this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
370 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2459 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has been left "shaken" by the unexpected public reaction to his ruling in the Donald Trumppresidential immunity case, a columnist wrote Friday.

Slate's judicial writer Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn't buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.

Lithwick referenced a report by CNN's Joan Biskupic. He “was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording [Donald] Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution," she wrote.

"His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 220 points 2 months ago (5 children)

He’s not serious. Roberts is an arch conservative and has been for a long time. This is posturing to try and paint himself as a moderate, like he has been doing since before he was appointed to the bench. Fuck him.

[–] [email protected] 94 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"You mean my radical and insane interpretations of the law are insane and radical?".

Yeah, he fucking knows and is a piece of shit like the rest of these disingenuous monsters

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How could he possibly have been surprised by the response? They are with 9 judges. Three vehemently disagreed with the ruling and even Barret partially disagreed. It’s not like he was looking for some compromise ruling that all judges signed onto. Pathetic reporting.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

He wasn’t. He’s trying to maintain the image that he’s above the fray while being deep in it

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

I second that. FUCK this guy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 126 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Unexpected? How the fuck is backlash about a ruling saying the President is above the law unexpected?

[–] [email protected] 68 points 2 months ago (2 children)

For real. He’s either being completely disingenuous or he’s really that much of an oblivious asshole.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Unbelievably, he managed to underestimate the political awareness of the US public to his office. The bar was already on the floor.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

More like digging required.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago

Exactly. How can he claim to be shocked when the dissent told him why he's a monster? Dude is a liar.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He has gotten away with it for along time.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 98 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

He should be. There is no way that the constitution had immunity in mind for the president. George Washington would be flipping some tables in the supreme court if he was alive.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago

The fact that the Supreme Court gave themselves the ability to effectively unilaterally write federal laws with Marbury v Madison was already massively overstepping bounds and the concept of checks and balances.

We need to overturn Marbury v Madison.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

They would all be challenged to gentlemen's duels so quickly, for abdicating their honor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 92 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He doesn’t fear enough.

Assuming I believe anything he says in the first place. We are so divided that he won’t see consequences.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Tbh I’m low-key waiting for someone to try taking a shot at one or more members of the Tribunal of Six. They’re so obviously standing in the way of progress in so many ways. They’re only appointed for life, after all. Someone’s going to take advantage of the darker side of that statement at some point. Roberts and his ilk should be scared.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago

Ya, idk why people are surprised about the consequences of one party trying its damnedest to make the last box of liberty the only protected box. Like, what did they expect?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

It's honestly wild that two people have tried to take a shot at Trump first. Trump's just a useful idiot to these fuckers, the real assholes that are destroying our country are the ones on the Supreme Court.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Actions have consequences.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 86 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Shaken?! SHAKEN?

Like like the women of America were shaken when their rights to bodily autonomy were taken from them?

Or like when the American people were shaken when they discovered that our nation's checks and balanced were completely corrupted? That they will do nothing to stop a dictatorship and the end of democracy?

Or shaken by the knowledge that the highest court in the country is colluding with the lower courts to bring specific cases through the appeals systems so they can make predetermined rulings, effectively writing their own laws and subverting the basic foundation of law in our country?

Shaken. Yeah, go fuck yourself Roberts.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 63 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Maybe this columnist thinks he's "shaken", but I doubt it. The reason he acted in a more moderate way before was that the Christian Nationalist justices didn't have a strong majority and the ability to impose their agenda with impunity. The minute they had a 6-3 majority, he knew they could do whatever they wanted, and they have.

The only thing we can do about it now is elect as many Dems as possible to the House and Senate and pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court, things that should have been done a long time ago.

