this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19043 readers
587 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.”

(page 2) 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days 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] 0 points 4 days ago

Won't somebody think of the oligarchy!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 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)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

Good. Now fucking resign.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

I prefer my justices stirred

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 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)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

About the only silver lining to Trump's inevitable re-attempt to steal the election is that he won't be President during the election. If he wins he won't make the same mistake of appointing people with even a shred of ethics. He'll rig it to give himself a 3rd term or be kingmaker for the next gen of American dictators.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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 (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 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] 0 points 4 days ago (3 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] 0 points 4 days 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] 0 points 4 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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

Actions have consequences.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

He should be. There is no way that the constitution had immunity in mind for the president.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

They would literally be shooting the tyrants.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days 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] 0 points 4 days ago (4 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] 0 points 4 days 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] 0 points 4 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The Extreme Court has made itself irrelevant, useless and obsolete.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

None of that is true in any way. They are a relevant, useful, very much still in use, tool for conservatives to undermine democracy. I don't understand why you chose a single one of those descriptors.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (9 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

He has gotten away with it for along time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days 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] 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

More like digging required.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

CNN - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CNN:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Raw Story:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.rawstory.com/trump-news/
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/john-roberts-donald-trump-biskupic/index.html
https://www.rawstory.com/roberts-immunity-ruling/
https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/takeaways-trump-immunity-scotus/index.html
https://www.rawstory.com/justice-john-roberts-bubble/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›