this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
201 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3040 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My grandkids will learn about the Robert’s court in the same breath as Roger B. Taney’s.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (9 children)

You are making pretty big assumptions that the good guys are going to win this one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

—Theodore Parker

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2024

CERTIORARI GRANTED

TRUMP, DONALD J. V. UNITED STATES

The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot. The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022824zr3_febh.pdf

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's a fucking injustice that this asshole has the money and means to appeal a case of this amplitude all the way up to the Supreme Court, who he hand picked, while people are currently sitting in jail for voting while black or smoking a joint while black.

If this isn't direct evidence of our two tiered "justice" system, I don't know what is.

This country drastically needs an overhaul, otherwise it will end up like Judge Dredd in no time. We have a failed government that no longer even pretends to serve the people.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The Mango Maga Messiah has chimed in

Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity. Without Presidential Immunity, a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America. Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office. This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President. The other side would say, “If you don’t do something, just the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or perhaps even sooner.”

Page 2: A President has to be free to determine what is right for our Country without undue pressure. If there is no Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will “no longer exist.” Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind. Legal Experts and Scholars have stated that the President must have Full Presidential Immunity. A President must be free to make proper decisions. His mind must be clear, and he must not be guided by the fear of retribution!

-@realDonaldTrump

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

That was 9000% not written by Trump. It is far too measured and humble, and it gives credit to far too many people who aren't named Trump.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Seems like the three he nominated should recuse themselves.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago

So the fix is in huh?

[–] [email protected] 104 points 8 months ago (4 children)

It's disgusting that they're even entertaining his claims, and a legitimate threat to our democracy if they decide that he does have actual immunity. Remember, Trump is claiming that everything, including treason and fraud, is covered by presidential immunity. By this logic, Biden could have Trump assassinated, and as long as Biden is a sitting president it would be legal.

Trump's claim has absolutely zero legal merit, but the Supreme Court has already been compromised. I will start planning to leave the country if they decide to uphold Trump's claim.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Fun fact: presidential immunity does now show up anywhere in the Constitution or federal law. It is entirely an invention of the courts.

Nixon v Fitzgerald is the big case in question. And the court at the time -- corrupt as always -- gave the president broad immunity rather than, say, limiting the immunity to just acts related to the office of presidency. The SCOTUS basically said that only political solutions -- impeachment or elections -- can get past executive immunity. That's basically standing law. It's real fucking bad.

Also notable that this case should not have even been granted cert. There was already a settlement. The case was over. One must interpret the court's decision to grant cert in that case to be entirely based on their desire to legislate from the bench and do a favor to the office of the president.

The current very-corrupt SCOTUS picking up this Trump case leaves me very worried.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (6 children)

If Trump wins this case then Biden could just legally shot Trump in the head or order someone else to do it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Seal Team 6 vs. Meal Team 6.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

So this gets complicated but essentially the question before them is whether he has immunity for official acts, as the trial judge decided he did not.

My guess is the court will wait until the last day of their term, in July, to decide that he does have immunity for official acts. Then it'll get sent back to the trial judge who will fairly obviously rule that these were not official acts. Then Trump's attorneys get a couple more months of delay while they appeal it up the chain losing. This easily pushes his federal cases beyond the election.

After the election, depending on the results, this will 1) all be settled and he will face trial or 2) he becomes President and self pardons or otherwise kills the prosecutions.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 70 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Bush v gore was decided in a hot minute. Never forget

[–] [email protected] 34 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Oral arguments for this aren't scheduled until late April.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would decide whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to broad immunity from federal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts that occurred while he was in office.

The order from the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, marks the second time in a month that the justices will weigh a case with tremendous implications for the former president.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump's claim of sweeping immunity.

It's unclear how much of an impact the court's decision to take up the case will have on the timeline for Trump's trial, since the justices could rule swiftly after hearing arguments.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, scrapped the initial trial date of March 4 to let the appeals process play out.

The former president has been pushing to delay the case until after the November presidential election, though special counsel Jack Smith has stressed the public interest in holding the landmark trial this year.


The original article contains 336 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 46%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Clarence is about to get himself a shiny new RV, isn't he?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›