>Straw man. Power is always several amongst elites. The question is one of degree and checks. Xi’s China has no rule of law. In America, no person nor public servant is reliably above the law.

> Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court.

>>>>>>>>>>>>one person doesn't have total power means nothing
>>>>>>>>>>Straw man
>>>>>>>>>>no person or public servant is reliably above the law

First, I don't think you can call my argument a straw man then restate the argument I was arguing in the very same sentence.

Second, Xi Jinping can easily lose in a CCP court, he just has to go against the will of the party members of the CCP enough. Xi Jinping is below the Politburo as well as the National People's Congress. He simply is kindly advised not to act in ways that would lead to his removal, just as other Chinese presidents often had their hands tied. He is not reliably above the law.

Also, the Department of Justice in the US de facto affirmed that the US president is above federal law.

> Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court.

This absurd conflation. Xi <=!=> the US government. An apt comparison is to claim that the Chinese State never loses in court.

Now, to the core of the claim, the US State cannot lose in courts, because the US State is the courts.

More so, the US government can only ever, ever be sued with its agreement. Indeed, as Wikipedia puts it:

>In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

In conclusion, the U.S. government only ever loses to a non-state entity in court when it consents to, and even then liability is severely restrained.

This is, ironically, exactly the same standard as in China. The Chinese Basic Law forbids the state from legal liability unless it specifically agrees to it and states it's liability, which is stated under the Administative Litigation Law : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_in_China#Ad...

In practice, this means that you can sue the Chinese State, the CCP, Xi Jinping, or any other administrative body in China, and win, as long as the Chinese State agrees to the litigation. So, yes, Xi Jinping's government can, and does lose in Chinese courts (which technically are not affiliated with the CCP or any party, in theory). In fact, there have been many cases of such loses, which can be easily googled.

However, if the government ever loses, both in China and the US!, under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, they can simply change the law and absolve themselves of liability.

>Judges are not loyal to their parties. Almost every nominee has prominent cases where they rule against their party (e.g. Gorsuch on gay rights).

Cases of Federal judges ruling against their parties are few and far between, judges nominated by the same party vote together the vast majority of the time, especially Republican judges. As for the cases where they do, they almost always differ on points of heterogeneity in their party. Which you'd be surprised to hear, is also the case in China - there is massive heterogeneity within the party and judges sometimes go against the dominant position and are protected because are amongst a large faction.

In conclusion, there is still no real difference that can discerned.