this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
242 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2806 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
 

Alina Habba said she expects Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to 'step up' for Trump after the 'hell' the former president went through to 'place' Kavanaugh

Rep. Jamie Raskin, R-MD., lashed out at Donald Trump's attorney Alina Habba for thinking like a "New York mobster" after she appeared to pressure Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to "stand up" for Trump because the former president nominated him for the job.

"This is the way that New York mobsters think about judges: 'Yeah, we own that one. We own that one. Get in that court — that guy’s in our pocket,'" Raskin said Friday night on MSNBC's "The Last Word."

For "fascists and authoritarian parties and movements, the law is really not what you know — it’s who you know. It's always better for them to know the judge than to know the law. To know the law here is to understand that Donald Trump is disqualified,” said Raskin.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We all know how the fucking Supreme Court is going to rule.

[–] shadearg@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No we don't, and for two very good reasons.

  1. Trump's three Supreme Court appointments are the most disloyal from his perspective. If Trump goes full-blown dictator, he will dissolve the Supreme Court, and there's a very real possibility he will have them executed.

  2. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the Constitution on an obvious Textualist/Originalist basis, it will be seen as illegitimate and may very well be dissolved because it will have failed its ultimate responsibility.

The Justices are very much aware of these factors.

[–] rbhfd@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm hoping they'll rule against him as well, but these reasons seem way out there.

  1. That's assuming they believe he'll go full fascist and execute them. They don't. Even if they would believe that, ruling in his favour would prove their worth to him.

  2. I see no way that democrats could dissolve the SC. They probably wouldn't even if they could.

[–] shadearg@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
  1. I guarantee Trump and company are pressuring, if not explicitly threatening, those three at a minimum right now. Too much is on the line. They do.

  2. If the Democrats allow the Supreme Court to stand after a second flouting following the overturning of Roe, they will be in breach of the Constitution as well.

Edit: grammar

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

The Justices are some of the most cocooned people in the country, by design. I hesitate to say what they're aware of a damn thing other than where the next ladle full of billionaire slop is about to land in their trough.