197
US Supreme Court sets April 25 Trump criminal immunity argument
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
197 points (98.5% liked)
News
23287 readers
3826 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Oh bull. I've been collecting examples of the Court NOT acting conservatively, let alone acting partisan. I'm no fan of this Court, and I loathe Thomas, but they make some surprising calls. If they were an organ of the GOP, none of these cases would have passed, OR, they would have heard them to shoot down the lower court rulings.
https://old.lemmy.world/comment/8055718
There was an earlier ruling where they shot Trump down, but I can't find it for all the noise over recent events.
I'm kinda OK with them putting off the call on the immunity case, it's a weighty one, but I'm scared as hell they'll take too long to ponder the arguments. Calling it now: They reject Trump's claim. Just like they allowed him on the ballot, and the unanimity was telling, I think they understand the chaos that would ensue.
Why do they need to put this off? Is there really a need to ponder over the question of 'is a president allowed to break laws with impunity?' Because it seems to me like there's only one answer there and it's "FUCK NO."
The Court is actually moving much faster than they traditionally do in such matters.
No they aren't. They were asked to take this up a long time ago and didn't. Then, when shit started looking bad for Trump, they suddenly reverse course and delay his trial.
You are correct. Mr. Smith's team requested that the SCOTUS review this months ago. Long before it was brought to them by Trump's team, as a way to expedite the process, and stop the "play out the clock" approach they take.
There's zero tradition for a former president being indicted numerous times for almost a hundred crimes. There's no measuring stick for this.
They didn't have to move at all, though. That's the thing, they're doing this voluntarily, just like with their ruling on Trump being on the ballots because they claim Congress has to hold a vote every time they want to enforce a law that has existed for 150 years. They chose to rule on that, they didn't have to.
So you don't want a SCOTUS ruling on this? You would rather leave it somewhat ambiguous? I want a solid ruling.
Most times, precedent is set by what the court decides NOT to review. When they say nothing, they are saying "the lower court has it right". This is standard practice.
Other courts should be handling this, the SCOTUS ruling delays proceedings or otherwise makes him immune to crime, both bad outcomes.
Wow. Just wow.
It is fairly complicated. Should Obama be imprisoned for murder of US citizens in drone strikes? Should Bush be held liable for the incompetence in allowing 9/11? Should Clinton be held responsible for deaths in Kosovo for violation of the war powers act?
Presidents do seem to have immunity with regard to actions as a President. Creating a ruling that protects presidential action and allows criminal prosecution for other actions is going to be difficult. There's also the matter of if actions done with immunity can be used as evidence against a president.
There is some existing precedent for distinguishing the President from the Candidate during elections. This could be used as a basis for a ruling Trump isn't immune, but it's hardly definitive.
It's going to take more than an "I know it when I see it" ruling.
Except the question is not 'is the president ever allowed to break the law,' the question is 'can the president break the law whenever he feels like it?' The answer is obviously no.
All of these are asking if someone is guilty when the actual question is are we allowed to bring you to court to determine if you are guilty. A president should not have immunity and if a president feels they need to take extreme actions they should justify them before a court and accept the consequences of their actions. If someone does not want to be in that position to make such a call and pay such a price they have no business taking that role.
In most cases the guilt is largely proven, criminal liability would require a court to agree, but the findings from official reports are sufficient evidence. I'm not sure no immunity is a realistic outcome, a test for what actions are protected is most likely.
To me it seems that if something was agreed upon to be a law it should be enforced and if there are exceptions to the rule they should be written into the law itself. If something isn't written into the law itself it should go to court where a determination can be made and if a jury finds there was good cause to commit such an action they can find them not guilty and a future exception can be added. By adding a blanket immunity it's like adding cheat mode into the game and it's going to be exploited in ways that we haven't imagined yet.
Obama and Bush should face justice.
Both Shrubs should've faced a court.
Roe v. Wade. Your argument is invalid.
Hi, I'm a mathematician. My career is built on creating, evaluating, and identifying the problems with logical arguments.
Even if the person you're replying to is wrong, their argument is at least cogent; it's entirely possible that the Supreme Court rules against Trump, and there's good reason to believe that they will.
Your comment (the one I am replying to) is a non-sequiter, and is therefore invalid.
Furthermore, even when applying the principal of charitable interpretation, the best argument you could plausibly make relies on a false inference. Specifically: you fail to take into account the fact that the justices were selected for their opinions on abortion, and so their ruling cannot be used to infir that they will always act in the best interests of the GOP.
Please don't be such a doomer asshole; it's unbecoming.
Things the hivemind here does not like:
How does one get into your line of work? It seems we need more of that.
Step 1 is taking a bunch of math classes in college.
I'm working on that already, though I had planned computer/electrical engineering.
Who's hiding? All of my comments are public, and you can tell because a whole shitload of people read my comments to downvote them because they disagree with me. Who's talking smack? I have asked questions, made claims, and the overwhelming response has been active hostility to me, personally, and not to my position. Case-in-point:
Your comment is two things: Sarcastic, vitriolic, ad hominem (smack talk), and a total failure to address any of the claims I or others are making. I suspect because if you attempted to actually address the claim (instead of calling the person you disagree with coward and, by sarcastic implication, stupid), for instance, that "the hivemind will downvote you when they disagree with you here," you realize you would fail utterly.
I'm sorry you feel the need to attack me with compliments, your fascination with the superiority of my mind(?) is very strange. I never said that I was smarter than you or anyone else here, and, in my opinion, this is suggestive of your own lack of confidence in your position or your ability to argue your position.
I'm reporting your comment for ad hominem attacks and bad faith argumentation. There, downvote that.
More BS. This Court is conservative, not partisan. They owe nothing to Trump or the GOP. LOL, I even posted two accounts of them voting, or ignoring, both of those parties.
And as to my references, got any arguments? Perhaps they should have taken the trans bathroom ruling and fought it? How about Washington's tax deal? That could have been Earth shattering.
Wow this list is quite damning.
Omg the Supreme Court honors the federal governments right to control the boarder. So controversial and certainly something that would never get flipped on its head.
Oh the SUPREME COURT didn't want to talk about $500 mask fines???
This has to be satire.
Whoa, bud- careful with those counter-hivemind opinions. You'll get slapped for wrongthink around here.
edit: Case-in-point: my ratio right now.
People should stop with this hivemind stuff. It's okay to feel something and be corrected. It's fine to learn.
wow yeah I totally didn't get slapped for wrongthink by the hivemind, you guys sure showed me with this "correction"
what am I supposed to have learned from this?
Yeah imagine thinking the 9th and 14th amendments matter... Silly liberals
is that an echo i hear? echo...echo...echo...
I don't suppose you could explain how the 14th amendment works in the relevant case to give the contrary opinion to the unanimous court? I'm with the guy above, they suck and are awful, but not wrong on this one in particular. That you think the 9th amendment is somehow relevant is... telling.
edit: crickets. Crickets and downvotes. Nope, no hivemind punishing wrongthink here. Nosiree.
for your edification
So, explaining how the 14th amendment works or how the 9th is relevant to his case is... beneath you. I'm painfully illogical for asking for an explanation. "the hivemind will downvote you for having a contrary opinion" is a lazy argument(?), despite direct incontrovertible evidence to support my claim.
I made no arguments, I asked a question and asserted a claim.
Thank you for deigning to reply, but I reject this as being of very poor quality, and mostly projection.
I read your comment and it reminded me of something, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. It took me a few minutes, then it dawned on me: it was my drunk Trumper uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. He was telling us how the "Mexicans and Blacks" are sabotaging "White Christianity™" by crossing the border and interbreeding with white women and that our telling him to shut up and go home was the real intolerance
Tl;dr: dumb people often blame everyone else for any consequences of their failure to recognize they're dumb.
It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and yes it's remarkable how often humans fall into this trap, isn't it? In my experience, the appropriate response is to educate people when they are mistaken. Perhaps you could take the time to correct my mistake instead of ridiculing me?
The hive-mind children in here are worse than reddit ever was, and was there for 12-years. Notice not a soul stated anything counter to what I posted?
Afraid_of_zombies provided a counterexample to one of your theses, which you failed to debunk.
Shalafil posted a rebuttal 8 hours before this comment accusing them of not defending themselves, and this person posted a far more thorough debunking.
That you think "non-sequitur therefore your argument is invalid" is a compelling argument is depressing.
The overturning of Roe vs Wade, which was an almost 50 year old precedent, is an example of the supreme court acting in a partisan manner. Since the premise is that the current supreme court has never acted in a partisan manner, the counterexample refutes the premise. And if the premise of an argument is not true, then the argument doesn't support the thesis. So, the guy you cited is also wrong.
Edit: Turns out the rebuttal you linked is a reply to a different, albeit identically worded post. And in this context, Shalafil didn't use the term 'never' in their premise, meaning that in that context, a single counterexample actually isn't enough to disprove the premise. So you're right on this one. Sorta annoying that these two clash several times in this discussion.
What a remarkably reasonable take, both before and after edit.
Thank you.
Thank you for actually taking the time.
That was the very first thing I noticed. I had two accounts over there for about 12 years too.