this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
578 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19147 readers
4412 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
 

"Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed," says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig

It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”

You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at  oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] snekerpimp 247 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Illegitimate court, almost half were appointed by the accused and should not even be hearing this case. We are teetering on a dictatorship and this court is pulling the steering wheel even more that direction. I, for one, do not recognize any ruling from these corrupt judges.

[–] [email protected] 102 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Three were appointed, which is 1/3rd of the nine justices. However, to me the most relevant figure is that five of the nine were appointed by GOP presidents that got into office losing the popular vote (Roberts & Alito by GWB, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB by Trump).

These justices, the majority of the court, do not and have never represented the US either by vote or ideology (even secondarily via the presidential/nominating vote), yet they are lifetime-appointed positions with unparalleled power over our lives and the continued existence of American democracy. They can choose to allow Trump to crown himself king, but they are already an effective monarchy.

Roberts has been concerned about the Court's legitimacy the last decade. He should be - it isn't legitimate.

[–] billiam0202 47 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Roberts doesn't give a flying fuck about his Court's legitimacy. He cares about the appearance of his Court's legitimacy.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, sorry, that's the better way to put it.

To him, it's the same thing, because if the Supreme Court loses the appearance of legitimacy, they themselves have no practical means to enforce their decisions.

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

Unless they have a dictator-president and ineffective congress.

It feels a lot like they’re getting for that possible outcome—so they have a sympathetic king when the time comes.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The Supreme Court is illegitimate because of what you said. By association, the presidency is also illegitimate. And since the Senate is undemocratic and Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435, both of those are illegitimate.

Thankfully, they still have the monopoly of violence.

[–] 2piradians 13 points 7 months ago

Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435

This is exactly it. This is what hamstrings the will of the majority and lends relevance to these lunatics we're having to endure.

Many revere our founders, and I'm quite sure if they could comment on this mess they'd say something like "There are how many millions of citizens? And you stopped adding representatives at 435? That's the problem. Why?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It’s an absolute clown show not based on law but on bribes, influence, and political alignment.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Tale as old as time.

[–] [email protected] 97 points 7 months ago (1 children)

SCOTUS should not have taken the case. Full stop.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago

Take it, laugh at the arguments and vote 9-0, maybe. Just get it settled.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

I knew this SCOTUS was a joke, but this is unbelievable even for them. I cannot fathom that I've lived to see the day that a former president's lawyer argues that the sitting president ought to be able to perform political assassination and any number of justices, let alone a near, majority say "well that makes sense to me lol".

[–] Burn_The_Right 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is just the natural development of unchecked conservatism, a plague long overdue for a cure.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] breadsmasher 81 points 7 months ago (1 children)

republicans would be happy with the appearance of democracy - just like russia. Theres multiple names on the box, but you know the votes aren’t counted. trump would conveniently win every time. Strangely just like putin does.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting 43 points 7 months ago (3 children)

It's not a new observation that the GOP and Russia are on the same page about a lot of things; what isn't settled is what will be done about it

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ATDA 58 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Me, a layman: GEE I WONDER IF SWEARING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION MEANS HE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DESTROY IT.

In all caps.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 7 months ago (7 children)

If the Court decides that the President has unbound authority then why shouldn't Joe Biden shoot Donald Trump with a gun? It's not illegal when the President does it!

[–] baldingpudenda 50 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Biden could also argue that trump was a threat to America and its democracy.

[–] AbidanYre 41 points 7 months ago

He wouldn't be wrong.

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

Or maybe Biden could just have Seal Team 6 take out several Supreme Court Justices?

[–] CharlesDarwin 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Came here to say this. I wonder how Trollito would answer that very direct question?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

Even if it's not illegal, and even if Joe Biden was okay with it ethically, politically he'd be turning Trump into a martyr and giving the right a lot of propaganda with which to incite civil war.

My guess, based on messaging to their base, they've already planned for this.

[–] Dkarma 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Stop saying this. They'd forget about him in 6 months

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If he loses the election, sure. If he ends up in prison, sure. If Biden kills him?

Nah, they'll forget about him when Fox News and the rest of the oligarchs decide using him as a martyr is no longer useful for stirring up civil unrest and solidifying their own power.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FreakinSteve 54 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I like how media always uses soft, snuggly words like "shameful" instead of real words like "fucking corrupt to the core and illegally installed".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unreasonabro 34 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You gotta love the brazen, balls-to-the-wall craziness of the "accountability leads to lawlessness" argument. Especially coming from the supposed religious party, it's a stunning assertion, devoid of morality or even a sense of direction. It's just another version of the stupid fucking "too big to fail" argument.

The argument is this: Yes, the people in charge have committed crimes, but they're the top of the food chain now. If we take them out, there will be a power vacuum - the very chaos we are supposed to prevent! (no it's fucking not, retards, THAT's just the free market in action, you know, the thing you always masturbate about, you're supposed to be protecting these enterprises from falling into criminal behaviour, incentivising correct behaviour, and generally FIXING SYSTEMS not making them worse)

Idiots. What use preserving a corrupt system? It's just an admission that they're paying you. "Why would I change it now that I'm in a position to benefit from it?" Here's why: accepting money to hurt your own people is TREASON. Put that shit in your pipe and smoke it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus 33 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Cowabunga it is then. I believe this is that part about the tree of liberty needing the blood of patriots or something.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ikidd 30 points 7 months ago (3 children)

If Biden has absolute immunity after a ruling to that effect, he would be within that authority to have the justices that voted for that rounded up and shot, then appoint a Supreme Court that will reverse it.

