So far, every Justice who's spoken has sounded extremely skeptical, even Thomas.
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
76 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3797 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
And just so people know, Trump's lawyer is now on record as supporting the idea that the president can order the military to perform a coup and be immune from prosecution.
Effectively yes, he did say that staging a coup could be considered official duties of a president and possibly legal. The nuance of his argument is even worse.
He claims that the lresident is immune from any prosecution unless impeached and removed from office first. So a coup is legal if he is never impeached, including if he is removed from office due to a failed coup either by the transfer of office or resigning. This would of course provide immunity for someone who was leaving office and time was not available to be removed, say for shenanigans in Janurary.
It also says that the President is immune from anything at all as long as 34 Senators agree to take his side.
Which means he could have senators threatened or murdered, and if he lowers the numbers of senators enough to prevent his conviction, he walks free.
Hmm sounds a lot like how folks get unalived in Russia.
And his followers cheer.
Right, and the Court could easily release a ruling on the very last possible day in June that gives guidance to lower courts saying exactly that, in such a manner that the rulings on those lower courts are still appealable, and Poof! The Supreme Court hands Trump a resounding loss, in such a manner that delays all of his trials to past Election Day.
That's good, but don't forget that the whole point of this trial was to delay, delay, delay. Even if they lose, they already won.
Even if you're a partisan hack that just wants to give Trump a copout for all his indictments and free reign for Trump to do what he wants if he wins the election, you have to see how stupid it is to make that call BEFORE he wins the election while his opponent is currently in office. Their ruling in his favor would be carte blanche for Biden to do whatever the fuck he wants to Trump, so long as 34 senators would refuse to convict him for it. Or even to the Justices themselves. Up to and including assassination, apparently. They would really be banking on the fact that Democrats would tend to act in good faith while Republicans are free to abuse their power. But that is a big gamble.
Biden adds 9 more liberals to the court and appoints Barry as Chief Justice. OH, IT'S ILLEGAL? Bzzt, not anymore
It's "free rein", just FYI.
Correct. Free rein to reign freely. Fucking English. Lol
Feels like, in this specific context where he wants to act as an unrestrained dictator, it's both
Problem is Biden won't do shit nor the Democrats and Supreme Court know it.
Trump's hack is done speaking now. I gotta say, I think he did the best he could with an ultra-shitty argument, but he was unable to disguise the fact that it was ultra-shitty. The Justices absolutely destroyed him.