this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
569 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18894 readers
3094 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
 

"Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed," says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig

It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”

You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at  oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 243 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Illegitimate court, almost half were appointed by the accused and should not even be hearing this case. We are teetering on a dictatorship and this court is pulling the steering wheel even more that direction. I, for one, do not recognize any ruling from these corrupt judges.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 44 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s an absolute clown show not based on law but on bribes, influence, and political alignment.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Tale as old as time.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 95 points 4 months ago (1 children)

SCOTUS should not have taken the case. Full stop.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 months ago

Take it, laugh at the arguments and vote 9-0, maybe. Just get it settled.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 95 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

I knew this SCOTUS was a joke, but this is unbelievable even for them. I cannot fathom that I've lived to see the day that a former president's lawyer argues that the sitting president ought to be able to perform political assassination and any number of justices, let alone a near, majority say "well that makes sense to me lol".

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is just the natural development of unchecked conservatism, a plague long overdue for a cure.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 79 points 4 months ago (1 children)

republicans would be happy with the appearance of democracy - just like russia. Theres multiple names on the box, but you know the votes aren’t counted. trump would conveniently win every time. Strangely just like putin does.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not a new observation that the GOP and Russia are on the same page about a lot of things; what isn't settled is what will be done about it

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So the reason they want to hold the illusion of democracy is because we know what to do with kings. And their families.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Dealing with kings is a hard road to walk down. Not excited

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 56 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Me, a layman: GEE I WONDER IF SWEARING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION MEANS HE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DESTROY IT.

In all caps.

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Preserve, protect, defend. Didn't say anything about upholding or abiding by so everything's fine, what's the big deal? 😵‍💫

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I like how media always uses soft, snuggly words like "shameful" instead of real words like "fucking corrupt to the core and illegally installed".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You gotta love the brazen, balls-to-the-wall craziness of the "accountability leads to lawlessness" argument. Especially coming from the supposed religious party, it's a stunning assertion, devoid of morality or even a sense of direction. It's just another version of the stupid fucking "too big to fail" argument.

The argument is this: Yes, the people in charge have committed crimes, but they're the top of the food chain now. If we take them out, there will be a power vacuum - the very chaos we are supposed to prevent! (no it's fucking not, retards, THAT's just the free market in action, you know, the thing you always masturbate about, you're supposed to be protecting these enterprises from falling into criminal behaviour, incentivising correct behaviour, and generally FIXING SYSTEMS not making them worse)

Idiots. What use preserving a corrupt system? It's just an admission that they're paying you. "Why would I change it now that I'm in a position to benefit from it?" Here's why: accepting money to hurt your own people is TREASON. Put that shit in your pipe and smoke it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Cowabunga it is then. I believe this is that part about the tree of liberty needing the blood of patriots or something.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago (3 children)

If Biden has absolute immunity after a ruling to that effect, he would be within that authority to have the justices that voted for that rounded up and shot, then appoint a Supreme Court that will reverse it.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I would love to see it.

He won't, though. Repubs have counted on Dems to abide by the spirit of the rules even while they obstruct and dismantle everything with zero regard for a functioning democracy. The Dems would all be desperately reaching across the aisle for a compromise up until they are executed in the afternoon on January 20th.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

True, but could you imagine if he went completely off the rails after a ruling like that? Sets up a guillotine in front of Congress and starts marching Republicans out one after one.

I'd watch the fuck out of that on Pay-per-view.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 25 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Well that was a horrifying read first thing in the morning.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Reminds me of when that loser was president. Every morning there was some new horrifying thing to read about.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (17 children)

This illegitimate "supreme" court needs to be dismantled and rebuilt with normal justices. There is no place in a modern culture for conservatism or any other hate-based, oppressive ideology.

Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level. They seek only to control others and destroy progress. We should be speaking openly about the deadly dangers of conservatism and should exclude such toxic lifestyles from polite society.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Court expansion is the only straightforward way. Put the corrupt ones in minority.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Nope, shame them.

Legit Biden needs to challenge it directly and have Trump's daughter and her husband arrested and jailed on charges he must fully admit are false and politically motivated. Say the Saudi money was to pay for classified information or something, they would either have to rethink their choice or the precedent is set with a Democrat in office which would allow literal and complete political control of the government.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

normal justices

I'll believe one when I see one. The profession is simply drowning in Federal Society freaks and Ivy League snobs.

Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level.

They've got a plurality, at least in the economic strata that control all the material wealth. I don't know how they stop participating in government while still retaining control of all this property.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

. I don't know how they stop participating in government while still retaining control of all this property.

Excellent point. Historically, an infestation of unchecked conservatism has never been cured peacefully.

[–] MaxHardwood@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago

ACAB; All Conservatives Are Bad

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You guys don't get it yet? They all talk, they coordinated not to pass it then decided who can vote what to piss off the least amount of their constituents. That's it, it's all politics.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The fact that your supreme court is even willing to deal with the question of whether a president should have absolute immunity pretty much says it all.