And please, regardless of whether you think your vote for POTUS will count, vote anyway and fill out your full ballot because you have much more influence on your State legislature and local offices, which is where so many things that affect your life are decided.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Every single time the SC does something outrageous some version of this article comes out proclaiming his deep held belief in justice and whatever else. And every time it is complete bullshit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t want him feeling “shaken”. I want him to know, deep down, undeniably to the very core of his soul, that he is a blight on humanity. He is devoid of honor and value by any moral measure. His existence on earth and in this society has done vastly more harm than good and humanity would have been better off if he had never been born. I want him to wake up every day and feel that more deeply and truly than he can feel his own breathing.

Then the rest of the list, too: Trump, Mitch McConnell, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity. Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Barrett. Gym Jordan, Mike Johnson. Steve Miller, the list goes on and on. Selfish monsters that I only wish knew how little they deserve the lives they live.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 months ago

Fuck him. Burn in hell fuck face.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I really want someone to press one of these people on camera.

"Donald Trump has promised at multiple rallies to end the democratic process by eliminating the need to vote, and this is extremely dangerous to our democracy, therefore it is an official act of the office e of the president to order a hit on DJT, Seal teams 3 and 5 are en-route now. Such an act is official, and necessary for the country to survive therefore Joe Biden is completely immune from any prosecution."

I just want to know for sure what the reaction would be. I'm sure pearl clutching indignation (because someone thought of their idea but flipped the victims around)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's really a situation that ought to resolve itself. If the justices vote anything as an official act is perfectly legal, then threaten those justices that voted that way with violence, assassination, nothing is off the table apparently as long as it's an official act, and reverse that decision with the remaining justices, done and dusted.

I really don't see the problem here. It's all been declared perfectly legal, nothing is off the table, it sends a strong message that this democracy will be maintained by whatever means necessary, and that as long as the president is Democrat at least, then any attempt at an all powerful king or Führer will automatically undo itself. An abrogation of power done through wielding that very power itself would be a beautiful thing to behold.

In fact, the Supreme Court justices would make a better target than Trump himself even. Trump is a political rival and it could be argued that it's Biden supporting the election of a candidate from his own party. Meanwhile targetting the Supreme Court justices would be defending basic democracy, fighting for the freedom from a despotic tyrant - the very supposed foundation of the country we're talking about, changing the composition of the Supreme Court and weakening the powers of the presidency itself, which definitely sounds like official acts rather than those of a candidate or private individual.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 months ago

You mean the one where he ruled that the United States has a government of men, and not of laws?

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 months ago (2 children)

He's an out of touch rich asshole. I'm less surprised at his shock than I am surprised by him giving a fuck.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Bullshit.

If he didn't expect it then he's a moron.

He is not a moron.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago

Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn’t buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.

AND WHICH FUCKING PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE, JOHN?

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Boo hoo, fucking cry baby. Corrupt SCOTUS is too insulated from their terrible decisions.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago

Can't a man undermine democracy in peace now?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Good. He deserves all of it for making such an obviously partisan and foolish ruling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Shaken? Right because you weren't being a partisan hack when the special counsel asked to skip straight to proceedings because they knew the court wanted to issue a ruling and you drug your feet buying donald time. Then handed him powers not afforded in the constitution. But keep clutching those pearls.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago

People like him dont get shaken about the opinions of the commoners. He couldnt possibly care less.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Shaken?

And?

He will forget about it quickly. Until it comes back to haunt him. Then he will engage in mental gymnastics to justify it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

I'm kind of okay with it. Nobody is doing more to advocate for and bring awareness to the need to expand the Supreme Court right now than this fucking guy.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago

Oh he’s shocked everyone else doesn’t suck trump dick?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

well la de da. fuck him.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

This is why The French invented things.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

What this says to me is that he and other members of his majority live in a kind of bubble.

What this says to me is a veteran reporter covering the SCROTUS is just now realizing this.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

Why is there a presumption of immunity? Even when there is clear self-serving corruption, the presumption of immunity takes precedence. This will go down in history as an abysmally bad decision.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Good. Now fucking resign.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

Won't somebody think of the oligarchy!

load more comments
view more: next ›