• grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      9 months ago

      Three of the lawyers on Bush’s team in that case are now on the Supreme Court. Never forget that!

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s crazy how little of a deal that was in terms of how people just mostly accepted it even if there were grumbles. I can’t imagine that happening now without mass chaos and protests.

      • jkrtn
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah what the fuck. There should have been riots and a general strike.

  • 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It’s a fucking injustice that this asshole has the money and means to appeal a case of this amplitude all the way up to the Supreme Court, who he hand picked, while people are currently sitting in jail for voting while black or smoking a joint while black.

    If this isn’t direct evidence of our two tiered “justice” system, I don’t know what is.

    This country drastically needs an overhaul, otherwise it will end up like Judge Dredd in no time. We have a failed government that no longer even pretends to serve the people.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    9 months ago

    If they say he’s immune from crimes and abuse of power as president, doesn’t that mean he’s saying Biden is now legally allowed to do the crimes and put Trump in jail without trial?

  • plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    9 months ago

    FTA, a decision is expected at the end of June (end of their term for the year, I think).

    That means if they reject the claim of immunity, trials can restart after that. And with delays, that lines up a wonderful October Surprise ™, of course. I hate this system so much.

    At least he’s not immune from any of the state crimes… /s

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s only if everything goes to plan. If it does not, it will be close to or after the election that we get any of these cases back and then we’d really be screwed. Basically if he’s succeeded in delaying the cases this far out already, what makes you think he can’t delay another month somehow? This year is about to be really really ugly.

      • koberulz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        He’s already delayed it enough. Ruling in July. Three months of pretrial, trial begins October. Two months of trial, ends in December. That leaves less time before inauguration than the minimum time that must pass between conviction and sentencing.

        By law, Trump cannot be sentenced before inauguration day.

    • koberulz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      There are still three months of pretrial.

      If SCOTUS rules in late June, the trial cannot be finished before inauguration.

  • ctkatz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    you only need 4 to hear the case, and I’m pretty sure I know who the 4 are.

    they’re taking the case, not to reverse the decision but to stall the cases, hopefully past the election where trump would win and moot out these cases.

    and in that situation, watch them rule 9-0 after trump is sworn in that the immunity trump says he has doesn’t exist.

    • HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      watch them rule 9-0 after trump is sworn in that the immunity trump says he has doesn’t exist

      lol as if Clarence Thomas would do any such thing. That wouldn’t trigger the libs.

      • ctkatz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        no, but it would stop biden from doing official acts as president such as calling up seal team 6 and having them terminate with extreme prejudice certain key individuals to ensure he stays in office.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Honestly, just start putting politicians in jail until they agree to make an amendment saying he isn’t a king.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      You’re assuming Trump is going to win. He isn’t.

      Edit: downvoted by misinformation agents.

      • ctkatz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m assuming nothing. but if he did win, a ruling like that would not surprise me at all.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        He’s making an even bigger assumption that schoolkids learn about Roger B. Taney’s court.

        • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          At minimum, I remember spending a full day on Dred Scott in social studies in middle school. Some time between high school and college I learned about his secessionist views and fights with Lincoln.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            If you ask a random person on the street about Dred Scott, you might get a decent answer. If you ask them about Roger B. Taney, I’m willing to bet 99% of the time you’d get a blank stare.

            • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Weird how I specified the court (and thus their notable rulings which is generally how we discuss the court) under the person then and not the person themselves in my original comment and you still figured I was speaking about the individual person.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Excuse me, “if you ask them about Roger B. Taney’s court,” then. You’re still gonna get the blank stares.

                • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Weird, how you keep taking this out of context from what I actually said. I said learn about, which, if you learned about Dred Scott, you very likely learned about the court decision under that court, you already openly acknowledged that most people would even be able to remember that outside of when they originally learned about it most likely in some sort of educational setting.

                  I never said anything about remembering trivia questions later in life, my point was only that they would learn about it (via its notable decisions) someday in a most likely school-like setting. Do you want to continue arguing about stuff I never said?

      • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

        —Theodore Parker

  • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Man, they used to be able to hang guys for things like this because those same guys would claim that hanging the opposition was legitimate. Now it’s just money all the way down.

  • vegeta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2024

    CERTIORARI GRANTED

    TRUMP, DONALD J. V. UNITED STATES

    The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot. The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022824zr3_febh.pdf

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would decide whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to broad immunity from federal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts that occurred while he was in office.

    The order from the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, marks the second time in a month that the justices will weigh a case with tremendous implications for the former president.

    A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump’s claim of sweeping immunity.

    It’s unclear how much of an impact the court’s decision to take up the case will have on the timeline for Trump’s trial, since the justices could rule swiftly after hearing arguments.

    U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, scrapped the initial trial date of March 4 to let the appeals process play out.

    The former president has been pushing to delay the case until after the November presidential election, though special counsel Jack Smith has stressed the public interest in holding the landmark trial this year.


    The original article contains 336 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 46%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        No, this is about making sure he does what is best for the white slavers. The amount of shame and personal repression he feels being born as a black man in America can only be overcome if he is able to prove to himself that he was born with the wrong color skin, and he is just as willing to enforce fascism as any goosestepping, jackboot, white-supremacist. The difference is that he actually has the power to do it, and when all is said and done he will have successfully helped install the two worst presidents in American history.

        • ctkatz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          either that or putting his thumb on scale to get another trump presidency so that he can retire with trump in office.

  • vegeta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The Mango Maga Messiah has chimed in

    Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity. Without Presidential Immunity, a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America. Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office. This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President. The other side would say, “If you don’t do something, just the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or perhaps even sooner.”

    Page 2: A President has to be free to determine what is right for our Country without undue pressure. If there is no Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will “no longer exist.” Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind. Legal Experts and Scholars have stated that the President must have Full Presidential Immunity. A President must be free to make proper decisions. His mind must be clear, and he must not be guided by the fear of retribution!

    -@realDonaldTrump

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      That was 9000% not written by Trump. It is far too measured and humble, and it gives credit to far too many people who aren’t named Trump.