this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
369 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19043 readers
3829 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has been left "shaken" by the unexpected public reaction to his ruling in the Donald Trumppresidential immunity case, a columnist wrote Friday.

Slate's judicial writer Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn't buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.

Lithwick referenced a report by CNN's Joan Biskupic. He “was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording [Donald] Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution," she wrote.

"His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 125 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Unexpected? How the fuck is backlash about a ruling saying the President is above the law unexpected?

[–] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 68 points 4 days ago (2 children)

For real. He’s either being completely disingenuous or he’s really that much of an oblivious asshole.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 38 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Unbelievably, he managed to underestimate the political awareness of the US public to his office. The bar was already on the floor.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago

Yeah, McConnell buried their reputation when he fucked over Obama’s appointment responsibility.

[–] vanontom@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I can only imagine the kind of impenetrable bubble this extremely small, privileged group of people live in. Especially after a decade or more.

Making up (increasingly unprecedented) rules that 1/3 of a billion people must live by. With no possible repercussions for corruption, incoherence, anything. We should've been very careful who we added to this court. Extremist christian fascists using a useful idiot to replace over 1/3 of court (so far!) is a nuclear bomb waiting to explode.

[–] resin85@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

This is a complete sanewashing article... Roberts read all the dissents, he knew exactly what he was doing. Putting Trump above the law.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago

Exactly. How can he claim to be shocked when the dissent told him why he's a monster? Dude is a liar.

[–] Omodi@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

He has gotten away with it for along time.

[–] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Trump was an epiphany for the right wingers that no one is really held to account and our checks and balances systems barely work at all, while also shielding government officials from public lawsuits. The Leahy laws are being broken to the extreme right now and no one cares in congress, which is the only body empowered to question the president's actions in any way. and you can do crazy crimes in congress and you wont get voted out. Your own party will always clear you of it.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because every 8th grade civics course says the same thing. You punish Presidents with impeachment.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, no. That's an 8th grade understanding of the concept where you never learned anything after.

Impeachment has nothing to do with whether actions are legal or illegal, and has nothing to do with criminal charges. Impeachment is a political process with the ultimate result being removal from office.

Impeachment and removal from office does not mean they would go to jail, it is not a criminal trial. It literally just removes the person from office.

Prior to this decision, Presidential acts could still be prosecuted if they were criminal, DOJ policy just meant that a sitting president wouldn't be charged.

This Supreme Court decided that anything the President does, even if it is clearly and overtly illegal, but done as part of the Presidential duties, is inherently immune from prosecution.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Impeachment is a political process with the ultimate result being removal from office.

And potentially the removal of that person's ability to ever run for office again.

Impeachment and removal from office does not mean they would go to jail, it is not a criminal trial.

Yes, that's the design. Because it's not an "impartial" process but a political one. And because only 40 or so people have been given that protection, it makes perfect sense.

That's an 8th grade understanding of the concept where you never learned anything after.

The 8th grade understanding is the correct one. As confirmed by SCOTUS.

Remember the DOJ reports to the President. A process where you're either suppose to investigate your boss or investigate your Boss's political allies/opponents would be way to open for abuse.

Trump can be prosecuted for what he did before the Presidency (as is being done in New York) and for what he has and will do after the Presidency (should he run back J6 part deuce). But for crimes committed while President impeachment is counterbalance.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The 8th grade understanding is the correct one. As confirmed by SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS that made that decision via a majority run by a political party actively trying to speedrun a fascist takeover of the country. The decision was made specifically to protect a twice impeached Republican who stole thousands of classified documents when he left office.

The current SCORUS is clearly filled with partisan hacks and they've thrown out any attempt at hiding that fact now.

Clearly that wasn't the thought process decades ago before this hyper partisan court. Nixon was explicitly pardoned to avoid prosecution for his crimes. So obviously the idea that the President had blanket immunity wasn't a fucking thing.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 days ago

Nixon was explicitly pardoned to avoid prosecution for his crimes.

Congress didn't have to stop the impeachment of Nixon. They chose too because Nixon agreed to never run for office again.

If we want that to change we need an Amendment that established an Independent, non-partisan Prosecutor whose job it is to prosecute Presidents and former Presidents.