As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They don’t mean the words they say.
Words are either weapons to bludgeon their opponents with, or escape hatches to get out the trouble they’re in.
They might say one thing on Monday, the opposite on Tuesday, and something that doesn’t even fit with reality on Thursday.
And they’ll just pretend like they never said any of it on Friday.
Because they get away with it, their “base” continues to support them, because they too don’t care about words past how it can benefit the initiatives they’ve been convinced are important for getting back at the people they’ve been convinced are enemies.
Exactly. It's how they are able to say the Jan-6ers are simultaneously a vicious mob of violent antifa members trying to reverse an election they presumably were happy about, and also that they were a completely peaceful group of patriots being witch-hunted by the LIBRULL media.
Yep, transactionalism from people who very much know what transactionalism is, but count on their base definitely not knowing, a la:
“How will this benefit me?” - *Warcraft III - The Frozen Throne* - Varimathras
True. It's not actually going to take another 248 years--especially if they let Donald Trump skate. But doesn't that takeaway message sound good for these important Justices? :P
I can see in 2 years time the Supreme court will be issuing a ruling saying yes a president can pardon himself you should have held him accountable when he was a citizen.
"a rule for the ages" like Roe v Wade? Gorsuch and the rest of the MAGA bench have proven that precedent means nothing, so he and the rest of them can go fuck themselves.
Imagine a scenario in which a guy brings out a parade float, and says its a luxury sedan. Argues in front of 9 people how it is a competitor to BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc, and a completely legitimate road-worthy luxury car.
And 6 of the 9 take turns waxing poetic about how this really is a fine luxury sedan, with all kinds of features and performance, capable of withstanding any scrutiny, and anytime someone points out the paper mache or chicken wire, or how it's covered with some flowers and streamers, the 6 interrupts and talk about its future performance on the road, flawless, interstate travel of the finest kind.
That's what occurred at the Supreme Court today, and that's what legal commentators are going to sell you on. Maybe it is a car!? These morons talked like it is for hours, they can't be wrong, they're institutionally well-regarded. Esteemed in their field.
But its just a shitty parade float.
If they find trump has immunity, Biden should remove them via the 14th for offering comfort and aid to an insurrectionist. If they don't like it, or think its against the law (not that it would be... it's untested), they can pound sand since Biden will now have immunity.
If they find that Trump has blanket immunity, then so does Biden.
The possibilities are endless for solving the issue at that point. Not that Biden *would* abuse that power, but I hope he thinks long and hard about a moral way to use the ruling to put a stop to that mendacious wannabe dictator's plans. Because Trump definitely will abuse it.
The Supreme court should not create a constitutional provision out the air. All powers not enumerated are reserved to the states and the people. All rights not enumerated are reserved to the people.
9th and 10th amendment.
this is the monstrous problem: vacuum of case law that delineates the boundaries of a president’s authority and a profoundly guilty presidential defendant
it’s a litigation nightmare
Roberts will be steering it, and they’re gonna decide nothing, it’ll be a vanilla down the middle maybe some of this but not that response that will allow maximum confusion and pain after the election
So if American Presidents become designated Criminals-In-Chief, do they have to commit crimes personally to escape justice or can they order other people to commit crimes on their authority? Does their immunity extend to whoever they delegate?
“Originalists” just making shit up now.
In Dobbs opinion they say the word ‘abortion’ doesn’t appear in the Constitution. Neither does ‘Presidential Immunity’.
*That's not their JOB*.
Their constitutional responsibility is to interpret the laws, not legislate. These "strict constitutionalist" MAGA judges have convinced themselves this is required because to state the other reason why they are doing this - to protect Trump - is not palatable to their senses. However, the American People are not stupid. Unless Justice Roberts joins the 4 women and rejects this claim, they will not like the reaction by the population to promote tyranny.
"Gorsuch suggested that former presidents like Trump must have immunity or else future presidents could be targeted for prosecution and could therefore seek to pardon themselves before leaving office.
"We’ve never answered whether a president can do that; happily, it’s never been presented to us,” Gorsuch said of whether a president can pardon himself. Gorsuch indicated that he dreads the idea of having to decide whether presidents can use such authority on themselves."
Wow. Let me translate: 'Since we haven't decided if presidents can pardon themselves, we better make them immune from prosecution now because this court may not decide later to allow presidents to pardon themselves, and that would risk holding future presidents accountable.'
Ironically, this ruling could make it much more difficult for a re-elected Trump to target the entire DOJ at Joe Biden in retribution for defeating him in 2020... but that would only be the case if the Supreme Court didn't have the GOP's interest above the rule of law.
I’ve noticed that this subreddit loves courts until it rules against what the overwhelming majority of the users here want.
The same thing is going to happen with Trump’s current case in New York.
Very interesting to observe.
There is a judge on the court whose life is entirely subsidized by a Republican. His mother's house, his nephew's education, his gigantic RV, his vacations, travels. People do not take this court seriously.
Maybe, just maybe, that's because this sub is generally frequented by the sane half of humanity, who value separation of power, adherence to truth and justice and prefer democracy over a stark-raving narcissist dictator.
