this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
201 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2995 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.

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

FTA:

"The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly decide the question, which looms large in Trump’s prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (6 children)

My sense is the Supremes are looking for a way to avoid this ruling, and pass it off to the DC Circuit. So the stay is lifted, the trial goes on while trump pursues his district level appeals.

 

[–] Dippy@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Or tired of all the trump shit being flooded their way like the rest of the US.

I know they are a majority conservative and want their candidate, but even if elected it’s not going to stop cases about him having to go to them and loading them up with more and more work. I’d be annoyed.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm confused. I'm sure SCOTUS is annoyed at having to deal with so many cases from just 1 person. I'm annoyed at my job when 1 customer makes a lot of extra work for us. That's like, every damn day at most jobs, though.

They can decline to take cases which means that they are agreeing with the lower court rulings. The only other option is for law enforcement to not pursue charges against a felonious former president.

[–] Dippy@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Yea that’s the point. At some point could just be lazy and not take it and divert responsibility by agreeing with the lower courts, a lot easier then actually hearing it.

At work I do a lot to avoid having more work come my way. If I can push it off. 9 times out of 10 I’m pushing it somewhere else.

load more comments (3 replies)