News
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
view the rest of the comments
It would be an insanely stupid thing to make precedent. Therefore, the SC can be expected to rule in Trump's favor.
I doubt they will rule in his favor, or at least hope that is the case. The more likely scenario is that they'll play for time. They refused to take the case early a few months ago so that it would be forced into a lower court. That court took it's time and is now complete with the obvious ruling. