Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Call me old fashioned but it seems like a flaw in the legal system if it takes slightly longer than one 4-year presidential term to prosecute someone for interference in a presidential election.
The real screw up here was appointing a fucking conservative as attorney general.
Never, ever show kindness to conservatives. Politeness and professionalism? Sure. But a conservative sees kindness as a weakness to exploit. That is just who they are at their core.
Reaching across the aisle by appointing Merrick Garland was an extremely stupid move that could cost us our democracy.
Yes, very. Federal judges have huge case loads, and expanding the size of the federal bench would be one way to fix that. At least doubling it, and quite possibly doubling it again.
Democrats haven't touched this because they're spineless and don't want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.
Democrats haven't touched this because they're spineless and don't want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.
I don't even know if it's just that they're spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don't really mind a conservative judicial system.
The vast majority of people in Congress are affluent white people, and they really have nothing to gain by replacing a conservative judge with a liberal one. A conservative judicial system isn't going to stop them from leaving the country for an abortion, or change what the private schools teach their children. While a liberal judge may increase their taxes, make it harder to accept bribes, or even ruin their businesses by implementing labor laws.
I just don't really see anything that would really motivate anyone in Congress to enact a more fair judicial system.
Yeah, it seems to me that Democrats are in a pretty nice position for themselves - they can claim to be for the people, while lamenting that they're unable to make the big changes that the people want due to conservatives holding them back. If they didn't have that excuse, they might actually need to coordinate those changes, which they likely don't want to do.
I don’t even know if it’s just that they’re spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don’t really mind a conservative judicial system.
Sadly, I think you're right. Occams razor would suggest that's what we're seeing here. IMO, it's far more likely that politicians are being self-serving (power corrupts) than being a bunch of shrinking violets in circumstances where it hurts everyone else.
Didn't the turtle Mitch refuse to fill hundreds of members of the federal judiciary?
Yes, that's exactly why Trump was able to fill so many. His administration was very slow to fill vacancies at other federal agencies, but not judges. Shows exactly where they had their priorities.
Charles Manson never personally murdered anyone. There was no video of the crime. It took 2 years from the day his cult murdered people to Manson being sentenced to jail for life.
3 years later after a live televised insurrection and not even a trial.
Garland was gonna let him skate. It wasn't until he refused to give back the classified documents that he crossed the line and Garland have the go-ahead to prosecute him for that. And once you've given permission to prosecute an ex-president for one thing, you can't tell the other prosecutors who want to nail him for other crimes 'no'.
Garland should never have been picked as AG. He's literally the guy democrats pick when they want to tell Republicans "Hey, we see you, we love you, and you have nothing to worry about from us. So please just be normal 💕"
it seems like a flaw in the legal system
Oh no, this is exactly how it's designed. The rich are above the law.
Of note, this has nothing to do with the $450,000,000 and $83,000,000 bonds he needs to put up very soon
It doesn't matter. He can hold off on liquidation until November and if he wins, (which would mean there's a strong chance the Senate flips), have his cronies pass a, " lol god emperors don't pay for summary judgements" bill.
No he can't. The Special Monitor overseeing his assets and watching his books has the authority to start seizing assets until he's satisfied the monetary requirements to appeal, and she can do that right now. And, there's interest running on the meter until he does.
He's gonna pay whether he likes it or not.
Yes he can. Unfortunately. We all get to watch this birth of a dictator unfold in slow motion if Trump wins.
He wouldn't even need to do that. He would just need to sell a few of those Top Secret documents to MBS, and all of a sudden the Trump Org has another 2 billion worth of business in Saudi Arabia
They don't have the money for champagne.
Sure they do, the RNC is likely buying it.
The RNC has only 8.7 millions in bank.
Your Grandma just sent him $50
it’s what they were installed for. trump gave us a corrupt court that will last for decades, regardless of him not being in office.
“Literally popping champagne right now,”
Is that what people call snorting coke now?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president.
If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.
“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.
For months, Trump’s lawyers expected the federal trial to start this summer, and they have actively prepared for that scenario.
During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.
The court disagreed, unanimously rejecting Trump’s immunity claim earlier this month.
The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 129 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.
Maybe Biden should take one for the country. You know the court would rule against absolute immunity for something Biden did. And he's old enough, that he probably wouldn't even see jail. No more Trump, no question as to if the president is above the law. Win win.
The second they rule in Trump's favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.
The second they rule in Trump’s favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.
Well, that's the thing, they won't rule in Trump's favor. The lower court thoroughly destroyed Trump's case, to the point where the SCOTUS shouldn't taken the case in the first place and let the lower court decision stand. There's no legal support at all for Trump's claims. This all makes it pretty clear the conservative majority on the court merely wanted to toss Trump a bone with a delay and increase his chances of getting back in office.
And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”
You know how parents would say "because I said so" without any real justification for making a decision and there was nothing you could do about it?
That's the SCOTUS. Literally no oversight and they can do whatever the fuck they want.
Somehow the founders didn't see that as being a problem.
I think impeachment was supposed to be a check on their powers, but that never happens.
Yea give presidents immunity, Biden can use it exactly once, and then cancel it all together
Edit spelling
