In Trump v. United States (2024) ...
That is the most accurate possible name for the supreme court's recent decision.
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
343 points (98.3% liked)
News
23287 readers
3622 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
Trump’s SCOTUS v. United States 2024
It's a pretty accurate description of the last 8 years TBH.
Senate shenanigans are always fun to read about.
Also, we learned that they're "separate but equal" branches of government in school. Let's see if the legislative branch can claw back some level of influence.
Uhhh couple of y’all are using the phrase “separate but equal” way out of context.
That was the key phrase for Plessy v. Ferguson aka the basis for the formal establishment of segregation in the US.
“Separation of powers” and “checks and balances” are the guiding principles for our 3 branches.
Oy, of course you're right 😅
"Coequal" I think was the term I remember learning.
All good lol I’ve said way dumber shit
like what?
“How do you spell ‘off’”?
Swear to god my brain short circuited once and I couldn’t remember how to spell it. Completely sober, I was like 17
…we learned that they're "separate but equal" branches of government in school.
Samsies. But then again, I don’t think normal people (our founders included) ever expected a willful collusion by a party to stack those branches of government in their favor.
“Separate but equal” was Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld segregation laws in Jim Crow states.
Thank you for pointing that out. It is an important distinction that carries a lot of weight for a lot of people.
No worries! I figured yall would want to know lol
The founders didn't intend for the SCOTUS to be an equal branch of government. They just kinda started doing constitutional review, and multiple founders were explicit about how that's not what they intended.
More like our founders would be shocked that we haven't rewritten the Constitution yet, and horrified that centuries later we're treating it like some divine scripture
There are multiple mechanisms in there to modify or even rewrite the whole thing. They totally saw this coming, they were pretty vocal about it. They hoped future generations would build on their work, not enshrine it
So now introducing bills and doing their fucking jobs is "ambitious?" These sucker's make like $200k just in base salary and are the most unproductive decade of Congress I think ever.
It's good to be king. Get paid to do nothing.
The Constitutional Amendment is more bulletproof, but a much heavier lift.
This one will end up at SCOTUS, with an expected outcome. Slow moving trains and all.
The Court wouldn't have jurisdiction. They could overstep their authority anyway but it'd probably become a constitutional crisis.
As opposed to the other times in recent memory that they overstepped their authority, lied about the facts, and rewrote laws and the constitution?
Lying about the facts and rewriting laws isn't legally prohibited. This is different because it would be the Supreme Court breaking the law if it viewed a case outside its jurisdiction... or, well, it could be different. It depends on whether the other two branches of government just roll over and let them do it. If Schumer is willing to use jurisdictional stripping the Democrats might be willing to go even farther if the Court decided to ignore the law. Hence, constitutional crisis.
Earlier this week, President Joe Biden proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn Trump
Lol
That'd require a forklift.
Get it to the floor and make them all vote on the record. That vote will haunt them in the post-Trump era. May even help shoot down some rising stars down the line.
From what I've seen others state, the plan is for the Republicans to lose, then enough politicians call foul play that it goes to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court lets the politicians pick and they override the will of the people. So it wouldn't haunt them in that case
I think you're right that this is the high level game plan, but it does require them to be in spitting distance of a win vs. blatantly overturning an obvious loss. The past week or so feels more hopeful than normal they won't manage that (but it's not too late for a procession of October Surprises)
Couldn't they FOIA the judges' financial records, and if money came from Trumps mafia, associate it to the conflict of interest around the ruling?
Then the ruling could be argued invalid because of alleged bribery.
This is a good move. Thrg just need to be careful to preclude somehow giving an opening for the court to hear it via original jurisdiction. Congress can only limit the court's appellate jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Vox Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Name: Vox Bias: Left
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.