this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
228 points (98.7% liked)

News

23284 readers
3846 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

Smith made his request for the court to act with unusual speed to prevent any delays that could push back the trial of the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner, currently set to begin March 4, until after next year’s presidential election.

Later Monday, the justices indicated they would decide quickly whether to hear the case, ordering Trump’s lawyers to respond by Dec. 20. The court’s brief order did not signal what it ultimately would do.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 114 points 11 months ago (5 children)

The writers of constitution of the United States were advocates of the "Rule of Law".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

For those not in the know, it's a legal philosophy saying that the laws should apply equality to everyone. The constitution writers disliked that the King was above the law. They wanted no one to be above the law.

Now we get to see if the Supreme Court still believes in the rule of law.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 27 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

They were also deists who wanted separation between church and state, (at the time because of the Church of England.) Interesting how supposedly originalist conservatives often want a theocracy.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

They were a diverse group of people with wildly different views on things, and most states had some form of religious establishment at our founding. Remember, the cotus was originally a restriction only on the federal government, and didn't extend to the states until the 14th amendment after the civil war.

Plenty wanted, and had, state supoortes religion. Plenty meant freedom of religion for Christians.

Which is why this is such a contentious issue... It's always been that way.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

Thank you for that.

[–] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

We'll have to look into what witch hunting jurists of the 1600s thought first.

[–] BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sovereign Immunity is calling and would like a word.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In the United States, sovereign immunity only immunizes the government against lawsuits. It doesn't provide an individual with immunity against criminal prosecution.

Yes, the comment was about the rule of law and nobody being above the law. Sovereign immunity puts certain people above certain laws (i.e. can't sue the cop that barrels down the street at 75mph in a 25 mph zone and kills a pedestrian. (Or in some states there are damages caps.)) Any regular Joe would not get such immunity. So, we already have asterisks in our rule of law system--where a certain class of people are not subject to the same laws as others--one being sovereign immunity. Corporate protections arguably being another. A corporation can be guilty of a criminal charge but not necessarily the actual people that made the crime happen, which is seemingly absurd. Or you can't sue corporate execs individually even if it was their personal actions that led to harm to others, as long as it was done within the course and scope of their employment. For example, upper level execs know they are polluting and causing harm to environment/people. You can sue the company, but you're likely not going to be able to pierce the corporate veil to get to the execs who actually committed the act.