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

I would love to see it.

He won't, though. Repubs have counted on Dems to abide by the spirit of the rules even while they obstruct and dismantle everything with zero regard for a functioning democracy. The Dems would all be desperately reaching across the aisle for a compromise up until they are executed in the afternoon on January 20th.

[–] ikidd 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

True, but could you imagine if he went completely off the rails after a ruling like that? Sets up a guillotine in front of Congress and starts marching Republicans out one after one.

I'd watch the fuck out of that on Pay-per-view.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Well that was a horrifying read first thing in the morning.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right 24 points 7 months ago (18 children)

This illegitimate "supreme" court needs to be dismantled and rebuilt with normal justices. There is no place in a modern culture for conservatism or any other hate-based, oppressive ideology.

Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level. They seek only to control others and destroy progress. We should be speaking openly about the deadly dangers of conservatism and should exclude such toxic lifestyles from polite society.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Court expansion is the only straightforward way. Put the corrupt ones in minority.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Ultragigagigantic 22 points 7 months ago (17 children)

With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls. More people voting equals more democratic votes.

How we vote is controlled at the state level, so why haven't blue states passed electoral reform? Don't the democrats want more votes? Why would the democratic party say no to these extra votes?

Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican's nightmare?

[–] VindictiveJudge 13 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Electoral reform won't make blue states more blue. More people turning out doesn't matter if they're already voting for you, so you gain nothing. It would result in minor parties getting elected more often, which would weaken the power of the DNC. Obviously, the DNC doesn't want that.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 10 points 7 months ago

You are correct, the objective of ranked choice voting is not to empower the two existing parties. It is to create a system that it amenable to having more than two parties so of course the powers that be who benefit from that system don't want that - which is why it needs to be pressed because the two major block parties increasingly obstructionist and diverging will eventually cause a civil war. Smaller parties allow for more nuanced takes requiring cross party concensus and break up the stratification. If the game of democracy ends the Dems will end up with their heads on a plate so whatever kickbacks they receive from the status quo won't be worth jack.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You guys don't get it yet? They all talk, they coordinated not to pass it then decided who can vote what to piss off the least amount of their constituents. That's it, it's all politics.

[–] DandomRude 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

The fact that your supreme court is even willing to deal with the question of whether a president should have absolute immunity pretty much says it all.

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

True, but not hearing it would piss off the retarded half of the country. So they hear it, everyone panders to whoever they need, and here we are. This country is completely broken, both sides are garbage, it's all a show so they can get away with whatever they want and feed us just enough to keep us from rising up in any productive way. We are just the herd, we don't matter, we are a byproduct and we cultivate their money and lifestyle. They just can't tell us that openly. Even "voting", they will keep gerrymandering to keep it close. The dems will allow them to because dispite being widely more popular in the popular vote, they need the Villan of the Republicans to keep pushing things to the right to keep their game going. If they fought it, then someone would come along further to the left and the jig is up. Look what they did to Bernie, the only genuine candidate in my lifetime.

I don't think very many people realize just how broken we are, and it is beyond any diplomatic way of fixing. We either ride the ship while it sinks or take the helm at this point. Capitalism+Citizens United+legal lobbiests/bribes+Insider trading allowed by congess members= you're gonna have a bad time. And the only people that can change it is congress themselves, so they as a whole need to decide to cost themselves millions and millions of dollars. Never gonna happen peacefully. Nothing surprises me with the Supreme Court. Or any other politician. They are actually human garbage scum of the earth willing to lie, cheat, and steal. Willing to back a country that is blowing up children and hospitals so they can make some money from arms dealers. Fuck them all. They are a stain on the history of humanity.

/rant

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Has anyone asked Trump that he believes if Biden want to execute him and his allies RIGHT NOW, it would be totally ok and Biden should get full immunity as well?

[–] nul9o9 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Exactly. If they vote in any way that gives Trump the power he asks for, Biden could do all sorts of shit. Including arresting members of the supreme court.

[–] Wrench 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They always carefully qualify it as long as it's for official actions.

That way, they can say anything Trump (or whatever future republican president) does is justified official business but they can't share details because it's classified, but if a dem does it, it's not official business and not justified.

They're just setting up the gaslighting. Their playbook is so fucking obvious.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] p5yk0t1km1r4ge 17 points 7 months ago (7 children)

If we ever get to the point where he gets placed above the law as our president, there's only one thing to do. I'll say no more.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Just saying, if 45's acts are deemed political activity protected from prescription, 46 is still in office and is handed carte blanche to engage in all manner of unseemly counterfuckery. At the extreme, I believe Seal Team Six was mentioned, but I'm sure Biden could find lots of fun and creative ways to abuse unfettered executive power.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

The lawyers literally said that if the assassination is done for personal gain, but "as an official act", then it should fall under immunity.

[–] fukurthumz420 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The simplest solution is to remove a couple of conservative justices. Anybody could do it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_ 9 points 7 months ago

Pretty obvious that they have no shame. Just like trump.

load more comments
view more: next ›