this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
320 points (98.5% liked)

News

22890 readers
3770 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday declined an invitation to meet with Democratic senators to talk about Supreme Court ethics and the controversy over flags that flew outside homes owned by Justice Samuel Alito.

Roberts’ response came in a letter to the senators a day after Alito separately wrote them and House members to reject their demands that he recuse himself from major Supreme Court cases involving former President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 rioters because of the flags, which are like those carried by rioters at the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a member of the Judiciary panel, had written Roberts a week ago to ask for the meeting and that Roberts take steps to ensure that Alito recuses himself from any cases before the court concerning the Jan. 6 attack or the Republican former president’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'll say it again: since the SCOTUS intends to slow-walk a decision on presidential 'absolute immunity', Biden needs to announce RIGHT NOW that he's dissolving the SCOTUS effective 2 weeks from the time of the announcement, at midnight, intending to appoint an all-new roster of his choosing, as well as replacing all state-level judges, also of his administration's choosing.

If the SCOTUS, on the other hand, suddenly finds they do have the time to make a decision on presidential immunity before that deadline, well maybe Biden won't do it, after all.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

While the president can't dissolve the court, according to the majority, the president can order them assassinated and be covered by presidential immunity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Exactly. Maybe I didn't propose the "right" action -- the entire point is that if the SCOTUS won't rule a president does not have absolute immunity, and is subject to the law of the land, then really ANYTHING is possible isn't it?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

There hasn't been an opinion dropped on Trump V. US yet. The arguments were only just over a month ago.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamentals of US governance. The President can't dissolve SCOTUS. He hasn't been granted that power.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

But Trump is currently asserting in court that he does have that power! Absolute immunity remember? Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS? He has absolute immunity, remember? That means he has absolute power to do anything!

What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now. Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS?

Just your average joe who is able to read a few paragraphs. The federal government doesn't have any power not explicitly granted to them.

What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now.

It not a bluff it's an important case. They should write an actually well founded opinion that doesn't set up terrible case law for future generations.

Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

You're operating under the presuppositions that it does have absolute immunity and I don't believe he does. As I said, the case hasn't had an opinion. And I didn't mention it previously but the state judge thing you'd mentioned earlier is also not in the power of the president.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

Article 2 is the bit to read.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would like to say, for the record, that I wrote that late at night, and my phrasing probably came across incorrectly.

It wasn't my intention to call you personally 'a peon'. I was trying more to adopt the voice, for argument's sake, of what an imagined President, using this supposed absolute immunity, might say to their critics -- 'who are you (out there, the people) to question my power?'

My apologies for it coming out the way it did.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't taking that personally, my point was that in America the sovereign power rests in the people (vs England in the crown). We hold the authority under which the government exists.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

As it should be! I hope in the long-term, that is proven to be true.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, but if he the president does have absolute immunity Biden could just have seal team 6 kill Trump and some of the justices.

Not that he would, but imagined the surprised Pikachu face on the GOP if Biden called their bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Exactly. The Democratic party needs to push the issue and make the GOP see that the Leopards can eat their face too.