politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Jesus, how many years have the courts had to ponder if he is immune. At least 7? And you still don't have a fucking answer and we still going to let him hold this shit up with the same old bullshit.
Why doesn't it go the other way. Sorry dude you don't get in any ballots till you're cleared of insurrection.
Why don't we rage and protest like the French ,why is it always so acceptable that those in power never face consequences...
The insurrection bit isn't even up for debate, he has been found to be an insurrectionist. It is only if we are going to follow what the constitution plainly spells out, or find that Presidents are above the law and start the reign of Kings of The Former United States of America.
Ah yes but you see they didn't specifically write the word "President" in the Amendment, and SCOTUS ruled that the President isn't an "officer" of the United States in a completely unrelated case with unrelated sections of law. So now we have to wait and see if SCOTUS is going to put the President above the law or not. And they almost assuredly aren't going to do it before the Election. Which totally isn't because they're afraid of what happens if he still somehow wins after they rule against him...
This unhinged semi satirical rant brought to you by staying up way too late.
If the SCOTUS were to put President outside of the constitution like that, they have all but declared the office of President a King, and the 14th amendment has no barring on the office at that point anyways. And a King has no want for a "Supreme Court", and would dismantle them as one of the first acts in power. A King dislikes and fears oversight, so really the Court is deciding if they will continue on, or if they and the whole US experiment is over.
Well, if we want to game theory this road (We shouldn't, being that tired is an altered mental state but I love wild hypotheticals), Kings absolutely use courts to help maintain their legitimacy. So do dictators. As an example one of the things in Venezuela was packing the high court so they couldn't protest the de-powering of the legislature. I do agree though if we ever get a fully immune president we're screwed. Previous presidents agreed with that and subjected themselves to oversight, and even in one case, a speeding ticket.
I was talking specifically the Supreme Court, as that would be the only court with more power than the President/King/Dictator. He would absolutely use all lower federal courts to bring the states in line, and prosecute anyone that threaten his power.
Interesting fact, there's no Constitutional cap to the size of SCOTUS. If I were him I would find 10 people beholden to me financially and by blackmail. The court would then be 19 people.
If it does come to that point I think we’ll have a double feature of insurgencies and Balkanization
"You don't vote for King!"
In Russia you do, or at least you pretend that the people are getting a choice through voting.