this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
816 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18931 readers
3244 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 61 points 9 months ago (4 children)

the court is openly, blatantly corrupt. I see no reason that should stop for this case in particular. being said, I also see no reason they would rule in favor of trump. he made a mistake that not many power brokers survive: he's depending on favors he's done for the justices in the past in getting them nominated rather than on what he can do for them in the future, and he's essentially said out loud that he's gonna consolidate all power including theirs in the office of PotUS if elected again. They'll let him coup us, but I don't think they'll let him coup them and I highly doubt they'll declare the president completely above the law while the sitting president is a democrat.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I highly doubt they'll declare the president completely above the law while the sitting president is a democrat.

I'm imagining a scenario where they do that and then Biden immediately orders drive strikes on the Republican justices, because why the hell not?

[–] kWazt@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

One-way tickets to Guantanamo for everyone!

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I highly doubt they’ll declare the president completely above the law while the sitting president is a democrat.

That wouldn't stop them because they know that good is dumb.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It wouldn't stop them then, but the question remains: when will then be now?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I honestly don't think the more recent "conservative" additions save gorsich actually would care if he did. They'd ride off rich into the sunset as "prestigious" SCOTUS members.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

if they were gonna retire rich on billionaire donor money they would have already done it. look at Corrupt Clarence: as long as he's sitting on the bench he can count on thousand dollar/day vacations and he knows that. As soon as he has nothing to offer his billionaire owners they'll pull up stakes and move on the bribing the next justice.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The way current day ~~bribery~~ political connections work is that you work on someone's behalf and then when you're done working in government you get a position as a board member, director position, whatever, from the people you helped profit so they can give you a gigantic salary as compensation for your favors for them without the government being able to do anything about it. I don't think any politician stays in the game for the free trips.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

with scotus it seems like they don't ever bother with the veil of delayed rewards anymore. someone gives a justice a pile of money, that justice rules in their favor, and as long as neither of them says "hey, that pile of money is definitely to buy rulings and not as a gift freely given to someone who just happens to have the final say in the law of the land" then no one can 'prove' bribery. the fact is at this point they're mocking us openly.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

sitting president is a democrat

That would matter if the sitting president had some conviction beyond the status quo. He doesn't, and if they declare Trump is above the law, Biden will staunchly refuse to take advantage of that power...because, reasons.

The D's inaction is what got us here. I don't expect that to change in the next 12 months.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

there's an inherent conflict in democrats where they want to be politicians while appearing to be above politics and what it ends up meaning is abandoning any position that's challenged by the opposition as "political", "divisive" or "agenda-driven". they're rich, coddled cowards.

with that being said, I feel like in most cases Rs are politically adroit enough to pull the ladder up behind them even when they don't think Ds will bother trying to climb it.