this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
53 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19229 readers
3386 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 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] newthrowaway20 40 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Trump's lawyers all but admitted they only care about delaying, and the supreme Court is gonna give him that delay by forcing the lower courts to determine what is or isn't official conduct.

That'll push the date for the trial out after the election. the fix is in and everyone has decided to let the election decide Trump's fate. And if you think for one second that they're going to be fair about those elections, you haven't been paying attention to the last 8 years.

[–] Sanctus 6 points 7 months ago

The time to riot was yesterday

[–] cedarmesa 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Supreme court hears arguments on how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop. Gorsuch said "We are very serious people." Justice barrett, wearing pigtails and licking a lollipop excitedly responded "I skipped the line!"

[–] CosmicCleric 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
[–] simplejack 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

In this case, not having them might be a benefit. Trump and his legal team would just be playing to the cameras and using this as a campaign event.

[–] CosmicCleric 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Trump and his legal team would just be playing to the cameras and using this as a campaign event.

The Supreme Court is different than the lower courts when it comes to allowing these sorts of shenanigans.

I don't believe what you described would happen, because first off Trump won't be in there, just a few of his lawyers.

And second, those lawyers, if they want to keep practicing after they're done with Trump, will make sure to behave themselves while they are presenting their case, because if the Supreme Court gets pissed at them, then no one will ever want to hire those lawyers again, under the worry that they'll never win another Supreme Court case.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~