this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
360 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3882 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I worry about this scenario:

The right wing justices on the court owe Trump nothing, and can look forward to using their lifetime positions to continue to ruin the country for decades. He was just a useful tool for getting them onto the court. They want Trump to stop bugging them and let them get on with it.

The three Trump justices and Thomas could recuse themselves, citing some previously hidden sense of ethics (and Habba specifically asking them for a quid pro quo).

Then a majority of the remainder would then remove Trump from the ballot.

This achieves 3 things:

  1. Republicans would be rid of Trump, because he’s a liability to their long term success. They could nominate Haley or whatever for this cycle.
  2. Republicans could shriek (and fundraise) endlessly off of “partisan librul socialist Democrat justices” removing Trump and why they need even MORE right wing justices.
  3. Trump’s stochastic MAGA terrorists would focus all their fury and rage on non-rightwing justices (rather than deciding that one of their own was a “RINO” and targeting them).

The only problem with their scenario (for the Republicans and those that control them) is that Trump would freak out and might tell all his followers to storm the Supreme Court anyway.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

≥storm the Supreme Court anyway.

I wonder how that would go down? Would there be someone trying to gum up the response like last time?