this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
156 points (93.8% liked)

politics

24543 readers
2514 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
 

Former President Donald Trump has tried every legal trick in the book to postpone his four upcoming criminal trials past election day.

But his master plan just ran into a big problem.

That’s because the Supreme Court showed it’s willing to move at lightning speed this week, when it agreed to fast-track an urgent request from Special Counsel Jack Smith about an issue that risks jamming up the legal works. In a system that can sometimes take years to reach resolution, the high court just got back to Smith in less than one day.

In other words, the Supreme Court just showed it understands the urgency of the situation. While this week’s action was only an early indicator and hardly a final decision on the merits of the pending appeal related to Trump’s Jan. 6 case, the court reacted with the kind of warp speed that suggests Trump’s attempt to bog things down could be doomed.

all 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 21 points 2 years ago

Trump recently argued that the Appellate Court should deny Smith’s request to expedite its review—and even compared Smith to the Grinch who stole Christmas, for allegedly attempting to make attorneys and support staff work through the holidays.

Trump’s team wrote: “It is as if the Special Counsel “growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. … But how?’”

LOL

Coming from the douche who consistently issues the worst holiday statements ever, that shit is hilarious!

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Aw, don't get my hopes up like that.

[–] Dressedlikeapenguin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

"It's the hope that kills you"

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

It looks like maybe Clarence Thomas and Alito want to fast track their next big round of sugar daddy amenities.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Notably this is just them agreeing to take the case, not ruling on it, so it's still theoretically possible that they could rule in Trump's favor, but it's a good omen (as the article notes).

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

If they wanted to support Trump, their smartest move would've been to delay it. Taking the case and then ruling for Trump is just going to make them look even worse, and they seem to actually care about that.

I'm guessing Scalia and Thomas, who should recuse because of his wife, will support Trump here and hem and haw; the liberal justices will go against Trump; Roberts will go against Trump because legacy; and at least one of the Trump Three -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett -- will also go against Trump. Gorsuch seems like someone who actually sticks to his principles when they go against what a conservative is "supposed" to do, so my money's on him.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Trump’s team wrote: “It is as if the Special Counsel “growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. … But how?’”

This is like when you know you're gonna bomb an assignment in college so you just get drunk and have fun with it

[–] ares35@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

OR... the moron majority of this scotus has already decided to rule in favor of dinglebutt.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

This is not impossible, but I believe gorsuch will be an odd one out siding with the sane half. The "plain text" doesn't give him a free pass. Roberts I think will also fall on the sane side.

The rest, who fuckin knows.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Doubtful they would do that, because it would automatically mean Joe Biden or other Dems cannot be held accountable for anything while President either, real or imagined.