7 points

This is the best summary I could come up with:


For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-undecided immunity case given its urgency.

But it’s considerably more drawn out than the schedule the court established earlier this year on a challenge from Colorado after that state took Mr. Trump off its presidential primary ballot.

The court is a busy place, though the justices are completing decisions at the second slowest rate since the 1946 term, according to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal.

And yet Mr. Trump’s lawyers continued to take the untenable position, in response to questioning, that a president who orders the assassination of a political rival could not face criminal charges (absent impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate).

In 1974, the Watergate special prosecutor squared off against President Richard Nixon over his refusal to release Oval Office tape recordings of his conversations with aides.

Even if presidents enjoy some immunity for official acts, plotting to remain in office while continuing to question the results of an election they clearly lost isn’t one of them.


The original article contains 1,151 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
126 points
*

How can we word this so tRump gets his way but also so Biden doesn’t get immunity and when will I get another luxury vacation or motorhome?

Clarence Thomas probably.

permalink
report
reply
25 points
*

Uncle Tom

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Stephen from Django

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Obligatory: Uncle Tom was actually a good guy. The idea that he was some kind of traitor or such comes from a crappy adaptation of the book. In the actual book he dies to save some other slaves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Oh no it’s just straight delaying his trial until after the election. They have no problem writing a 100 percent ironclad opinion on presidential immunity and then denying that immunity to Biden for reasons pulled out of a fever dream.

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points

Instead of “rotten”, the title should use “completely predictable”.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Like leaving a mayonnaise container to age in the sun.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The container will be ok.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

This country will not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Just like Trump is okay. But inside them both is rancid, vile stuff…

permalink
report
parent
reply
220 points

As an organization, they are actively and intentionally interfering with electoral politics. Their lifetime appointments were designed to remove them from that dynamic, but they have decided to bypass that principle. The structure of our federal government is designed to deal with problems like this by having the other branches check them when they step out of line like this. Unfortunately, neither of the other branches have shown any desire to take action. As a result we are currently caught in a self-reinforcing death spiral of anti-democratic corruption that will eventually undo the union unless something changes. What a time to be alive.

permalink
report
reply
84 points

I think we are supposed to be that something that changes it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

Peaceful protesting only works for so long.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

That’s where the second amendment actually does come in for once

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Have you tried voting for the party that wants to remove corruption and expand the packed court?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

All Biden has to do is appoint 300 more judges. Maybe 1,000. Let’s see the GOP stuff that court.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

While I agree with the sentiment, this isn’t correct. They aren’t actively interfering. They are refusing to interfer when it’s thier job. And the structure was designed to remove them from undue influence of the other branches… not from politics in general, or from outside influence. Fact is, noone is truely impartial, and outside influences are pretty much impossible to remove. So the whole idea of a court that is above that is just ludicrous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The executive branch (Biden) would have expanded the courts. Manchin and Simena refused to cast the needed votes to make it work. It’s up to us to elect more Democrats so we don’t have to rely on our worst ones to do the right thing.

Look at what a mess the House has been when the Republicans have had a handful of votes to spare. Dems have no spare votes, and they’ve still managed to get a lot done. Put a few more Democrats in the Senate, and then we don’t have to cater to the quasi-conservative senators in the party.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

The “hand is not hidden”. It’s out in public with a raised middle finger to democracy and our way of life.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 449K

    Comments