this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
182 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3935 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
182
Supreme Court sidesteps decision on Trump presidential immunity claim in federal election interference case (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 10 months ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

FTA:

"The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly decide the question, which looms large in Trump’s prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference."

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 118 points 10 months ago

Friendly reminder, 5 out of 9 SCOTUS seem to have taken bribes:

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 95 points 10 months ago

Nothing to see here, certainly not a Conservative court helping delay the outcome as much as possible to help the man that gave them this power.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 36 points 10 months ago

cowards.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My sense is the Supremes are looking for a way to avoid this ruling, and pass it off to the DC Circuit. So the stay is lifted, the trial goes on while trump pursues his district level appeals.

 

[–] Dippy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Or tired of all the trump shit being flooded their way like the rest of the US.

I know they are a majority conservative and want their candidate, but even if elected it’s not going to stop cases about him having to go to them and loading them up with more and more work. I’d be annoyed.

[–] 2piradians@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (3 children)

None of the Justices dissented on this decision. Does that suggest they all agree that Trump should exhaust the appeals before they make the final ruling?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm of two lines of thought...

  1. It could mean they're in the tank for Trump and are intent on delay, delay, delay.

  2. It could mean that they feel a process this important shouldn't skip steps and they want to see what the appeals court has to say.

I keep flipping back and forth. :( I wish they had commented.

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I think there is historically low trust in the Supreme Court and the entire institution's power is based on trust (as opposed to the executives's that's based on an enormous military) and anything that vaguely looks like taking a side on this could too the balance.

Roberts has seemed extremely aware of this issue for a long time on more political cases.

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago

I don't think they could keep it a secret if they intended to back Trump.

[–] barkingspiders@infosec.pub 12 points 10 months ago

That's kind of my take. Too many people want to paint SCOTUS as a single (and usually corrupt) entity but there's a much wider diversity of opinions expressed across SCOTUS which often gets left out when we talk about their rulings. A complete lack of dissent from all justices signals that there is indeed some rationale here beyond partisan politics. Given the importance of the matter and the many many consequences of any given ruling on it, it makes sense to me that they would hold off and let the appellate courts chew on it for a while. By holding off they are allowing a wider array of judge's opinions to be heard which can only enrich the arguments they'll hear when and if they do ultimately take the case.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, because they recently fucked up with Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The workers in this case, who drive concrete mixers, went out on strike. Drivers allowed Glacier to load their trucks with concrete. At the appointed hour for the strike, several drivers drove their trucks back to Glacier’s headquarters and walked off the job. The company was unable to deliver the concrete and some of it hardened, requiring the company to scramble to find a way to safely dump the concrete, destroy it, and cart it away.

Glacier sued the union in state court for “tortious destruction” of its property – the spoiled concrete. The Washington Supreme Court dismissed the case...

The National Labor Relations Board – the federal agency responsible for enforcing labor law — has long held that unions that fail to take “reasonable precautions” may not be protected by the NLRA when strikes lead to damage to perishable goods or property. The court’s decision on Thursday relied on Glacier’s allegations that the Teamsters purposely timed the strike to ensure that the concrete would harden by choosing to strike only after Glacier had “batched” the wet concrete into the trucks.

Fascinating but I don't see how that applies here.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 10 points 10 months ago

It applies because the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the NLRB by intervening prior to its ruling on the issue. In this case, the Supreme Court is avoiding that problem by ensuring the immunity claims proceeds through the judicial system as expected.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Ridiculous. Do your fucking jobs.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So they now waste the country's time and effort in the lower courts until the appeals process inevitsbly leads them right back to the SCOTUS for a ruling? How is this constructive?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It gives the Supreme Court more legal opinions on which to say "Yes, that's correct" or "No, that's not correct" and explain their reasoning.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

WASHINGTON — Steering clear of a political firestorm for now, the Supreme Court said Friday it would not immediately decide the key question of whether Donald Trump has broad immunity for actions he took as president challenging his 2020 election loss.

The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly decide the question, which looms large in Trump’s prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference.

In asking the court to step in on an expedited basis, Smith said the case “presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office.”

On Dec. 7, Washington-based U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss his indictment on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds.

Trump’s lawyers argue that his role in questioning the result of the election was within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibilities as president, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling about presidential immunity.

They also say the Senate’s acquittal of Trump following impeachment proceedings over his role in events that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol means he cannot be separately prosecuted for the same actions.

The original article contains 463 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 54%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Been a bit since I updated this one:

If you're trying to keep track of where we're at in the Trump prosecutions:

Updated 12/23/2023

Georgia
13 state felonies
Election Interference
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
All 19 defendants have surrendered.
Trial - A trial date of Aug. 5, 2024 has been requested, not approved yet.
Three defendants, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and bail bondsman Scott Hall, have all pled guilty and have agreed to testify in other cases.
The judge in the case has set a deadline of December 1st for all motions to be filed, expect a trial date at some point after that.
Conviction
Sentencing

Washington, D.C.
4 federal felonies
January 6th Election Interference
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - March 4th, 2024, one day before Super Tuesday primaries.
Jack Smith had requested that the Supreme Court immediately rule on Trump's immunity defense, the Court rejected the request, requiring it to go through the usual appeals process first. Conviction
Sentencing

New York
34 state felonies
Stormy Daniels Payoff
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - March 25th, 2024
Conviction
Sentencing

Florida
40 federal felonies
Top Secret Documents charges
Investigation
Indictment
Original indictment was for 37 felonies.
3 new felonies were added on July 27, 2023.
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - May 20, 2024
Conviction
Sentencing

Other grand juries, such as for the documents at Bedminster, or the Arizona fake electors, have not been announced.

The E. Jean Carroll trial for sexual assault and defamation where Trump was found liable and ordered to pay $5 million before immediately defaming her again resulting in a demand for $10 million is not listed as it's a civil case and not a crimimal one. That trial date is currently set for January 15th, the same day as the Iowa caucus. and has now been determined to be for damages only as Trump was already found liable.

As a function of the January 6th and Georgia trials, there are now lawsuits in two states to bar Trump from the primary ballot based on the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Colorado: 12/19/23 - The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump is not eligible for the primary ballot due to being barred by the 14th Amendment as an insurrectionist.

Minnesota: 9/12/2023 - Lawsuit filed.

A long-shot write in candidate for President has also filed suits seeking to bar Trump from the ballot in Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 6 points 10 months ago

All the more interested to see what they do with the 14th amendment issue before them. Will they kick that can down the road also until more states have removed him and it's "too late" for them to do anything - thus making him intelligible through delaying and then just shrug off blame? Sounds like a great way to have an all out shitfest of an election they already know he is ineligible for, but love to watch the country burn.