▲ 397 ▼ Trump classified documents case: Special counsel urges appeals court to reverse dismissal (www.cnbc.com) submitted 2 years ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 68 points 2 years ago (2 children) She is so blatantly biased. I wonder if even this Supreme Court would back her up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 85 points 2 years ago* (1 child) She seems to have been advised by Clarence Thomas on this, so the idea to do this came from the supreme court. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-opinion-jack-smith-appointed-special-counsel-rcna161975 Thomas did not definitively answer the question, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon echoed his approach to Trump’s election interference case permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MagicShel@programming.dev 42 points 2 years ago (3 children) I don't think anyone on the Court is as far right or as nakedly corrupt as Thomas. Just because he's advising her, I wouldn't take that as an endorsement from the full Court. He frequently writes concurring opinions that go way beyond anyone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago Maybe, but for sure she is starting off with an active voice on the supreme court in her favor. That's a good start. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ceenote@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago I was gonna say Alito, but even for him I had to pause because Thomas is just so bad. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dudinax@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago It's real interesting that they thought dismissal for a transparently bad reason has a better shot than dismissal for lack of evidence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) With Joe stepping down and a surge of support for Kamala, is there a point where the Supreme Court has to accept they’re not winning this time and switch to clean house of people who overplayed their hand? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (2 children) What? No, definitely not. They're appointed for life and don't have to give a shit about anything Kamala could possibly do. (Well, short of using the immunity they gave Trump to Seal Team Six them, I guess, but no Democrat is likely to do that and they know it.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) no Democrat is likely to do that Honestly this is what pisses me off. When an opponent who literally wants you or yours dead hands you a gun, shoot them with it. Because if you don't shoot, they will. Republicans have handed democrats so many tools over the years they could easily wield against Republicans.... But they don't. They take the "high road." The Moral High Road is Filled With Corpses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They don't even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doughless@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) If Democrats are ever lucky enough to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions. Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Grossly unlikely. We're likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it's outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Gerrymandering has made it impossible to "blow out" the House too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's optimistic. It's a constant battle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 85 points 2 years ago* (1 child) She seems to have been advised by Clarence Thomas on this, so the idea to do this came from the supreme court. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-opinion-jack-smith-appointed-special-counsel-rcna161975 Thomas did not definitively answer the question, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon echoed his approach to Trump’s election interference case permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MagicShel@programming.dev 42 points 2 years ago (3 children) I don't think anyone on the Court is as far right or as nakedly corrupt as Thomas. Just because he's advising her, I wouldn't take that as an endorsement from the full Court. He frequently writes concurring opinions that go way beyond anyone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago Maybe, but for sure she is starting off with an active voice on the supreme court in her favor. That's a good start. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ceenote@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago I was gonna say Alito, but even for him I had to pause because Thomas is just so bad. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dudinax@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago It's real interesting that they thought dismissal for a transparently bad reason has a better shot than dismissal for lack of evidence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 42 points 2 years ago (3 children) I don't think anyone on the Court is as far right or as nakedly corrupt as Thomas. Just because he's advising her, I wouldn't take that as an endorsement from the full Court. He frequently writes concurring opinions that go way beyond anyone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago Maybe, but for sure she is starting off with an active voice on the supreme court in her favor. That's a good start. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ceenote@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago I was gonna say Alito, but even for him I had to pause because Thomas is just so bad. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dudinax@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago It's real interesting that they thought dismissal for a transparently bad reason has a better shot than dismissal for lack of evidence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago Maybe, but for sure she is starting off with an active voice on the supreme court in her favor. That's a good start. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago I was gonna say Alito, but even for him I had to pause because Thomas is just so bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dudinax@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago It's real interesting that they thought dismissal for a transparently bad reason has a better shot than dismissal for lack of evidence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) With Joe stepping down and a surge of support for Kamala, is there a point where the Supreme Court has to accept they’re not winning this time and switch to clean house of people who overplayed their hand? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (2 children) What? No, definitely not. They're appointed for life and don't have to give a shit about anything Kamala could possibly do. (Well, short of using the immunity they gave Trump to Seal Team Six them, I guess, but no Democrat is likely to do that and they know it.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) no Democrat is likely to do that Honestly this is what pisses me off. When an opponent who literally wants you or yours dead hands you a gun, shoot them with it. Because if you don't shoot, they will. Republicans have handed democrats so many tools over the years they could easily wield against Republicans.... But they don't. They take the "high road." The Moral High Road is Filled With Corpses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They don't even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doughless@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) If Democrats are ever lucky enough to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions. Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Grossly unlikely. We're likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it's outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Gerrymandering has made it impossible to "blow out" the House too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's optimistic. It's a constant battle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (2 children) What? No, definitely not. They're appointed for life and don't have to give a shit about anything Kamala could possibly do. (Well, short of using the immunity they gave Trump to Seal Team Six them, I guess, but no Democrat is likely to do that and they know it.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) no Democrat is likely to do that Honestly this is what pisses me off. When an opponent who literally wants you or yours dead hands you a gun, shoot them with it. Because if you don't shoot, they will. Republicans have handed democrats so many tools over the years they could easily wield against Republicans.... But they don't. They take the "high road." The Moral High Road is Filled With Corpses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They don't even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doughless@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) If Democrats are ever lucky enough to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions. Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Grossly unlikely. We're likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it's outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Gerrymandering has made it impossible to "blow out" the House too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's optimistic. It's a constant battle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) no Democrat is likely to do that Honestly this is what pisses me off. When an opponent who literally wants you or yours dead hands you a gun, shoot them with it. Because if you don't shoot, they will. Republicans have handed democrats so many tools over the years they could easily wield against Republicans.... But they don't. They take the "high road." The Moral High Road is Filled With Corpses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They don't even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They don't even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doughless@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) If Democrats are ever lucky enough to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions. Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Grossly unlikely. We're likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it's outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Gerrymandering has made it impossible to "blow out" the House too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's optimistic. It's a constant battle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Grossly unlikely. We're likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it's outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Gerrymandering has made it impossible to "blow out" the House too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's optimistic. It's a constant battle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Gerrymandering has made it impossible to "blow out" the House too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's optimistic. It's a constant battle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's optimistic. It's a constant battle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's optimistic. It's a constant battle. permalink fedilink source parent