• Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    6 months ago

    If they rule he does I promise to riot every day. There won’t even be a point in maintaining the status quo as such a ruling would invalidate democracy

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      If they rule Trump does then that means Biden does too. It would basically be giving Biden a license to ship them all to Guantanamo. Might be the only thing that holds back such a decision.

      • radiant_bloom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        ·
        6 months ago

        Ship them to Guantanamo ? You’re too nice. If presidents have immunity, Biden could strangle him to death with his own bare hands on live television if he wanted to 💀

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        If they rule Trump does then that means Biden does too.

        No it doesn’t. I guarantee they will do all the Olympic-level mental gymnastics necessary to craft the bullshit opinion in such a way that it applies to Trump but not Biden.

    • bquintb@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      If they do, Biden needs to immediately pack the court and remove lifetime appointments.

      He should be doing it already IMO

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Removing lifetime appointments to the supreme court would require a constitutional amendment, which… Good luck with that.

        Even increasing the number of justices on the court would need congressional action, which isn’t going to happen in this Congress.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    They haven’t botched anything as far as they’re concerned. The court agreed to hear the case so they could delay, that was clear when they didn’t act on the request to expedite.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The fact that they did not immediately respond with “No, the president doesn’t have immunity from criminal prosecution. They are not royalty.” tells us what the eventual outcome will be.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not necessarily. They could decide they must come to that conclusion, but only after delaying long enough so the answer doesn’t matter.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          If they do make that decision then he could still be prosecuted while in office if reelected, which is how the system should work.

  • shininghero@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The only thing that got botched is that thumbnail. Why do the Roman style columns look like an M.C. Escher painting?

  • RichardoC@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is that image AI generated? There are a different number of columns at the top compared to the bottom

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    In Brazil, the former president Jair Bolsonaro, after baselessly claiming fraud before an election, was successfully prosecuted in a court and barred from running for office for years.

    To get to a trial and avoid any further potential delay, Mr. Smith may decide to limit the government’s case to its bare essentials — what is often called the “slim to win” strategy.

    And Judge Chutkan has already warned Mr. Trump that his pretrial unruly statements with respect to witnesses and others may result in her moving up the start of the trial to protect the judicial process.

    Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the Manhattan criminal trial, and the New York appellate courts offer an instructive model of fair and expeditious case management.

    Politics and law are often seen as separate institutions, but in fact they regularly interact within our constitutional system as checks and balances — unless, as is the case here, the court takes on an overbearing role.

    The Supreme Court’s review of the immunity issue delays indefinitely a jury trial of Mr. Trump’s role in obstructing the peaceful transfer of power — and therefore risks transforming our nation into a Potemkin village of democracy that bears the surface trappings of legal institutions but without actual checks on the executive branch of government.


    The original article contains 1,005 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!