85
The Court Just Sealed Everyone’s Fate, Including Its Own
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
85 points (78.9% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1928 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A ruling hasn't been issued yet as far as I can tell. This is just an emotional and editorial piece based on the Trump immunity case arguments. It's too early to be mad yet.
I fully expect a dissenting opinion from Alito and Thomas that attempts to retcon nominative determinism ("Donald Trump can do whatever he wants, but Joe Biden is a stinky poo poo head and must go directly to jail") into a core pillar of Constitutional originalism, but I don't think there's a majority on the court that would sign on to an opinion legitimizing drone strikes on the opposition party. I'm fairly certain the end result will be a significant narrowing of Trump's criminal exposure regarding the January 6 insurrection, but the biggest impact that the court has made with this case is dragging out the process of trying it to the point that it likely will not be decided before the election. If they help Trump run out the clock and it winds him the election, then he can instruct the DoJ to kill the case, and his toadies on the court will have handed him a win while being able to maintain the thin veneer that they're not nakedly partisan operators. If Biden wins anyways, they're not in danger of catching flak from the MAGA crowd because they will have done their part.
I'll be mad they heard the case, but yeah, now sure what this article is really adding. We wait even longer now I guess.
These things are usually telegraphed beforehand so they can gauge public reaction and adjust if necessary.
I don't think it's too early to be mad about the courts potentially legalizing presidential murder.
Rulings aren't adjusted based on public sentiment; That's not how the court functions. You can generally speculate with reasonable accuracy on each judges position even prior to arguments for a case and arguments give a clearer public affirmation as to their thoughts on the manner.
Presidents have been authorizing legalized murder since the country's inception. All this ruling will do is create a legally distinct definition between state actions and personal actions. This article is just ragebait.
Not against political rivals, what the fuck is this hyper normalization bullshit
It’s blood pressure raising clickbait. It also implies ruling on the abortion inclusion in EMTALA, which has not happened either.