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

politics

19040 readers
3611 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.
  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
 

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
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 3 hours 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.

[–] billiam0202 39 points 1 day 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?

[–] sorval_the_eeter 25 points 1 day ago

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

[–] ATDA 49 points 1 day ago

Fuck him. Burn in hell fuck face.

[–] mPony 16 points 1 day ago

This is why The French invented things.

[–] n0m4n 12 points 1 day 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.

[–] llamatron 43 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Bullshit.

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

He is not a moron.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

I don’t know, money and position in a stratified social power structure are not strong indicators of intelligence

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Either stupid or lying... possibly both but definitely at least one or the other.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 days ago

Can't a man undermine democracy in peace now?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

I would be worried to if I had just given the president immunity for all official acts. Example of a worrisome formula: Biden + official act + seal team 6 + corrupt supreme court judges = no need to pack the court to give it a liberal majority.

[–] Etterra 44 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

You actually believe the headline?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

He wasn't shocked and he doesn't give a f***. The article is just an attempt for him to garner sympathy.

[–] [email protected] 220 points 3 days ago (6 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] 93 points 3 days 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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

He’s just not as confident in the shoot-the-moon approach that the rest of the fascists are using to try and take/keep power.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Wrench 85 points 3 days 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)
[–] leadore 61 points 2 days ago (8 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.

[–] KnitWit 26 points 2 days 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.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat 7 points 2 days ago

It's like some journalists fucking fanfic desperately wishing that these people's consciouses are eating them up inside. Meanwhile they go home to their mansions and continue to happily live their comfortable lives. It's not even that they know they won't face consequences for their actions (which they won't), it's that they think they have done nothing wrong at all. They believe themselves to be morally in the right.

"Shaken"? Don't kid yourself. He's as content and happy as a pig in shit.

[–] jordanlund 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Term limits are defined by the Constitution and require an Amendment. See the 22nd:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

We are currently too divided to pass any Amendment right now.

[–] wolfpack86 3 points 1 day ago

Yes, but the proposal is to implement a senior status, benching (heh) justices after a period of time, calling them up in case a starter recuses or is otherwise incapacitated.

Technically still appointed, and composition is done by law not the constitution.

Only flaw is the body that decides if this approach is constitutional is the one being curtailed.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 days ago

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

[–] halcyoncmdr 125 points 3 days ago (10 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

This is a complete sanewashing article... Roberts read all the dissents, he knew exactly what he was doing. Putting Trump above the law.

[–] Myxomatosis 68 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 91 points 3 days 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] 49 points 3 days 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.

[–] IMongoose 31 points 3 days 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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 97 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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] 32 points 3 days 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EvilBit 59 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

They know it and get off on being evil.

[–] Sam_Bass 17 points 2 days ago

well la de da. fuck him.

[–] carl_dungeon 19 points 2 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 48 points 3 days 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)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] just_another_person 33 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

If anything he should be saying this more often, considering some of the other terrible decisions that have come out of his court.

load more comments
view more: next ›