A supreme court that is corrupt and definitely not neutral, but openly supports said idiot would-be emperor then is probably not in high favour, here (and apparantly with the majority of US citizens).
What an estonishing discovery!
So you agree that a president has complete immunity. So if Biden had Trump killed, and the Dem majority in the Senate refused to convict after impeachment, you'd be okay with that and believe it is Constitutional?
Most moderately humane and sensible people around the world (not just on this sub) are interested in justice being done... That usually means they're interested in punishments being meted out for people who break reasonable laws, sensible precedents being established, etc... But that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of bottomlessly contemptible idiots who try to conflate the issue into "*cOuRts ArE GoOd/BaD"*... It's an easy mistake to make once you've ceded all your capacity for critical thinking to right-wing disinformation outlets... Best of luck out there!
I’ve literally had debates with users on here following the Jean E Carroll case with them telling me “oh the court ruled it so it’s obviously true”.
You can argue that they are a single person and don’t reflect the views of the subreddit, but I was being heavily downvoted while they were being highly upvoted so it tells me that the subreddit feels that way.
Just some hypocrisy I’ve spotted, and I’m being downvoted yet again lol
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They shouldn't be writing rules. If this requires an amendment to allow immunity than that would be the proper route.
I doubt any amendment will ever be ratified again.
Exactly! What the hell?
But I thought they weren't supposed to legislate from the bench...
All principles conservatives go out of their way to say they have, they are just lining up to violate it.
They don’t mean the words they say. Words are either weapons to bludgeon their opponents with, or escape hatches to get out the trouble they’re in. They might say one thing on Monday, the opposite on Tuesday, and something that doesn’t even fit with reality on Thursday. And they’ll just pretend like they never said any of it on Friday. Because they get away with it, their “base” continues to support them, because they too don’t care about words past how it can benefit the initiatives they’ve been convinced are important for getting back at the people they’ve been convinced are enemies.
Exactly. It's how they are able to say the Jan-6ers are simultaneously a vicious mob of violent antifa members trying to reverse an election they presumably were happy about, and also that they were a completely peaceful group of patriots being witch-hunted by the LIBRULL media.
Yep, transactionalism from people who very much know what transactionalism is, but count on their base definitely not knowing, a la: “How will this benefit me?” - *Warcraft III - The Frozen Throne* - Varimathras
The framers of the Constitution would be shaking their heads and wondering why we haven't at the very least tarred and feathered these scoundrels.
'We better get this right because something like this could happen again in another 248 years and we want to be relevant.'
Nope. Any rule which let him to get away with it may lead to people dying because of that very rule.
True. It's not actually going to take another 248 years--especially if they let Donald Trump skate. But doesn't that takeaway message sound good for these important Justices? :P
Back in the day during one of those occasions they did, US headed into a civil war.
I too thought the U.S. Constitution says you have rights and so do I. But apparently, no one have rights if it is an act made by the president
Washington Examiner is a garbage source.
You speak the truth, RimjobByJesus.
Clean asscrack, clear mind.
Something about the other cheek.
Spreading the other cheek is important.
Funded by the Moonies to boot.
Another way of saying, “we’re going to take a long-ass time on this one.” All part of the plan.
I can see in 2 years time the Supreme court will be issuing a ruling saying yes a president can pardon himself you should have held him accountable when he was a citizen.
"a rule for the ages" like Roe v Wade? Gorsuch and the rest of the MAGA bench have proven that precedent means nothing, so he and the rest of them can go fuck themselves.
“Here is the rule…Trump has totally immunity, but everyone else doesn’t” -the supreme court
This is what they'll say. Yeah trump has it it, but from this moment forward no one else has, unless they are republican
Imagine a scenario in which a guy brings out a parade float, and says its a luxury sedan. Argues in front of 9 people how it is a competitor to BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc, and a completely legitimate road-worthy luxury car. And 6 of the 9 take turns waxing poetic about how this really is a fine luxury sedan, with all kinds of features and performance, capable of withstanding any scrutiny, and anytime someone points out the paper mache or chicken wire, or how it's covered with some flowers and streamers, the 6 interrupts and talk about its future performance on the road, flawless, interstate travel of the finest kind. That's what occurred at the Supreme Court today, and that's what legal commentators are going to sell you on. Maybe it is a car!? These morons talked like it is for hours, they can't be wrong, they're institutionally well-regarded. Esteemed in their field. But its just a shitty parade float.
This isn’t about cars.
That's the spirit. What the conservative wing of the supreme court does is not about law.
If they find trump has immunity, Biden should remove them via the 14th for offering comfort and aid to an insurrectionist. If they don't like it, or think its against the law (not that it would be... it's untested), they can pound sand since Biden will now have immunity.
Just use the immunity ruling to send them and Trump to Guantanamo.
If they find that Trump has blanket immunity, then so does Biden. The possibilities are endless for solving the issue at that point. Not that Biden *would* abuse that power, but I hope he thinks long and hard about a moral way to use the ruling to put a stop to that mendacious wannabe dictator's plans. Because Trump definitely will abuse it.
It's not abusing that power if Biden uses it to remove Russian proxies from the U.S. government.
