630
Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
(www.theverge.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 01 Jul 2024
630 points (98.0% liked)
politics
18114 readers
4473 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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
Wouldn't be that simple. The Stormy Daniels case was about things that happened before he became president. Sure reimbursing Cohen might have occurred at least in part while Trump was president, but Cohen was never part of the administration. They were disguising the reimbursement as paying Cohen in his capacity as Trump's personal lawyer. So there's pretty much nothing that this ruling does to hamper this case.
That said, I have no doubts that they'd find some way to rule in his favor if an appeal managed to land in front of them. But I think he'd have to go through normal appeals first, he can't just go straight to SCOTUS.
It’ll be interesting to see how stiffing your lawyer is an official act
You're right, but I'm confident he'll get there in the end.
Yeah. The Roberts Court has been nothing if not the Court of Post-Hoc Justification. They're great at concocting the most batshit crazy of legal theories to reach the outcome they want after shopping for the perfect cases to do so. I'm absolutely positive that if/when he gets an appeal to reach SCOTUS they'll give him exactly what he wants even if they have to tie themselves in logical pretzels or even directly contradict themselves to do it.
They ruled on a goddamn hypothetical. 6-3.
None of the conservative judges are qualified to do anything except take leaves.
They've pulled that one a lot recently, haven't they? I seem to recall one of the other recent rulings, I think it was against the EPA basically being a hypothetical about a proposed rule they hadn't even actually passed yet?