this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
368 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3785 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
 

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has been left "shaken" by the unexpected public reaction to his ruling in the Donald Trumppresidential immunity case, a columnist wrote Friday.

Slate's judicial writer Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn't buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.

Lithwick referenced a report by CNN's Joan Biskupic. He “was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording [Donald] Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution," she wrote.

"His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 217 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

He’s not serious. Roberts is an arch conservative and has been for a long time. This is posturing to try and paint himself as a moderate, like he has been doing since before he was appointed to the bench. Fuck him.

[–] karashta@lemm.ee 93 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"You mean my radical and insane interpretations of the law are insane and radical?".

Yeah, he fucking knows and is a piece of shit like the rest of these disingenuous monsters

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 weeks ago

He’s just not as confident in the shoot-the-moon approach that the rest of the fascists are using to try and take/keep power.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How could he possibly have been surprised by the response? They are with 9 judges. Three vehemently disagreed with the ruling and even Barret partially disagreed. It’s not like he was looking for some compromise ruling that all judges signed onto. Pathetic reporting.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 12 points 2 weeks ago

He wasn’t. He’s trying to maintain the image that he’s above the fray while being deep in it

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago

I second that. FUCK this guy.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The Extreme Court has made itself irrelevant, useless and obsolete.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

None of that is true in any way. They are a relevant, useful, very much still in use, tool for conservatives to undermine democracy. I don't understand why you chose a single one of those descriptors.