• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        109
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        he didn’t recuse himself when his wife was on the docket… so why would he recuse himself from trump?

          • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Can we at least update the description of Supreme Court Justice to remove impartiality and instead say something to the effect of ‘forces their will on people less fortunate?’

              • Jeff@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I like the term ‘lawyer-deciders’ because what do you call a bus full of lawyers at the bottom of a lake?

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A good start?

                  That’s not really fair, though. A lot of lawyers are fighting the good fight, such as environmental lawyers, those of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU and various other organizations who provide pro bono representation to those who couldn’t afford a good lawyer otherwise.

                  • Jeff@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Fair sir. But these ones aren’t any different from others that also are disliked. They are just as corrupt and with more power so they’re even bigger dirt bags.

                    May they be used as examples of scum for all time immortal.

    • hydrashok
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well he’s a giant piece of shit human, so I’m going to guess no.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t see any chance the supreme court could rule that he would be immune to charges for attempting to steal an election. If they were to rule he had absolute immunity it would be giving every president forward who wants to stay in office the right to just cancel the elections.

        That said, Clarence won’t want his name listed as voting against protecting little hands in this, so him stepping aside gives him the ability to not vote against, and look like he did the right thing.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Quite clearly the Supreme Court doesn’t care about national stability. So who can say what will happen. They’ve overturned decades of jurisprudence, so speculation is fun but we really have no idea.

        • eestileib
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          They already showed how it’s done in Bush v Gore: just declare the case can’t be used as precedent.

          • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They want a republican dictator. A democrat currently holds the office. If they rule that Trump can’t be held liable, there’s nothing stopping Biden from doing the same successfully. And that should terrify them.

            • winterayars
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They have no intention of letting Democrats continue to be president, though.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m gonna put the odds at roughly 1000:1 that he does.

      Actually, there are betting sites for this that would be, supposedly, more accurate than I am at creating those odds. What are the odds on the betting sites?

      Edit: I’m not finding the odds…

      Edit 2: Apparently there are 5:1 odds on if Trump takes a plea bargain. I would have set those a bit higher since he is willing to settle cases, but I doubt he’s willing to accept jail time of any sort.

      • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t see trump taking a plea deal while he’s still running for president. He’s going to try to delay as long as he can, get elected, and then use his position as president to weasel out of any charges, even if it means pardoning himself. And since he’s that number 1 target, the one that they want bad enough to give lenient plea deals to others in exchange for testimony, I find it hard to believe that he’d be offered a plea that doesn’t send him to prison. So why admit to being guilty when he can keep telling his followers that it’s a witch hunt and generate more support?