this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
562 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19047 readers
4019 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.
  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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Remember when the Republicans were all about removing "activist judges"? Good times...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Every accusation is an admission

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

"Activist judges" for me, none for thee.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Lets hope this will lead to a real judge to preside over the case, and not just a Trump Minion.

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

Not to familiar with the Supreme Court I see. I have some bad news...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That, unfortunately, it will not. She hasn't come out and actually stated her bias, which is about what you need to do.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

She made a ruling that upended decades of precedent concerning the constitutionality of special council appointments.

She may work for Conservatives, but she ain't SCOTUS, and she doesn't have the same ability to rewrite the law based on specious reasoning. Plus, she's already been reprimanded and reversed by the 11th Circuit twice for questionable rulings.

She doesn't need to communicate bias, she just needs to make it clear that she's unfit to adjudicate this case, which is pretty obvious at this point. If Jack Smith can prove any bias, it will just be icing on the cake.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Fear not citizen! The judiciary has randomly selected:

AILEEN. CANNON.

To preside over this case. Rest assured all efforts were made to ensure a fair and speedy trial!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Clarence Thomas has entered the chat...

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

They said real judge, not sock puppet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

He is a real judge and thats the terrifying part.

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

Clarence thinks he's a Real Judge tho. If you ask him, he'll tell you.

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

You can always ID a sock puppet... they have somebody elses hand up their ass.

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

Would expect no less

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If special council wins the appeal and Cannon stays on as judge that would be awkward. Of course it'll go to the Supreme Court and by then the election will be over. If Trump wins the election and he knows he'll be facing prosecution he'll be desperate. We've seen what he'll do to try and save face, if he's looking at jail time I'm worried what he'll do. You know this time he'll surround himself with loyalists

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If he wins the election the case goes away

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I guess you are right about that. The charges in Georgia will still stand though

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Except all of his damning phone calls can be construed as official acts and thus tossed.

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

Because the President is above the law.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

He's also effectively in charge of the DOJ but yes, correct

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

Seems like she could have made this determination right off the bat

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I'm honestly surprised that she dismissed at this stage. If she could have dragged the case to the point where they had selected a jury, then dismissed for some reason, there would have been no right to an appeal. I do understand that Clarence Thomas essentially suggested that Cannon should take this route in one of his concurrences, but it seems like the wrong strategy when there was a possibility to dismiss without the possibility of appeal.

I don't mean that I wish she had dismissed later. I just mean that I'm surprised because I thought their strategy was going to be different with this case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

But they're just trying to run out the clock so Trump can win and issue himself a pardon.

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

She's auditioning for the next opening on the supreme court.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What you have to understand is Thomas is really stupid. He is peak Dunning-Kruger, and possibly the stupidest person to ever serve on SCOTUS. He has no idea what he is doing and almost no understanding of the law.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Clarence Thomas may not know much about the law, he does know how to sexual harass women.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Will that be thrown out because he does not have standing then?

Doesn't this have to be appealed by the doj themselves?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago

Too little too late. This should have been expedited from day 1. Good luck getting any resemblance of justice between now and November. After that nothing matters anymore because fascists will be in power, thanks to your slow dance.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So where is it headed to get the rubber stamp this time? 5th circuit? Or is our system so incredibly stupid that it will somehow end up in front of cannon again?

Smith needs to fight the fight, but the Republicans have been playing the decades long game of rigging the courts... While we were fighting over figurehead presidents the right was establishing the means to control all political outcomes...

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It'll go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, since that's where Florida is.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Note that the 11th Circuit has slapped Cannon down before. I hope they do it again.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And watch them give the case back to her so she can keep fucking the dog on the matter...

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

That is my fear.

load more comments
view more: next ›