147
Supreme Court agrees to quick review of Trump’s presidential immunity claim
(www.tucsonsentinel.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
147 points (98.7% liked)
News
23311 readers
3594 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Saw a thread yesterday where people were happy cause they think the Supreme Court is going to tell him to get fucked.
I say I wish I still had that child-like optimism.
They only fuck poor people.
You mean like Bush v Gore which explicitly said it could never be used as a precedent, and yet commonly is?
On the flip side, Jack Smith has been incredibly thorough. He wouldn't ask if he didn't have a backup plan.
What backup plan is possible if scotus grants him blank immunity? I think his thinking was just to speed things up since it's going to end up there anyways.
Yep, this is 100% about getting ahead of all of the delays that trumps team will seek to drag this out past the election.
I'll concede on that point. I still don't trust it though.
Why would they "cover" for Trump? Do you imagine they feel beholden to him for appointing them? They are not; Past, present or future. They've already refused to hear Trump related cases, and that hurt him.
And yes, even if it goes against him, they will keep the scope of the ruling dialed in tight. That's how law and judgments work at this highest level. And should.
Look, I'm hating the conservative bent in this Court, and they seem wildly biased, but y'all are off base in many ways.
Not all their judgements are conservative. They told Alabama to fuck themselves over voting districts. They refused to hear a "pray away the gay" case yesterday, deferring to a lower court's opinion. Been a couple more that surprised me, but the cases escape me ATM. Didn't they refuse to hear a Trump related case recently? This might be what I'm thinking of.
The other weird thing I see all over lemmy, not your post!, is the idea that because Trump appointed them, they're somehow beholden to him. Nope. That's the whole idea behind lifetime appointments. A Justice can tell anyone and everyone to fuck themselves without fear of reprisal, current or future.
tl;dr: The current Court is conservative, not partisan. For this very particular job, that's a real difference.
Yes, but granting the president too much immunity lessens the relative power of the Supreme Court. They would not want that.