For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
Yesterday I thought Jack Smith's move was pretty pointless. And now I see the genius of it!
Trump's only move to avoid sentencing was to call his SCOTUS buddies. And now the SCOTUS has the following choice - that they probably don't want to have to make:
In other words, Jack Smith brilliantly cornered the SCOTUS. Beautiful!
What? Why would the SC care about looking corrupt? They're clearly not hiding it anymore.
It weakens their position as an impartial arbiter long-term. As in "The opinion of the justices who let Trump get away may not matter that much really..." Not today, but tomorrow.
Tomorrow is fascism, so it super doesn't matter.
We'll need to know whom to hang when it's over 🙂
uh... correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't his New York case a STATE level case, I fail to see how the Supreme Court could even justify having jurisdiction here.
It's not like it's a judgement of a federal level law. While federal overrides state, there is no conflicting law here. He is being sentenced for a state level crime, at the state level, before being appointed his position. Now if they decide to give him jail time over the matter (they won't, there's no way that wouldn't be challenged under current federal laws, the most they could be willing to do is jail him up until he gets certified at the inauguration) I could see it being argued. However there is no law forbidding a state from sentencing a state crime, regardless of status. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction here unless he gets jail time that would impede his position when appointed.