this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2025
395 points (99.3% liked)

politics

26252 readers
3089 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The [Supreme] Court easily could have let the lower court ruling against Trump [having presidential immunity] stand, but Roberts orchestrated a ruling that effectively pardoned Trump retrospectively and prospectively. That unprecedented and partisan edict paved the way for Trump’s return to power.

The Constitution provides zero immunity for presidents from criminal prosecution. But John Roberts chose to be the kingmaker, giving Trump king-like powers last year, and then this year mowing down well-founded and well-grounded temporary restraining orders [that allowed] an array of unilateral and extreme dictates to proceed — even though doing so will cause irreparable harm [by letting Trump] transgress constitutional provisions, laws passed by Congress and long-standing legal precedents.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Impeachment requires 2/3 of the senate voting to convict. The only way that will happen is for one party to have 67 senate seats, or for members of both parties to vote to convict.

For the Dems to get to 67 senate seats in the next midterm election would require winning every single race, The odds of that are just slightly more than 0, you'd be better off playing the lottery.

It's slightly less implausible that the Democrats could win most of the seats up for election in a large backlash against Trump and the Republicans, and that in that scenario you could get the remaining votes from Republicans who view the Trump administration as a sinking ship that they don't want to go down with. Trump's second impeachment was as close as we've seen to that kind of scenario.

Even then, it's a lot easier to imagine Republicans going along with an impeachment of Trump (who will almost certainly be gone soon anyway) than it is for them to remove members of the Supreme Court whose positions could affect the balance of power for decades. About the only way I can see it happening (even in this extreme scenario) is if they went after Thomas and/or Alito, because they are the oldest members currently on the court and that would give Trump the opportunity to appoint two new justices.

So, realistically, any (legal) accountability is at least two elections away. And even then, it's more plausible that it would come from a new administration pursuing criminal charges against the fascists and their enablers than it would be through impeachment.