181

Trump asks Supreme Court to reject special counsel and stay out of immunity dispute for now (www.cnn.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Donald Trump opposes the special counsel’s request for the Supreme Court to decide right now whether he has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office, lawyers for the former president told the justices in court papers Wednesday.

Special counsel Jack Smith asked the high court last week to review a lower-court ruling that Trump, as a former president, is not immune from the election subversion criminal case. Smith in his appeal to the justices asked them to take the rare step of reviewing the issue before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, weighs in.

But Trump, whose legal strategy in the case so far has largely revolved around attempts to delay the proceedings, told the justices that Smith should not be able to leapfrog over the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to resolve the critical issue.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Maybe they shouldn’t

Your comment was literally arguing exactly that.

[-] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 months ago

I'm going to be overly verbose with you since you appreciate specificity so much.

Edward Teach's comment:

Why should a court of law give a shit what Republicans will or won’t do in retaliation for some perceived sleight?

Edward is implying that the court should ignore the political repercussions of their decision (i.e., "why should [they] care").

My response:

Maybe they shouldn’t, but it’s still a tough situation politically.

I am here acknowledging the salience of his point while also being intentionally non-committal. ("Maybe they shouldn't [care about the consequences]".) Maybe Edward is right that the supreme court should ignore the political fallout. I then return to my original point that it is a tough situation either way.

Edward Teach's comment:

Maybe they shouldn’t?! You realize you’re arguing for the law to be applied depending on who it benefits politically, don’t you?

Here he is straw manning me because he read too much into my original comment. I never argued that the court should or shouldn't do anything, only that there will be negative consequences either way. Edward assumed that the purpose behind my comment was to say the supreme court should rule in favor of Trump. This is not the case.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Maybe they shouldn’t

☝️this is you arguing whether the court should or shouldn’t do something.

you can be verbose or succinct; it changes nothing other than the time amount of you waste.

[-] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 months ago

Now you're just repeating yourself. You didn't even read the comment, did you? You're right, this is a waste of time.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Now you’re just repeating yourself.

because I’m right

You didn’t even read the comment, did you?

I did. the part of my comment you didn’t read is that it changes nothing.

You’re right, this is a waste of time.

that’s why I said it

this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023

181 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19072 readers

3183 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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