this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
126 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19098 readers
3550 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sanctus 98 points 1 month ago

Why the fuck are we giving cases to the clearly corrupt judge? She herself needs to answer to the fucken law.

[–] RedWeasel 78 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If I were his lawyer I am requesting a different judge the first chance I get. Obviously biased. Can be used for appeal.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

While her superior court judges have slapped down some of her judgements, have they given any credence to the cries of obvious corruption?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She's incompetent, that's probably what you want if you're obviously guilty and hoping to get off on a technicality.

[–] Boddhisatva 2 points 1 month ago

Absolutely. If you're this guy do you really want a fair trial?

[–] FuglyDuck 67 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

whelp that guy's fucked.

I wonder if that gives him grounds for a appeal?

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 month ago

Watch how quickly this case moves

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago

How much you want to bet this is the fastest case through her courts yet.

I mean, she has all the free time from delaying the other one.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (3 children)

What attempt? They said he was hiding in a bush and didn't shoot.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Concepts of a plan of an assassination

[–] Johnmannesca 1 points 1 month ago

If a leader only has concepts, then it's a safe assumption a follower of that leader has even less than that to work with.

[–] Myxomatosis 34 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sounds like he was just exercising his Second Amendment rights. JD Vance himself said that shootings are an unfortunate fact of life.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

Given her past statements and respect for rules she's gonna try and execute this guy from the bench

[–] Feathercrown 12 points 1 month ago

What the fuck bro

[–] Bookmeat 11 points 1 month ago

Dead man walking.

[–] Rapidcreek 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She is the Forrest Gump of federal district judges

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a legit insult to Forrest Gump. She's a corrupt judge in the pockets of the GOP and needs to be removed.

[–] Rapidcreek 1 points 1 month ago

Outrage looks like an easy sell for some.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 10 points 1 month ago

This whole thing just makes me more convinced it was staged to get Trumpydump higher numbers in the polls.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Hmm Marinus van der Lubbe vibes here

[–] DBT 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Damn. They gave him the bimbo judge.

[–] SassyRamen 5 points 1 month ago

No, they gave him the traitorous scum judge, the fact she's a woman plays no part. I promise with this case it will be swift and with zero hang ups. She's a pay to win hand of Trump.