this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
377 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4681 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
[–] [email protected] 37 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Wallace's decision was brilliant legal maneuvering. Having found Trump factually guilty of insurrection, higher courts cannot re-adjudicate or dismiss that fact. It is now written in stone.

Given that this case was going to be appealed, no matter what, her decision basically dropped an anvil on Trump's head. Now SCOTUS cannot disregard the fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. They're stuck with that, that's how our law works. Bet Trump's defense is pissed off.

Only way out now is some serious legal acrobatics to say that 14th does not apply to POTUS. LOL, he's fucked.

And remember, this court is conservative, not partisan. These judges owe neither the GOP nor Trump a damned thing. I'd bet you a crisp $20 bill that, like the GOP leadership, every one of them loathes the man. And unlike the GOP leadership, they no longer have to worry about votes.

They've already declined to hear one Trump case (maybe two?), thereby kicking his loss back to the lower court. Where, ya know, he already lost. They also told Alabama to go fuck themselves on their redistricting shenanigans.

tl;dr: Wallace ruled this way on purpose to fuck Trump.

[–] eestileib 43 points 8 months ago

Everything you say would also be the case if she hadn't come up with the bullshit about not applying to the presidency. That was simply about keeping the maga crosshairs off of her.

Clarence Thomas seems to like Trump just fine; he and his wife were being very shady after the 2020 election.

The idea that this court is "not partisan" is frankly one of the most naïve things I've heard in a long time.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Now SCOTUS cannot disregard the fact that Trump engaged in insurrection.

They gonna tho.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago

Literally, this scotus makes up its own facts all the time to get to the outcome they want. Go look into the quiet prayer that football coach was doing (it wasn’t quiet).

They literally don’t give a shit anymore about any rule. Standing doesn’t matter, facts, anything. If they just think they need to stick their stupid fucking faces into something they just go with their major questions bullshit now.

Down with the god kings of the Supreme Court!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

This is the corrupted court that overturned Roe.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

what has confused me about people saying this is, well, what exactly stops the supreme court from overriding him being declared factually guilty of that? Im guessing theres some sort of law to the effect that decisions like that arent what higher courts are trying to answer, but the supreme court also has no higher court to appeal a ruling to, so if they just decided to declare that this finding was incorrect anyway, what would happen?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There's nothing stopping them but they are expected to consider precedent which that decision sets.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

That’s not how precedent works. Higher courts set precedent that lower courts must follow, not vice versa. For instance, the SC could introduce a very narrow definition of (participating in) an insurrection. If they want to rule in Trump’s favor, they will find an excuse (and mangle the law in the process).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Yeah, they are pretty GD partisan. By virtue of being conservative.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

This is not a smart take. It’s basically conspiracy thinking.

Otherwise, the Supreme Court is clearly partisan, because Alito and Thomas unashamedly contort into any position needed to face the MAGA base, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett will typically tend to do so in any issue involving civil rights or business interests.

The GOP is the body that executes the will of whatever conservatism is at any moment; they are inseparable at the executional level. The doctrinal vehicle the GOP uses to get where it’s going is originalism, but the great thing about justices playing professional-amateur historians is that they can cherry-pick history to suit party-doctrinal needs.