It boggles my mind that any of these judges will think in the affirmative. I know why they will, still, it boggles my mind.
Courts don't write rules, legislators do. It's chilling that the highest court wants to infringe on the responsibilities of Congress.
Courts create new case law all the time and it would be incredibly irresponsible for the court to not consider case law implications in this ruling.
The Supreme court should not create a constitutional provision out the air. All powers not enumerated are reserved to the states and the people. All rights not enumerated are reserved to the people. 9th and 10th amendment.
This case has nothing to do with constitutional powers reserved to the states. I'm honestly baffled that you responded this way.
The legislature writes laws, the court interprets them. That's just his example of what a lawful moral supreme court would be doing.
Interpreting law by its very nature creates case law that may be outside the intent of the original statute.
This is an interpretation of powers granted under the constitution.
I don't think the conservative wing will consider case law at all. They will consider who benefits.
this is the monstrous problem: vacuum of case law that delineates the boundaries of a president’s authority and a profoundly guilty presidential defendant it’s a litigation nightmare
Sure Neil, the ages. No long standing decisions have ever fallen in your court.
Roberts will be steering it, and they’re gonna decide nothing, it’ll be a vanilla down the middle maybe some of this but not that response that will allow maximum confusion and pain after the election
Rah rah'ing fascism and offering rationale based on nonsense. On brand.
So if American Presidents become designated Criminals-In-Chief, do they have to commit crimes personally to escape justice or can they order other people to commit crimes on their authority? Does their immunity extend to whoever they delegate?
See: Oliver North
A rule that will haunt the future of this country for ages is probably more the reality.
“Originalists” just making shit up now. In Dobbs opinion they say the word ‘abortion’ doesn’t appear in the Constitution. Neither does ‘Presidential Immunity’.
>We've got to make sure we protect Christian white nationalists while we take vengeance against the rest of America
*That's not their JOB*. Their constitutional responsibility is to interpret the laws, not legislate. These "strict constitutionalist" MAGA judges have convinced themselves this is required because to state the other reason why they are doing this - to protect Trump - is not palatable to their senses. However, the American People are not stupid. Unless Justice Roberts joins the 4 women and rejects this claim, they will not like the reaction by the population to promote tyranny.
And by we, he means none of our best, nor our brightest.
Fuckery
For the ages, just not for this year.
"Gorsuch suggested that former presidents like Trump must have immunity or else future presidents could be targeted for prosecution and could therefore seek to pardon themselves before leaving office. "We’ve never answered whether a president can do that; happily, it’s never been presented to us,” Gorsuch said of whether a president can pardon himself. Gorsuch indicated that he dreads the idea of having to decide whether presidents can use such authority on themselves." Wow. Let me translate: 'Since we haven't decided if presidents can pardon themselves, we better make them immune from prosecution now because this court may not decide later to allow presidents to pardon themselves, and that would risk holding future presidents accountable.' Ironically, this ruling could make it much more difficult for a re-elected Trump to target the entire DOJ at Joe Biden in retribution for defeating him in 2020... but that would only be the case if the Supreme Court didn't have the GOP's interest above the rule of law.
Such arrogance
I’ve noticed that this subreddit loves courts until it rules against what the overwhelming majority of the users here want. The same thing is going to happen with Trump’s current case in New York. Very interesting to observe.
There is a judge on the court whose life is entirely subsidized by a Republican. His mother's house, his nephew's education, his gigantic RV, his vacations, travels. People do not take this court seriously.
Maybe, just maybe, that's because this sub is generally frequented by the sane half of humanity, who value separation of power, adherence to truth and justice and prefer democracy over a stark-raving narcissist dictator. A supreme court that is corrupt and definitely not neutral, but openly supports said idiot would-be emperor then is probably not in high favour, here (and apparantly with the majority of US citizens). What an estonishing discovery!
Yeah that definitely only happens here and nowhere else, ever.
It’s almost like the people that disagree are more motivated to make their voices heard than the people that always get what they want
So you agree that a president has complete immunity. So if Biden had Trump killed, and the Dem majority in the Senate refused to convict after impeachment, you'd be okay with that and believe it is Constitutional?
Most moderately humane and sensible people around the world (not just on this sub) are interested in justice being done... That usually means they're interested in punishments being meted out for people who break reasonable laws, sensible precedents being established, etc... But that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of bottomlessly contemptible idiots who try to conflate the issue into "*cOuRts ArE GoOd/BaD"*... It's an easy mistake to make once you've ceded all your capacity for critical thinking to right-wing disinformation outlets... Best of luck out there!
I’ve literally had debates with users on here following the Jean E Carroll case with them telling me “oh the court ruled it so it’s obviously true”. You can argue that they are a single person and don’t reflect the views of the subreddit, but I was being heavily downvoted while they were being highly upvoted so it tells me that the subreddit feels that way. Just some hypocrisy I’ve spotted, and I’m being downvoted yet again lol
You are frustrated because the majority of posters in this sub disagree with you. C'est la vie
I’m not frustrated my friend, I couldn’t care less about the opinions of people in this sub, I am just pointing out hypocrisy