140
I really hope they do the right thing and yet I have the awful feeling they won’t.
It's ok Biden will just have trump killed if they decide presidents have immunity.
They would release that ruling Feb 2025
But who knows, maybe it gets leaked by a judge well before then.
This is the case about keeping him off the primary ballot.
They pushed the “presidential immunity” case out to April.
Well, the Christofascist regime has paid good money for those judges. If they bar him from the ballot I'll most likely go into shock.
Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were the three main authors of the U.S. Constitution and The Federalist Papers.
Many of these right-wing, theocratic judges belong to The Federalist Society.
Go figure; there are so many f**king contradictions at this point that it's hard to keep track of them all.
Haha, you're silly. That was just houses and exotic vacations and stuff. And we talk about the issues they preside over. Just normal BFF stuff!
3 members of SCOTUS were appointed by Trump. The other GOP nominated members are terrible people.
They will just make something up and make Colorado keep him on the ballot.
That's more or less what I read into the questioning. They're not going to rule he didn't do an insurrection, or that he can't be disqualified for that, they're going to rule a single state can't make the decision.
And I'm sure they'll prescribe who does have that authority. They won't just leave it open, so that the next time it happens (if our democracy lives long enough) the challenge will find its way back to them, effectively giving themselves the power.
Honestly, I doubt it. The questioning seemed to me to suggest they hated the idea of having to ever decide this, so they'll kick it to Congress.
Yep, you called that.
They won’t. The conservative majority are evil people, who are loyal to Trump. If Trump is in trouble, they’ll help him.
They aren't loyal to Trump, they're loyal to their checking accounts, so the question becomes who do their owners want for the Republican nominee.
Realistically they're going to look at precedent, how it was used in the past. The cases where it's been used in the past fall into two groups - public officials of the Confederacy and people convicted in criminal court of an appropriate charge (which includes one case of someone being convicted of a Jan 6 related charge and before that the last application was a case in 1919 of someone convicted under the Espionage Act).
I fully expect them to say that barring holding a public position in a group whose purpose violates 14A that they would require a criminal conviction. Because that's the only thing that fits precedent.
The alternative that people seem to be hoping for is that a candidate should be able to be barred from the ballot if a state judge feels it's likely enough they violated 14A, where "likely enough" isn't clearly defined (and doesn't require any particular due process) but is definitely enough to bar Trump. I just don't think that's going to happen.
If it's Monday-Thursday, my bet is against Trump. If they wait until Friday, they are too scared of the repercussions and you know which way they will go.
the reproductions
Repercussions?
Yeah. New android spell correction can go wonky sometimes on a half minded hot take. I need to pay more attention.
I swear sometimes it feels like autocorrect is worse today than it was 10 years ago.
Mine is missing half my vocabulary. It is almost enough for me to go searching for a language pack, but I doubt it would encompass all of my interests... Anything to avoid actually learning how to spell.
I type my wife's name all the time and it never auto-corrects or suggests it until the 5th letter
same. I even have it added to the word list. It has no issue with her more common middle name of course.
I kind of liked the original typo, to be honest.
they are too scared of the reproductions
I think you meant 'repercussions'. I somehow doubt they're afraid of people fucking in protest.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court decision could come as soon as Monday in the case about whether former President Donald Trump can be kicked off the ballot over his efforts to undo his defeat in the 2020 election.
The resolution of the case on Monday, a day before Super Tuesday contests in 16 states, would remove uncertainty about whether votes for Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president, will ultimately count.
Trump also has since been barred from primary ballot in Illinois and Maine, though both decisions, along with Colorado’s, are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
Separately, the justices last week agreed to hear arguments in late April over whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The court’s decision to step into the politically charged case, also with little in the way of precedent to guide it, calls into question whether Trump will stand trial before the November election.
Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor.
The original article contains 458 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 54%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
140 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4637 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