💾 Archived View for idiomdrottning.org › scotus captured on 2024-08-31 at 14:29:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-03-21)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Trump put republican justices on the supreme court that are now going to seriously consider the idea that impeachment is the only recourse for a criminal president and all non-impeached crimes, even killing and shooting, is something that he has immunity from. This consideration is gonna delay the trials against him so he can run for office. But during the impeachment process, the GQP was like “enh he can be tried criminally later”.
Kinda absurd to me that he can just claim immunity and that’s enough to hold up the courts for months. If other people do that, they would be held in contempt of court and get worse punishments.
It’s also really unfair that the GOP (as they were known back then) blocked Obama’s supreme court nomination using the argument that it was so late in his term (although more than ten months) but then approved Trumps’ nominee that were much later (less than four months). It’s the senate’s job to approve nominees, that’s true, but it was a really dishonest argument.
… between 1790 and early 2010 there were only two decisions that the Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court designated as important and that had at least two dissenting votes in which the Justices divided along party lines, about one-half of one percent.
That sounds like science fiction to my ears living in an era where everyone has a take. The political cleave points have become fewer and wider thanks to the two-camp mathematics of FPTP and of algorithm-driven social media. We’re living in the infocalypse so people can’t get good honest facts.
Opinions these days come in “package deals”. Either you have a world view where things work one way, or you see everything completely differently. It makes it seem like the other side is deliberately lying, or is absolutely deluded. And that’s how they see us, too.