this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
578 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3333 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
 

"Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed," says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig

It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”

You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at  oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 102 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Three were appointed, which is 1/3rd of the nine justices. However, to me the most relevant figure is that five of the nine were appointed by GOP presidents that got into office losing the popular vote (Roberts & Alito by GWB, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB by Trump).

These justices, the majority of the court, do not and have never represented the US either by vote or ideology (even secondarily via the presidential/nominating vote), yet they are lifetime-appointed positions with unparalleled power over our lives and the continued existence of American democracy. They can choose to allow Trump to crown himself king, but they are already an effective monarchy.

Roberts has been concerned about the Court's legitimacy the last decade. He should be - it isn't legitimate.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Roberts doesn't give a flying fuck about his Court's legitimacy. He cares about the appearance of his Court's legitimacy.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, sorry, that's the better way to put it.

To him, it's the same thing, because if the Supreme Court loses the appearance of legitimacy, they themselves have no practical means to enforce their decisions.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Unless they have a dictator-president and ineffective congress.

It feels a lot like they’re getting for that possible outcome—so they have a sympathetic king when the time comes.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The Supreme Court is illegitimate because of what you said. By association, the presidency is also illegitimate. And since the Senate is undemocratic and Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435, both of those are illegitimate.

Thankfully, they still have the monopoly of violence.

[–] 2piradians@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435

This is exactly it. This is what hamstrings the will of the majority and lends relevance to these lunatics we're having to endure.

Many revere our founders, and I'm quite sure if they could comment on this mess they'd say something like "There are how many millions of citizens? And you stopped adding representatives at 435? That's the problem. Why?"

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

We outnumber them, by a bunch. And they know that. Well, the smart ones allowing “democracy” to prevail knew it, I don’t know about these crazies going for the power grab right now.

We lack organization, ability to plan as one. The conspiracy theorist in me says they know that as well, hence why they are attacking ways of obtaining information and organization.