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

True, but not hearing it would piss off the retarded half of the country. So they hear it, everyone panders to whoever they need, and here we are. This country is completely broken, both sides are garbage, it's all a show so they can get away with whatever they want and feed us just enough to keep us from rising up in any productive way. We are just the herd, we don't matter, we are a byproduct and we cultivate their money and lifestyle. They just can't tell us that openly. Even "voting", they will keep gerrymandering to keep it close. The dems will allow them to because dispite being widely more popular in the popular vote, they need the Villan of the Republicans to keep pushing things to the right to keep their game going. If they fought it, then someone would come along further to the left and the jig is up. Look what they did to Bernie, the only genuine candidate in my lifetime.

I don't think very many people realize just how broken we are, and it is beyond any diplomatic way of fixing. We either ride the ship while it sinks or take the helm at this point. Capitalism+Citizens United+legal lobbiests/bribes+Insider trading allowed by congess members= you're gonna have a bad time. And the only people that can change it is congress themselves, so they as a whole need to decide to cost themselves millions and millions of dollars. Never gonna happen peacefully. Nothing surprises me with the Supreme Court. Or any other politician. They are actually human garbage scum of the earth willing to lie, cheat, and steal. Willing to back a country that is blowing up children and hospitals so they can make some money from arms dealers. Fuck them all. They are a stain on the history of humanity.

/rant

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I'm from Germany, but I see myself more as a European, because I don't think much of national concepts, if only because of our past. Having said that, against the background of the past decades, it seems almost desirable to me that the situation in America now makes it obvious to everyone that the US system does not serve the American people. You have long been a role model for us: a successful democracy that promises its citizens prosperity and freedom. Many of my fellow citizens are only now realizing that this has never been the case, as the massive flaws in your system make it obvious that this is not a system for the people, but a system for the powerful. I sincerely hope that this realization can somewhat help humanity overcome greed and hubris to find a better way. But I have little hope, if only because even here in Germany I can see that fascism is on the rise again - although the Germans should know better; unfortunately, not even my people seem to have learned anything from our terrible past. It's enough to make you cry. So long story short: I can understand your frustration very well.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You have long been a role model for us

Not gonna lie, this stings, because like most American kids I grew up believing the bullshit as well. The truth hurts.

Be better than us.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (15 children)

With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls. More people voting equals more democratic votes.

How we vote is controlled at the state level, so why haven't blue states passed electoral reform? Don't the democrats want more votes? Why would the democratic party say no to these extra votes?

Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican's nightmare?

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Electoral reform won't make blue states more blue. More people turning out doesn't matter if they're already voting for you, so you gain nothing. It would result in minor parties getting elected more often, which would weaken the power of the DNC. Obviously, the DNC doesn't want that.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

You are correct, the objective of ranked choice voting is not to empower the two existing parties. It is to create a system that it amenable to having more than two parties so of course the powers that be who benefit from that system don't want that - which is why it needs to be pressed because the two major block parties increasingly obstructionist and diverging will eventually cause a civil war. Smaller parties allow for more nuanced takes requiring cross party concensus and break up the stratification. If the game of democracy ends the Dems will end up with their heads on a plate so whatever kickbacks they receive from the status quo won't be worth jack.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The hypothesis behind ranked choice is that enough people would vote for a third sane option that we don't have only choices between red and blue shitheads.

If you have a lot of people ranking like: Blue -> Red -> Con Man

And "moderates" ranking like: Red -> Con Man -> Blue

Presumably the number of people who prefer basic red over a con man would mean the con man cannot take office. Not even if a large group of Trumpanzees vote: Con Man -> Red -> Blue

Then, given that possibility, the assumption is that we would have viable third party candidates. If people could take third party candidates seriously, they are more likely to be incentivized to vote when they hate the favored top two.

IDK about the presidency because of EC bullshit, but I am pretty certain it would work like that for state and local elections.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Has anyone asked Trump that he believes if Biden want to execute him and his allies RIGHT NOW, it would be totally ok and Biden should get full immunity as well?

[–] nul9o9@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Exactly. If they vote in any way that gives Trump the power he asks for, Biden could do all sorts of shit. Including arresting members of the supreme court.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They always carefully qualify it as long as it's for official actions.

That way, they can say anything Trump (or whatever future republican president) does is justified official business but they can't share details because it's classified, but if a dem does it, it's not official business and not justified.

They're just setting up the gaslighting. Their playbook is so fucking obvious.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (7 children)

If we ever get to the point where he gets placed above the law as our president, there's only one thing to do. I'll say no more.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] loopgru@slrpnk.net 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just saying, if 45's acts are deemed political activity protected from prescription, 46 is still in office and is handed carte blanche to engage in all manner of unseemly counterfuckery. At the extreme, I believe Seal Team Six was mentioned, but I'm sure Biden could find lots of fun and creative ways to abuse unfettered executive power.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago

The lawyers literally said that if the assassination is done for personal gain, but "as an official act", then it should fall under immunity.

[–] fukurthumz420@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The simplest solution is to remove a couple of conservative justices. Anybody could do it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Pretty obvious that they have no shame. Just like trump.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

stack the court. If the court is going to undermine any sort of accountability for criminals then the best thing to do is stack the court

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›