this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
119 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19150 readers
1686 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. 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.
  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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Got_Bent 78 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Predictions:

Homelessness can be a felony

Healthcare must save the life of a pregnant woman, but she can be criminally charged for unborn child neglect and/or murder

Trump and Trump alone is immune from all prosecution at all levels and in all jurisdictions, but all other presidents are subject to any and all prosecution

Bonus: Boof bro chugs beer out of a bong shoved up Thomas' ass on a lobbyist yacht. Gorsuch doesn't participate but sneaks a glance at Gini's exposed ankles and Coney-Barret looks down her nose at women who didn't just go dump their babies off at the hospital before their health issues began in the first place.

[–] chknbwl 17 points 7 months ago

Boof bro chugs beer out of a bong shoved up Thomas' ass

I want to will this prediction into existence.

[–] disguy_ovahea 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can they rule in favor of presidential immunity without setting precedent? I’m not an attorney, but I’m under the impression that the ruling can be used in future defense of presidential wrongdoing.

[–] FenrirIII 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Their ruling would have to be incredibly narrow and focused exclusively on Trump's crimes in order to not apply to any other presidents, unless they commit the same crimes as detailed in the ruling.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

given the way they have been ruling lately, and given the schedule, this is what I'm expecting.

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 7 months ago

I see. So it’s unlikely to see exclusivity without exceptional bias, and more likely will be applicable to future presidents if passed?

[–] LordCrom 30 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"Supreme Court will hear a case regarding whether the former president could attempt to overturn a national election and not face criminal charges. "

If they allow this for Trump, then the peaceful handover of power is done in the US as every President can stage his own insurrection and attempt to maintain power without it being treason. An insurrection every 4 years will be the norm and we become a banana Republic with nukes

[–] cmbabul 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think the election every 4 years bit will probably end after the first successful one

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] Got_Bent 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’m sure you and I can differentiate between “salary” and “bribe”

Can they?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If the difference between bribery and salary is not specifically written in the US Constitution, then it must not be applicable to the Supreme Court if you ask the Roberts court.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

This would make a good onion article… so obviously it’s going to happen.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

That statement and "Santa is real," have the same amount of evidence.

[–] NegativeLookBehind 17 points 7 months ago

Ol’ Beer Bong Brett has some big decisions to make

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

More like a busy Friday at 4:30pm when they dump all these unpopular decisions before running for the weekend.

[–] njm1314 6 points 7 months ago

I tell you the gals over at strict scrutiny are probably going to have a aneurysm this week