this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
197 points (98.5% liked)

News

23259 readers
4576 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The U.S. Supreme Court has set April 25 as the date it will hear Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity from prosecution on charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss - the last day of oral arguments of its current term.

The court released its updated argument calendar a week after it agreed to take up the case and gave the former president a boost by putting on hold the criminal prosecution being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith. It previously had disclosed which week it would hear the matter but had not given the precise date.

The justices will review a lower court's rejection of Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution because he was president when he took actions aimed at reversing President Joe Biden's election victory over him.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] radiohead37@lemmy.world 113 points 8 months ago (48 children)

The Supreme Court is sabotaging the Trump indictments by delaying a decision. The goal is to delay trial so he can’t be convicted so close to the election. This court is just an extension of the party.

load more comments (48 replies)
[–] undercrust@lemmy.ca 61 points 8 months ago (8 children)

I see this as a win-win.

Presidents have full immunity? Biden takes a shotgun to Trump and immediately resigns before impeachment. Maybe even a murder-suicide for funsies.

Presidents don't have full immunity? Trump goes to jail for the rest of his miserable life.

[–] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 67 points 8 months ago

That would imply Biden/democrats have any fucking balls. I would actually love it if Biden's team just went "Full immunity? Fuck it, we ball." and just go full hog wild and just push for wild things to actually help people and punish the literal fucking nazis.

But it would be cool.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 17 points 8 months ago

"Oh, the president has immunity?" Asks the reaper drone as it prepared for takeoff

[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Then head to the court, just to make sure they don't reverse themselves.

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

If the president has total immunity, couldn't Biden just pack the court without any process? Why not just say he is the court now?

[–] 44razorsedge@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

This is exactly my read of the circumstances: Trump's bought and paid for SCOTUS says he WAS and WILL BE immune to all crimes committed while President. That automatically gives the sitting President until Jan 20 2025 to assassinate Trump. With impunity.
"Hello, Seal Team Six? I have a job for you..."

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

They will just narrowly craft it so it doesn't apply to Biden and there is nothing stopping them from overruling what they already did if it came down to it.

You can't shame the shameless and as long as the Pope is calling the shots the court will do what he says to.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 points 8 months ago

That's exactly the problem. We want a definitive answer. Instead what we're getting is a hearing in April... and then June... August comes around... Suddenly there won't be a trial before the election and we risk electing an Autocrat.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Biden wouldn't have the balls to so much as j walk even with immunity.

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

This definitely won’t be an either or outcome. The SCOTUS rarely gives opinions that black and white (that’s why it’s there in the first place).

[–] june@lemmy.world 50 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They’re going to say that in this specific situation he has immunity but will severely limit the scope of the ruling so that it doesn’t apply to any other president ever.

Calling it now.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You might as well call August being warm or Christmas gifts of socks underwhelming.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 8 months ago

Christmas gifts of socks underwhelming.

Woah there. Gifts of socks as a child, terrible gift. Gifts of socks as an adult, best Christmas gift.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 45 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I dunno why SCOTUS doesn't just announce their opinion now, because we all know what it will be anyways.

[–] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

They gotta make sure all the dark money has time to be transferred into their accounts.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

This is much craftier of them. Obviously they can't rule that a president can break any law they want and they know that, so they're delaying their ruling until after the election when it won't matter anymore.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Americans, please for the love of all that is good left in the world you need to organise the biggest protest your country has ever seen for that date.

It's not an exaggeration to day that the future of the wester world relies on you guys not bring apathetic for once and doing more than leaving comments on lemmy or reddit or wherever.

If its at all possible for you to make it down to Washington on that day, you need to. Or else you are sending the message, loud and clear, that you don't really give a shit that a rougue supreme court with openly and proudly corrupt judges has taken control of your country and gets to make the laws whatever the fuck they want.

Or if you can't make it to DC organise a local protest. Please just do fucking SOMETHING.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Literally, it would do nothing. The supreme court will decide what it decides... They don't need to be elected.

What does matter is voting in November and getting people to vote for Biden again rather than some third party nutter that won't even come close to 10% of the vote.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

The last three third party candidates who won more than one state were Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Theodore Roosevelt.

The first two won the south on account of regional anger at the civil rights movement.

Roosevelt split the vote. 50.6% of the country voted for the Republican candidate or a former Republican, but the Democrat won a landslide with only 41% of the popular vote and 81% of the electoral college vote.

The closest a third party candidate has ever come to winning is Breckenridge, who got 18% of the popular vote and 23.8% of the EC vote running as a Southern Democrat because the south didn't like Stephen Douglas (who got 29.5% of the popular vote but only won a single state).

Voting third party basically doesn't work. Any time its been significant, it's just caused a spoiler effect.

[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

SCOTUS are corrupt, unaccountable dictators. They do not care what the American people think. They don't care what the Constitution says. They don't fear the American people. They rule by fiat.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 18 points 8 months ago

Anyone have a good connection for bulk pitchforks? We should order now to save on shipping.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I'm happy they agreed to hear this, we need a solid ruling. I'm kinda OK with putting it 2-months out. Seems reasonable for such a weighty case. I am worried as to how long they take to make a ruling after hearing arguments.

They've already shot Trump down twice, they're hardly on his side, so no reason to drag this out. My main concern is they issue a ruling so precise that it's blurry. Does that make sense?

In other words, "Nah, he can't do that, but..."

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

The DC courts had a bullet proof response already. SCOTUS should have let that stand and denied to hear any part of the immunity issue. That's what all the legal experts expected because it's the obvious correct choice.

Instead SCOTUS broadened the question and added more things to rule on than what the DC appeals court stated in their ruling. That's not how law is supposed to work.

The conservative majority is forcing this to delay the DC case. There is little to no chance the DC trial finishes before the election - as a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision here.

The Supreme Court decided Bush v Gore in a matter of days, but we're waiting several weeks before they even start listening to immunity arguments? It's bullshit. The delay is the point.

[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago

My main concern is they issue a ruling so precise that it's blurry.

That sounds a lot like the constitutional amendment they just removed the teeth from. I'm scared to think how they will screw this one over; especially since we have an authoritarian on the table.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›