this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
452 points (96.9% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3694 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Donald Trump’s claim that he should be shielded from criminal prosecution keeps the justices at the center of election-year controversy for several more months and means any verdict on Trump’s alleged subversion of the 2020 vote will not come before summer.

The country’s highest court wants the final word on the former president’s assertion of immunity, even if it may ultimately affirm a comprehensive ruling of the lower federal court that rejected Trump’s sweeping claim.

For Trump, Wednesday’s order amounts to another win from the justice system he routinely attacks. The justices’ intervention in the case, Trump v. United States, also marks another milestone in the fraught relationship between the court and the former president.

Cases related to his policies and his personal dealings consistently roiled the justices behind the scenes. At the same time, Trump, who appointed three of the nine justices, significantly influenced the court’s lurch to the right, most notably its 2022 reversal of nearly a half century of abortion rights and reproductive freedom.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 103 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The supreme court is picking the next president, just like they did with Bush v. Gore. They are just doing it before the election, instead of after.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 113 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

This is worse. Bush v Gore was about an election that just happened. It was about an actual case.

Here, the supreme Court took a very narrowly decided case, ignored the decision, and then changed the question being asked to one they want to answer.

Further, the special prosecutor asked them months ago "hey, can you take up this case now rather than delaying everything" which is something previous courts have done (for example, Bush v Gore).

But instead, they delayed, pushed to the lower court, delayed since more,.

It's rat fucking to the extreme. The Supreme Court has no legitimacy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 46 points 6 months ago (2 children)

No less than three of the current Supreme Court "Justices" were on Bush's legal team in Bush v. Gore.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Quite. And Bush v. Gore was in 2000; in 2001, just four months into office, Bush appointed Roberts to the DC appellate court, which was a very cushy appointment for a lawyer who'd never even been a judge.

Then, in 2005 when a Supreme Court seat finally opened up (Sandra Day O'Connor retired) Bush gave it to John Roberts. Surprise, surprise.

But wait, there's more. When Chief Justice William Rehnquist happened to die during Roberts' SCOTUS confirmation hearings, Bush gave Roberts the Chief Justice position.

In other words, in just four short years after Bush v. Gore, John Roberts rocketed from being nothing but a very well-connected lawyer straight up to Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court -- with nothing more than a brief stint as an appellate court judge in between on his resume, and he even got that with zero prior experience on the bench.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago

Thanks I hate it.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It's insane that in the US people know the political leaning of their supreme court justices. I don't know of any other country where that's the case.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

In Germany, the judges of the Bundesverfassungsgericht might have political leanings too, but they can only have that position for up to 12 years (after which they can't be reelected) and have to abdicate when reaching the age of 68.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah, I think it would take another tumultuous period for America before they could reform. Plenty of corruption in US and other places happen due to legal and logical sophistry.

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's quite interesting. Didn't know that wasn't the normal and now I have something to look into. It seems like the political leanings is the only thing that's ever talked about so will be interesting to see how they do it else where.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Didn’t know that wasn’t the normal

This is most Americans whenever this sort of thing comes up. Most Americans are very unaware of anything that happens beyond US borders, and assume that the way things happen in the US is normal worldwide. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world is exposed to news and other media from the US as well as many other countries.

If you live in Australia you get British media, Aussie media and US media. If you live in the UK you get UK media, American media and European media.

Even in non-English countries, Hollywood media is everywhere, even if it's translated to other languages. Hollywood offers a distorted view of the US, but it's still media made with US ideas and biases, so it exposes the rest of the world to how the US thinks. The closest most Americans get to foreign media is an occasional break-out hit like Squid Game.

It's frustrating how isolated the US is, because decisions made in the US affect the whole world. But, when the people making those decisions don't know much of anything about the world outside the US, they often don't know that there's a better (or at least different) way.

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Jesus Fucking Christ dude, I was talking about judges and you took this opportunity to rant for multiple paragraphs about media. It's the fucking internet, I can get news from multiple sources and not just "squid games". Commenter above talked about German judges political leanings, as I'm sure plenty of other countries do as well after researching further on it. UK and Australia are the outliers (with Canada, still looking into them) and have their own sets of problems, instead of talking about those you've decided to make an anti-US shitpost.

