"While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States." There is a difference. Theoretically (in the most extreme case), someone could be the Prez with 23% of the votes. That is not a democracy.
Lots of judges and courts have ruled against Trump and he hasn't listened to any of them yet - not sure why he would start now. Having watched Trump over the years, I would expect him to verbally fight this but then quickly cave and become the martyr. For the rest of his life tell everyone about his "perfect amazing tariff plan that no one had ever seen anything like it" that was shut down by the horrible libtards and prevented us from wiping out the entire deficit during his second term. It's the perfect out for him.
he has a very short lifespan after office, few years rather than decades. he will soon be a footnote.
perhaps the right wing ideology doesn’t really fit the modern time, i fault his legal scholars failed to come up with a sound and reasonable governing structure. potus has a lot of powers to rule, but edicts are not part of the traditions.
I understand the subtlety but it is accurately a democracy, a government elected by the population as opposed to a dictatorship of the right or the left in which the ruler, if elected at all, is done within a party of elected or unelected representatives, like China. Of course the distinction can easily be blurred when an elected leader gets to power via electoral manipulation, as in Russia or Venezuela or perhaps even Hungary and Turkey. That the US operates within a constitution or a federation of states doesn't affect that it's a democracy. Your point of contention is that president who are elected with fewer than 50% of the electorate shouldn't be called a democracy. Sadly though, as long as the population is free to vote, not voting is also acceptable in the US (Australia requires voting or levies a fine). The one element of the US election process that is a remnant of predemocratic systems is the US electoral process which doesn't assign one vote for one person, instead assigning electoral voters in an intricate and convoluted process held even at the county level. Historically this was to ensure money and politics could retain power regardless of the popular vote and was then rebranded as ensuring that smaller state voices weren't drowned out by the larger states. In effect, a voter in Nebraska is the equivalent of 5 California voters. In some democracies, that alone would trigger head cutting revolutions.
The US Supreme Court will have final say. All they are doing is wasting US tax dollars filing all these lawsuits. Democrats don't care. They got nothing to offer average Americans.
If Trump didn't keep trying to do illegal things, then there wouldn't be so many lawsuits. How many lawsuits did Trump file in 2020? and how much money did his "Stop the Steal" cost taxpayers in recounts when he knew he had lost the election? And let's not talk about the amount he charged Taxpayers for those golf trips and for Secret Service to stay at his hotels.
indeed, but the high court rarely overturns any lower court decision on the spot, at best they send back the question to lower court for further arguments. those high court just are “unelected”, white house slapped their faces too yesterday.