politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Excerpt:
Well worth skimming the ruling if you ask me. And up vote parent comment for visibility please.
Greatest works of poetry of all time:
William Carlos Williams, ‘The Red Wheelbarrow’
T. S. Eliot, ‘The Waste Land’
Robert Frost, ‘The Road Not Taken’
Gwendolyn Brooks, ‘We Real Cool’
US Court of Appeals v Donald J Trump
That's all well and good but he's being prosecuted for something that he did while he was still president
So, you're saying you think it should be legal for Biden to shoot you in the face?
No, I'm saying I want the ruling to be relevant to Trump's situation so he can be prosecuted. Where the fuck are you getting that from?
He's being prosecuted for doing something illegal (allegedly) that wasn't part of his official duties as President.
The ruling quoted by the oedon I replied to applies to things done by a former president..I'd like to see the courts role that the law applies to a current president, or someone who was president at a time. It seems like common sense but the law doesn't operate on common sense
And, as the ruling states, the president isn't immune to all prosecution.
According to what OP quoted a former president can be prosecuted. I'd like to see them rule that the law applies to actions committed by a president
Read the ruling. It discussed this.
Also:
F. Supp. 3d ---, 2023 WL 8359833, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2023). It concluded that “[t]he Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support” the existence of such an immunity, id., and that it “would betray the public interest” to grant a former President “a categorical exemption from criminal liability” for allegedly “attempting to usurp the reins of government.” Id. at *12.
Finally...
Which is great until the law gets changed by a bunch of sycophants in congress.