Britain’s only transgender judge has quit after claiming she can no longer do the job without politicizing the judiciary. Master Victoria McCloud said her publicly known status as someone who transitioned from a man to a woman meant she was “now political every time I choose where to pee”. “I have reached the conclusion that in 2024 the national situation and present judicial framework is no longer such that it is possible, in a dignified way, to be both ‘trans’ and a salaried, fairly prominent judge in the UK,” she added. (link)

Man successfully sues Judge Salvatore Vasta for wrongful imprisonment, He said Judge Vasta denied the plaintiff procedural fairness and had engaged in a "gross and obvious irregularity of procedure". (link) Judges to be protected against civil lawsuits after Salvatore Vasta sued over wrongful imprisonment, The federal government is preparing to introduce reforms granting greater protections to inferior court judges after a landmark case in which a wrongfully imprisoned man successfully sued Salvatore Vasta. (link)

So why is the Australian appointment process devoid of scrutiny, allowed to unfold in the shadows of cabinet confidentiality and undisclosed “consultations” with state governments, the chief justice and maybe a few legal peak bodies? So, absent a public confirmation process, how does the attorney general divine where a potential appointee sits on these issues of public and legal policy? This is done indirectly through a review of previous judgments or writings and speeches delivered by a candidate. Peers in the legal profession will be canvassed and the opinion of the high court chief justice will be gained – although this might be to assess if an appointee would be happily greeted by the current judges rather than obtaining a view as to the candidate’s outlook on specific legal issues. State governments are asked to submit names for consideration but normally the states won’t be given an opportunity to comment on the final shortlist.

Being able to appoint high court judges is one of the great prizes of winning federal elections. The court shapes Australia. It decided that native title survived British colonisation, ruled on whether the commonwealth could nationalise the banks, and whether persons denied refugee status could be indefinitely detained. No prime minister will ever give away the power to make these appointments and none to date have seriously entertained even lifting the curtain to allow public to glimpse the process. (link)

Australia urgently needs an independent body to hold powerful judges to account, It is a vacuum that has allowed sexist, racist and other troubling conduct to go largely unaddressed. Unlike, for instance, the legal or medical professions, or the public service, these avenues for accountability are not designed to provide an independent, standing institutional response when an individual has a complaint about the conduct of a judge — be that on or off the bench. Removal of a judge can only occur if both houses of parliament agree to it. It is an all-or-nothing option subject to partisan influences, political opportunism and argy-bargy. There has never been a federal judge removed in Australia.

The allegations of incompetence, rudeness, and bias against federal circuit court judge, Sandy Street, and incompetence, rudeness and unfairness against Judge Salvatore Vasta, that emerged over the course of last year provide us with two others. For months, there was no institutional response to the conduct of these two judges. This was despite a number of complaints, including from the Law Council of Australia. Finally, the chief judge of the Federal Circuit Court, Will Alstergen, indicated that the judges had agreed to undertake mentoring. He also defended the current Federal Circuit Court complaints procedures. Also last year, a Northern Territory judge, Greg Borchers, was found to have made comments that contained negative racial stereotypes. It was conduct the then Law Council of Australia President Arthur Moses branded “disparaging, discriminatory and offensive, insulting and humiliating to Indigenous Australians based solely on their race”. (link)

Looking into it further, seems like they all have their failings and political stances are included in all of them. Your high horse just has a nice robe thrown around it's wooden legs so no one can see what's going on. If you want to continue talking about "judges" I'm all for it, coming to see your wall of text about US media is just fucking sad. "now I have something to look into, will be interesting to see how they do it else where".

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 41 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Obviously Trump would do this.

You can thank AG Merrick Garland for allowing this to happen, who did jack shit for 2 years until finally tapping in Jack Smith to actually do something to hold the traitor in chief accountable.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 29 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You can thank AG Merrick Garland for allowing this to happen

...who ironically would've been a current Supreme Court justice himself were it not for McConnell's and Trump's f**kery.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You know, that’s pretty interesting to consider. Wonder what his performance as AG can tell us about how he would have been on SCOTUS.

Maybe we can still find out, if Biden admin resizes the court. Is it too late to do so before the presidential immunity hearing?

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I think Biden had said long ago that he wouldn't do that no matter what; in this political environment it probably wouldn't happen anyway.

By the way, appellate courts sit right below the U.S. Supreme Court and there are currently 13 of them.

Some legal experts argue there should be one supreme court justice per appellate court, because that was the ratio when the appellate court system was first established in 1891 -- nine supreme court justices and nine appellate courts.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Garland was Obama's compromise choice to make it through the Republican Senate. Before the pick was made, one Senator (might have been Graham, but I can't find a quote right now) specifically said that that he thought Obama's pick would be DoA, because it would be too liberal, and not a more acceptable, centrist choice like Merrick Garland.

That's what prompted McConnell (and Graham, who was Judiciary Chairman IIRC) to simply sit in the nomination and not allow it to progress. Because they knew that if it were sent to a vote, it would have passed, and gambled on having the open seat drive turnout for Trump.

It Garland was on the court instead of Gorsuch, things might not be all that much different. Recall that Dobbs was decided 6-3, which means that, all other things being equal, Gorsuch's vote was unnecessary.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I fear we’re headed toward a dark future. Why the SC “justices” think they’ll be spared is puzzling.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 39 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They are rich sociopaths. If you have money and zero empathy for your fellow humans, your future can't really get dark.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Exactly.

