Overthrowing democracy was an offical act. - SCOTUS
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
150 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10186 readers
128 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
damn, who could've possibly seen that coming? π«₯
If Trump is reelected, there's about to be a whole lot of people within official act range.
The Supreme Court members who made this decision are in official act range right now at this moment. Donald Trump is in official act range at this moment as well. Not to draw conclusions but I'm not sure how serious the Democrats are about staying in power.
"They go low, we go high."
π π«
The should just be honest:
βYes this is bad, but we might want to use this power ourselves so we wonβt do anything to reverse it. You just need to vote so only WE have the power to use it.β
Honest question: What should democrats do to reverse the Supreme Court?
Kill or forcibly resign everyone on the Supreme court who voted in favor of the decision, appoint new justices, and have it overturned.
More realistically? Add more members to the Court so they're the majority and then overturn it.
99% of democracies give up right before hitting it big and concentrating supreme power in the hands of a benevolent dictator.
Examine this change of logic. The democrats want a mandate from the people before they act antidemocratically? So that they can maintain the highground when they do an inherently lowdown thing? And they could do it now but they want a blue election first? Are you a snake eating its own tail?
Traitor.
All I've heard from MAGA so far is that fake electors aren't illegal, followed by some explanation involving JFK and Hawaii. Now Trump himself is admitting that they're illegal, but he's immune?
A lot more people are about to go to jail for him.
Also, fuck MAGA for trying to nullify my vote.
Surprised pikachu face goes here
Managed Democracy called for aid and SCOTUS answered.
π€ I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Speaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, Will Scharf, an attorney for the former president, laid out the next steps for special counsel Jack Smith's case following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that former presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts but no immunity for private acts.
In a federal indictment filed in August, Trump is facing four charges pertaining to his alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Speaking to Collins, Scharf said that Smith's "case should be dismissed" because it concerns official acts not private ones.
Meanwhile Trump celebrated the ruling in a post to Truth Social, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.
The Biden campaign, on the other hand, said the ruling would not "change the facts" that Trump tried to "overthrow the results of a free and fair election."
"Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he's above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself."
Saved 64% of original text.
Click here to see the summary
Good bot
A sudden wall of text is jarring while reading comments, thank you to whoever made this change π
Wouldn't their ruling not apply retroactively? Or if he declares it now it wouldn't mean anything since he isn't the sitting president?
Their ruling isn't new law, it's telling people what the law already said. Even all the stuff they made up along the way.
And the definition of "official" is so gray it could be anything and not anything! Gotta love vauge interpretations from what is supposed to be our finest judges.
I particularly like that they hinted that some things in the trial were official and some things weren't, but they're not going to tell anyone what they are at this time, we have to wait for the appeal to work its way back up. At which point the election will be over and they'll just say "psyche, it's all official".