Most of the analysis of the Justices’ arguments on Thursday that I’ve read suggests that complete immunity is highly unlikely. To his point about the trial getting delayed and Trump getting elected, that’s a real possibility.
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
150 points (91.2% liked)
politics
25161 readers
1867 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He can still become president with a criminal conviction. He just can’t vote in the election. Isn’t our system swell?
The rationale for this actually makes some sense. You wouldn't want an incumbent to be able to remove an opponent by railroading them into a minor felony conviction. With the way Trump ran things, if all it took was a minor felony to make sure Biden was ineligible, he absolutely would have pressured the DOJ to find something.
This is what Putin conveniently does for any opposition.
And America does to voters instead.
How does that make sense if you’re not allowed to participate in the voting process as a felon? Or do you also think that felons should be eligible to vote?
I can't think of any good reason anyone's right to vote should be revoked. In fact, it's probably very important that those that have been targeted by the system are able to have their voice.
I agree. It simply makes no sense that felons don’t get a say in the nation, but can somehow run it.
felons should be elligible to vote. For one, there are statistically a number of people in jail who are fully innocent but convicted anyway. Second it means that politicians would have incentives not to ignore conditions of inmates. If you look at groups unable to vote: noncitizen legal residents, kids, and prisoners then you see people with fewer rightds.
If you have served your time, then all rights should be restored to you. So many people are stuck in a system of poverty because of how our system works.
That’s primarily due to application disclosure law not having an expiration or qualification for forgiveness. Make one bad choice at 18 and you’ll be working entry-level or manual labor for the rest of your life. Not to mention the difficulty in finding a landlord that’ll rent to you. It’s so close-minded that we don’t believe in rehabilitation or change as a nation.
It really shouldn't be legal to ask if someone was a non-violent felon (violent felons would need a different classification).
As of now, it’s mandatory to disclose if you’ve ever had a conviction, and verified prior to employment.
I know it is, I just don't think it should be. Way to many non-violent drug users have their lives ruined over an addiction.
Agreed. Our one-chance system is designed to kill addicts. Prison is not rehabilitation, and often leads to the homeless/prison cycle for those who struggle with addiction.
There are some things it's relevant for, in terms of financial crimes or pharmaceuticals.
Or a rape charges for working in a SA survivor clinic.
Elder abuse in nursing homes...
Etc.
And all of a sudden when see why we just need to stop categorizing things into felony/misdemeanor and take cases individually
I would say some of that is violent though, rape and elder abuse has a victim, drug use does not.
It is in fact a problem when you can prescribe drugs and are expected to be impeccably honest.
Is it a bit of a Catch-22? Sure. Should a doctor be able to do heroin? Sure. Should a doctor caught selling heroin to junkies without even checking their health history be able to keep his license or practice medicine?
Or how about an accountant that embezzled from his clients?
I don't know about that one.
Yeah, however in this case Trump did all the felonies is on his own. Your argument is for a very specific set of circumstances, in which one party nominates a candidate for the primaries, who, then commits felony crimes before the general election.
I’m actually okay with that.
There are too many people with false convictions
load more comments
(4 replies)
They won't come down on the side of presidential immunity because it would basically be saying "Biden senpai please assassinate me uwu"
Just close your eyes and imagine Clarence Thomas saying this. He's winking and throwing up a peace sign with one foot kicked up in the air. It makes no sense and he will never do this.
They'll decide against immunity, but after the election. If Biden wins, they won't want him immune. If Trump wins, he won't need immunity anymore.
They’ll issue the opinion in mid-late June, maybe early July, when most SCOTUS decisions come out. The issue is that they will probably remand it to the lower courts for other decisions.
load more comments
(12 replies)
One of the justices should have asked "If we decide in favor of immunity, couldn't Biden claim in order to protect the rule of law he could kill us and replace us with justices who would actually uphold the law and the Constitution?"
They did by asking about political rivals.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Legislating from the bench is only okay when conservatives (read: fascists) do it.
I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. It's been the plan since the insurrection failed. They need to nail down R support with an iron fist single they'll never get the popular vote again.
Pretty radical, would dig it to see his fat ass do a kick flip. Would almost excuse his fascism, racism, and treason.
view more: next ›