Imagine thinking we don't live in a plutocracy... I hate our public brainwashing "education." We indoctrinate kids into thinking America The Great is a thing, or For the People. Yeah... It's For the ~~rich~~ People...

(Not that I want private schools. I just want public education to be about reality, not an indoctrination into brainwashed subservient society)

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

It can get very, very dark for them. Ask Mike Pence.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Maybe but nothing will happen to them and you'll suffer as a result. You won't be spared... That's the reality.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 33 points 6 months ago

"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied"

Normally when people say that, it's because people can suffer if the the justice takes too long, even if it does eventually give the right result. In this case, it might literally be denied. If Trump wins he's going to do everything in his power to stop all legal proceedings against him and retaliate against anybody who dared to go against him.

I know complex cases can take a while, but really 4 years is too long. Even if there weren't the threat of the election and his being able to pardon himself, it's too long. This really should have been done before the midterm elections two years ago.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago

This is a violation of Trump's sixth amendment rights.

"the accused in a criminal prosecution shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial".

I say we open a rights violation case and see if we can get him his speedy trial.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Fuck Merrick Garland. He did this.

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Biden needs to pull a Jackson and start ignoring the Supreme Court.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

The entire U.S. needs to start ignoring the "supreme" court.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If Biden wins, and the Democrats pull off a majority in the House and Senate, they need to pack the court, Fillibuster be damned. Expand it to 11 on July 2025, and 13 in July of 2027. The recent decisions, as unpopular as they are, should build up enough popular support for this.

Then they need to sit down with Republicans and say "Hey! We'll give you a choice. Work with us to reform the Court to add term limits via amendment and make any single sudden vacancy less of a political football, or watch as Dark Brandon appoints 4 Liberal justices in their early 40s to lifetime appointments."

[–] halferect@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

First off biden will never pack the court, second the democrats are going to lose the senate. Republicans will never agree to term limits and I don't think democrats will either, they are both obsessed with power and any limits will be shot down. We are fucked no matter what, it's just how fast we are fucked. (I would also add that this is politicians and not the people they are supposed to represent)

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

I would not underestimate how pissed off the liberal electorate is at the Court right now. And while you are correct that Democrats are unlikely to retain the Senate, they were also not likely to keep it last time, and they did.

Even if Biden is not inclined to do so, if Democrats do manage it there will be a push for it.

And it's been demonstrated that Republicans only respond to force (metaphorical, in this case). The way to get them to support term limits is to limit their choices so if they don't, they get an even worse outcome.

[–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Biden will happily hand Trump the presidency "out of respect for the office" and be immediately arrested for the show trial as Trump begins his 1000 year reign as Lord Emperor.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 20 points 6 months ago

Fuck Mitch McConnell, Justice Ginsberg and Justice Kennedy. They did this.

FTFY

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We will know by the amount of time it takes them to reach judgement on his insane argument. By June SCOTUS is fully complicit.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago (10 children)

It shouldn't have taken any time. They should have denied cert.

The fact that at least 4 justices granted it is beyond ridiculous.

Further, they've delayed the hearing until the end of April, which is extremely stupid, they are hearing cases now.

They may not even issue a decision in June with the rest of the cases, it may be next year. And if that's the case and trump is elected, he could stop the hearing in it's tracks by pardoning himself.

They seriously took the position "yeah, the ruling that said in this specific instance with Trump, a president cannot be immune. A perfectly reasonable take given there's so many more mundane reasons why the FBI might convict a former president.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] PoliticallyIncorrect@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Wealthy people have decades using the slow legal system and other legal loopholes to take advantage of the capitalist system, they made the capitalist system so obviously they made it to work better for them than for the 99%.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

Fascists pretend to care about the law, but all they really care about is power. Liberals pretend to care about power, but all they really care about is order.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Wednesday’s action by the high court, made up of six conservatives and three liberals, plainly gives Trump a new measure of success and buys him more time before possible trial on election subversion in Washington, DC.

Overall, the timetable is fast compared to the regular calendar for high court briefing, oral arguments, and eventual resolution, which typically plays out over many months or close to a year.

Smith, earlier this month, cited the nature of the alleged crimes as he urged the justices to let the DC Circuit decision against presidential immunity stand and allow the case to go to trial.

Earlier in February, the Supreme Court held a special oral argument session on whether states could keep Trump off presidential ballots under a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding future office.

The justices appeared ready to reverse a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that would prevent Trump from running for office because of his attempts to overturn the valid 2020 election results.

That case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges a cover-up to conceal payments before the 2016 election to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who said she had an affair with Trump.


The original article contains 1,191 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Won't be an issue unless idiots allow a Trump victory.

load more comments
view more: next ›