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.
- 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.
- 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
There was never a possibility it would rule any other way. Now we just gotta wait for the inevitable stupid appeal to SCOTUS, and have it done with.
I believe he can request an en banc hearing (a hearing in front of all the circuit judges, as opposed to a three-judge panel), which he definitely will, because it will delay the proceedings further.
The three judge panel anticipated that these arguments are primarily delay tactics. They have said in the decision they will stay their ruling only for an appeal accepted directly to the supreme court. If he appeals to the en banc panel first, then the trial can go ahead while that appeal plays out, so it can't be used as a delay tactic. Only the Supreme Court can delay it further now.
I assume that certain elements on the Supreme Court will attempt to delay it (Thomas, Alito, and probably Gorsuch, I’m looking at you). How much can they realistically delay the trial?
IIRC it takes 4 of them to agree to take up a case. If they did they could decide to fast track it which who knows how much that would delay the trial. Weeks or a couple months.
If they tried to put it on their regular schedule who knows when you'd even have a ruling as the court typically goes into recess at the end of June and doesn't come back until October.
if 4 of them decide to take the appeal, I suspect the other 5 would make it an expedited schedule to not delay the trial even more.
also keep in mind, this thursday scotus is hearing the colorado 14th amendment case and the deadline for this appeal is monday. I really don't think scotus is going to destroy the little credibility they have with the 14th amendment case and then completely end their relevance by taking this appeal since the only logical reason they would take the appeal would be to overturn the decision.
They could potentially accept an appeal and wait to hear it until next Fall and then not rule on it until after the election, if they're so inclined, unfortunately. That would mean if Trump was elected he could try and nullify it by self pardoning or ordering his attorney general to drop the charges (not supposed to do that, but it hasn't stopped Trump from trying to directly order around his attorney general before).
The supreme court could choose to hear it quicker, or they could just deny the appeal outright without hearing the case. Though all it takes is four justices want to hear it for the appeal to be accepted.
First of all nobody should accept a self-pardon as legitimate.
But beyond that, the 14A says how someone can regain their eligibility to hold office, and a pardon isn't listed as an option. If anything, accepting a pardon would cement his ineligibility because it's an admission of guilt.
Oh I'm not saying to accept it, I think it's totally illegitimate. I'm just saying what I think he will do if elected. More likely he just appoints some stooge as attorney general who orders the charges be dropped though.
He can request it, but the good thing about those is the appeals court can deny the request. He can appeal to the Supreme Court and they could either deny it or take it up to smack down the argument. If they side with his argument the country is over (along with all of the court's own power) as they would have ruled that the President is functionally an absolute monarch.
And then Dark Brandon activates Seal Team Six for elephant hunting season.
Hopefully, the court will deny the request with prejudice. It's such a goddamn dumb argument.
I didn't share your faith in the outcome. But I'm glad they ruled as they should.
Ah yes. History is inevitable.
Except that its not and they absolutely could have ruled some other way.
Nothing is guaranteed.