfectly reasonable thought, I’m just of the opinion that there’s an inherent risk that said unrest won’t stop until there isn’t a country left or worse. People are quick to say ‘it can’t happen here’ and as soon as it does they think we’ve hit the low point, but I guarantee you we can and will go lower given the proper conditions. For people who want trump jailed, I think the best bet is to see how these upcoming 2024 primaries play out. If DeSantos wins (not a fan of him either, talk about virtue signaling) it will deteriorate Trumps base significantly, imo, and at that point even fellow republicans will be open to punishing trump for his misdeeds.
It’ll be akin to how basically everyone has turned on George W Bush at this point. >


I’m just of the opinion that there’s an inherent risk that said unrest won’t stop until there isn’t a country left or worse.

I still would rather exist in that country than the one where 33% of this country continuously rules the other 66%.  That's gonna lead to massive unrest by itself.  Why let it fester till it explodes?  Arrest, try, and convict Trump.  Let the chips of freedom fall where they may...... >

Well unless the SC is expanded that 33% will have de facto rule over the country for a looooong time given the age and makeup of the court, who have already shown a proclivity to legislate from the bench, facts of the case be damned. >

True.  The SC can try to judge the country into a Christian Conservative government.  Perhaps even a Theocracy.  Don't think the country will allow that though.  SC is already on the precipice of being ignored due to their removal of Roe.  One or two more decisions like that will make them nearly impotent.