politics
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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Making sure I understand this: All the SCOTUS has done, really, is accept the DOJ's abandonment of the case? Not getting into whether or not he is guilty (he is), or whether or not the DOJ is doing this for purely political reasons (they are), but if the DOJ no longer wants to prosecute the case, isn't this just the SCOTUS saying, " OK?" which was probably a foregone conclusion after the Solicitor General told them they were abandoning the case back in Feb?
Don't get me wrong, it absolutely sucks, and I'm not at all surprised. But didn't we all know this was going to happen? Just like we all know Bannon, and likely Navaro), will successfully sue the DOJ for some absurd sum that they will "settle out of court for undisclosed amounts." Right? Everyone knew this, right? This is/will be another example of the taxpayers paying Trump's henchmen.
Courts can refuse to dismiss a case, though it is rare. In https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/22/ lower courts had refused a dismissal, though that was overridden by the Supreme Court with the argument that dismissal
In the case of Bannon, it seems to me that it is very much contrary to public interest to dismiss. We are in extraordinary times, and this is an extraordinarily corrupt dismissal. So if we think it was a foregone conclusion, then it is only because we know SCROTUS is corrupt, right? Not because the law said so.
Yep, if he wins this I am sure he will turn around and sue for wrongful imprisonment.