539
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
539 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2923 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
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
Lawrence Odonnel's comments at the 5th minute of this video is a very interesting point. It kinda puts a blanket on all of the reason for the video but it is a important point. What the SC will hear is very defined and Trump already lost what he wanted the SC to hear.
Doesn’t really matter though. No one thinks the court will allow immunity. What turnip has been after is delay, and the court just signaled that they have his back. Adding almost 3 more months of delay (the 2+ weeks while waiting for them to accept the case and the almost 2 months before even hearing arguments, and that’s ignoring the time it will take to render a decision). So, the “best” possible outcome is still a benefit to him, and it only gets better for him from there.
The fix is in.
Right. This is not a difficult question. OK, so the Supremes want to put their stamp on the fact that Presidents are not absolutely immune because it's not something that's come before them in the past. Fine.
What they could have done is lifted the stay that's stopping the trials from going forward. Then things move on in parallel and there's no need to ramp things up again when the decision inevitably comes out as a no for Trump. Doing it this way means the obvious decision is still made, but Trump gets the delay he was looking for.
I always think Biden should take this asa sign the court is too small. 9 justices apparently isn't enough to handle the caseload and the court needs to expand.
Actually I think there's a substantial chance that the court will allow immunity for only official acts. That's really the only question before them, because the trial judge didn't rule on whether or not these were official acts, only that there's no immunity whatsoever.
If they do it'll get kicked back down to the district court where the judge will quite obviously say these were not official acts. Then that will be appealed. It'll go nowhere but will waste time. Unless SCOTUS rules immediately after the oral arguments it'll be pushed past the election for sure. It likely will anyway tbh.