this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023

152 points (93.7% liked)

politics

19107 readers

3025 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

152

Trump Got a Big Sign the Supreme Court Doesn’t Have His Back (www.vice.com)

submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Former President Donald Trump has tried every legal trick in the book to postpone his four upcoming criminal trials past election day.

But his master plan just ran into a big problem.

That’s because the Supreme Court showed it’s willing to move at lightning speed this week, when it agreed to fast-track an urgent request from Special Counsel Jack Smith about an issue that risks jamming up the legal works. In a system that can sometimes take years to reach resolution, the high court just got back to Smith in less than one day.

In other words, the Supreme Court just showed it understands the urgency of the situation. While this week’s action was only an early indicator and hardly a final decision on the merits of the pending appeal related to Trump’s Jan. 6 case, the court reacted with the kind of warp speed that suggests Trump’s attempt to bog things down could be doomed.

all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 71 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

First of all, according to the lawyer on the Rachel Maddow show it only takes 4 justices to bring it to a vote. It doesn't mean they don't have his back, we just don't know.

Second, they are very unpredictable and will vote for/against randomly, we just don't know. This is another wait and see, they could stall everything until after the election.

We need to talk about the corruption in the SCOTUS.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The greatest threat to democracy is an unjust judiciary. They need to be removed.

[+] naeap@sopuli.xyz -16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

How to decide who is just?
Edit: ehm...I really was thinking about how this could be made fair without just punishing wrong doing.
As a fan of 'no power for noone' I'm very sceptical of anyone choosing someone who is just. So I'm not sure if this system can ever live up to its name, because it's always lacking behind thanks to the speed of social system and law change

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 44 points 11 months ago

I don't need to be able to tell you exactly how many grains of sand make a desert in order to tell you that the Sahara is a desert and I don't need to fully define "just" vs "unjust" to tell you that going on thousand dollar/day vacations with someone who has business before your court after and taking on cases where there is no injured party in order to overturn precedent is unjust

[–] gsfraley@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The work is moreso on the inverse, making sure it's not unjust. No matter how you slice it, someone's going to take issue on the outcome of each ruling.

What IS easy to quantify is the sheer number of legal scholars and domain experts sounding the alarm that many rulings are inconsistent with previously established law (and in many cases having profound negative consequences on the stability of our society), and that there are frequent conflicts of interest on a huge number of cases (cough cough Thomas).

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And Roberts, he seems to be not mentioned as much, but he's just as corrupt.

Jane Roberts was paid more than $10 million by a host of elite law firms, a whistleblower alleges.
At least one of those firms argued a case before Chief Justice Roberts after paying his wife hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Details of Jane Roberts' work come as Congress struggles to reform the Court's self-policed ethics.

A nepo bribe taker, a straight up bribe taker, a rapist and a Christian extremest walk into a bar. The bartender says, "You can't do your dirty business here SCOTUS."

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

How about striking anyone who commits perjury? Or anyone who accepts bribes? Those seem like low hanging fruit where we should all be able to find common ground.

[–] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I agree man it feels like they are bitting into their own tail.

I mean maybe that judge that has already been proven that he took brides .

Idk about anything else from anyone else. But completely agree, this type of midset from people who are far from the situation only makes us as bad as republicans wanting to overtrow the gov.

Extremists usually don't fix much

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago

This is your reminder that Marbury v Madison was an unprecedented usurpation of power by SCOTUS, to assign themselves the incredible role of final arbiter on all things dealing with all three branches of government, judicial, legislative, and executive. Nobody else comes CLOSE to that level of oversight.

We’ve gone along with it all, but it’s a constitutional question/crisis that’s been brewing for over 200 years. Almost came to the surface during reconstruction and FDR, but the Robert’s court has a growing judicial credibility gap along with far too much corruption.

A typical limit in the corporate world for gifts sits around $250. Ethical codes of conduct compel workers to flatly refuse gifts or favors, or risk their jobs. The Supremes have a demonstrated track record of accepting hugely generous gifts and services, and actively rebuff investigation or rebuke.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 22 points 11 months ago

Trump recently argued that the Appellate Court should deny Smith’s request to expedite its review—and even compared Smith to the Grinch who stole Christmas, for allegedly attempting to make attorneys and support staff work through the holidays.

Trump’s team wrote: “It is as if the Special Counsel “growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. … But how?’”

LOL

Coming from the douche who consistently issues the worst holiday statements ever, that shit is hilarious!

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Aw, don't get my hopes up like that.

[–] Dressedlikeapenguin@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

"It's the hope that kills you"

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

It looks like maybe Clarence Thomas and Alito want to fast track their next big round of sugar daddy amenities.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Notably this is just them agreeing to take the case, not ruling on it, so it's still theoretically possible that they could rule in Trump's favor, but it's a good omen (as the article notes).

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

If they wanted to support Trump, their smartest move would've been to delay it. Taking the case and then ruling for Trump is just going to make them look even worse, and they seem to actually care about that.

I'm guessing Scalia and Thomas, who should recuse because of his wife, will support Trump here and hem and haw; the liberal justices will go against Trump; Roberts will go against Trump because legacy; and at least one of the Trump Three -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett -- will also go against Trump. Gorsuch seems like someone who actually sticks to his principles when they go against what a conservative is "supposed" to do, so my money's on him.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Trump’s team wrote: “It is as if the Special Counsel “growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. … But how?’”

This is like when you know you're gonna bomb an assignment in college so you just get drunk and have fun with it

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Sure; they're going to separately rule in the other case they just accepted that the law doesn't actually exist.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-january-6-obstruction-law/?intcid=CNI-00-10aaa3a