this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
329 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2621 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
 

Donald Trump’s lawyer pushed an outrageous line of thinking on Thursday during oral arguments at the Supreme Court over whether the former president has immunity for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election: that a U.S. president could order a military coup d’état with almost no chance of repercussions. 

Justice Elena Kagan asked lawyer John Sauer about a hypothetical president who “ordered the military to stage a coup.”

“He’s no longer president. He wasn’t impeached, he couldn’t be impeached, but he ordered the military to stage a coup, and you’re saying that’s an official act?” she asked. 

“I think it would depend on the circumstances whether it was an official act,” Sauer replied. “If it’s an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction before [criminal charges could be pursued].”

In response to other questions from the justices, Sauer defended a hypothetical political assassination ordered by an American president, the argument that sank Trump’s case in the D.C. circuit.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

America is in a domestic violence situation with fascism. It thinks it can take it right up to the edge, without repercussions, because the sex is great. But it’s eventually gonna end up with half the country dead on the kitchen floor.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Biden should just arrest trump niw. Let's force the issue.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

I saw a post somewhere else suggesting Biden should deploy a SEAL team to just hang out at the steps to the courthouse in NYC where Trump is on trial, and a second one to the steps of the Supreme Court. No orders beyond just being there for the time being.

The minute the SCOTUS hands down its decision issue new orders to the teams…

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Guantanamo Bay for security measures. Poof. He all the sudden was treated like every other , tyrant Trump wouldnt execute

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Arrest a few Supreme Court justices - that should focus some minds.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

"In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?”

— Justice Sonia Sotomayor, during oral argument in Trump v. United States.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Jesus. I don't know how many times I have to say this but impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.

Just because you weren't impeached doesn't mean you can't be charged with a crime.

I swear if Trump has been impeached, they'd be saying that he can't be criminally charged because then it'd be double jeopardy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I think they did at the time.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

There are many times I wish cameras were allowed in Supreme Court hearings. That way we can immortalize Kagan's face when she asks a question with two possible answers, one of them abjectly stupid, and the lawyer answers it that way, anyway.

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

SCOTUS has ruled against the trumpster several times. I hope they remember what a vindictive little bitch he is, because if he regains the power he's seeking, they may find themselves in a Mike Pence situation one day.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

The Conservative Majority is definitely leaning his way. Be prepared for him to evade justice. Again...

[–] [email protected] 32 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is insane. The Constitution clearly says that the President doesn't have unilateral power.

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

Constitution is a piece of old paper. What matters is if enough people give a shit about it anymore.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 6 months ago

Sure, if you read it, but what about if you just go on feels like they do with their holy book?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

So in effect he says if a partisan Congress that most certainly does care about political affiliation won't convict you then the (theoretically) non-partisan courts can't touch you right?

Makes perfectly good sense, your buddies should get a say in if you broke the law. Let's apply that everywhere, just round up some friends to vouch for you as a good person and you're free to do whatever you like.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Biden should just have Trump arrested and sent to gitmo. If the president really does have all this unilateral power only able to be stopped by impeachment there's no real way to prevent a dictator. Just arrest anyone in Congress who'd vote to impeach you.

It'd absolutely be the end of this country but we're already staring that in the face as Trump tells the SCOTUS what he plans to do.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What you're suggesting is actually fucking hilarious because if Trump wanted out of gitmo he'd have to argue that there should be limits on the president's powers in which case he'd lose the case... or he could win the case and remain in gitmo.

This is how fucking ridiculous this is.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It’s not like many conservative justices could disagree with this… in gitmo.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

~~Schroeder’s~~ Schrödinger’s president. He is both president and not president, depending on if it hurts or helps his case.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Depending on whether it hurts your feelings...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Mind blown 😯

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Schrödinger*

The scientist is named Erwin Schrödinger.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, was still waking up

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

While also simultaneously dreaming.