this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
58 points (98.3% liked)

News

23361 readers
3589 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
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
58
GOP resolution calls on SCOTUS to ‘intervene’ in Trump’s hush money case (www.politico.com)
submitted 5 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) introduced a resolution Friday urging the Supreme Court to “intervene” in the hush money case against former President Donald Trump before the 2024 election — a move that experts say is a political stunt that faces significant legal obstacles.

Citing the “All Writs Act,” by which the court “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” the resolution calls on SCOTUS to intervene in the case “with all deliberate speed and possible urgency.”

The resolution argues for the court’s intervention on the basis that Americans need to make “informed decisions” in the upcoming election. It also echoes Trump’s oft-used complaint that the trial — and ultimately conviction — stemmed from the “politically motivated prosecution by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.”

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I would agree that Americans need to make "informed decisions" in the upcoming election - for instance, they need to be "informed" of the fact that one of the candidates is a convicted felon.

And on another note, here's that "politically motivated" thing again.

Just as I noted the other day, when Alito trotted it out, how is there even a notion that it matters?

Let's just run with the assumption that the prosecution was "politically motivated." So what? The trial worked exactly the way a trial is meant to work - the jury heard the evidence and rendered a verdict based on the evidence.

What on earth does the supposed motivation of the prosecutor have to do with anything?

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 13 points 5 months ago

While I agree with your point, political motivation is prosecution is a bad thing. Look at the way the hunter Biden story is paraded around as if Joe biden did something wrong. Selectively prosecuting people for political reasons is a hallmark of fascism. So, it does matter, but just not in this case.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

one of the candidates is a convicted felon.

And a rapist and a guy who wants to throw out the constitution. Let's not forgot those.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's even within SCOTUS' ability to do anything about this state-level ruling.

Not that "you can't legally do that" has ever been a barrier to Republicans before.

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sadly I think original jurisdiction of SCOTUS means they could choose to jump the line and hear the case. However it would be unprecedented to do so as a) they don't have time to review every state felony case and b) his lawyers have yet to actually make a case that the trial was performed wrongly.

But in this case, Trump does want an appeal, but probably can't wait til June '25 to have it

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't know enough about this subject clearly, but has there ever been a similar situation where SCOTUS overturned a case like this? Not against a former president, obviously, but that shouldn't be relevant. There have been other cases where political candidates have been convicted of violating state campaign finance laws. Has SCOTUS ever intervened?

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think so, but they have also used their shadow docket more and more to do things that are unprecedented. It's not 100% unbelievable.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

Steve Vladeck wrote a book about that ... The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.

In a CNN interview he also said that "for the first 200 years of the Supreme Court’s existence, Congress was regularly involved in conversations about the shape and size of the court’s docket, which kinds of cases the court was hearing, how much business it was conducting". One wonders why that oversight stopped.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Bugsbunnyno.jpg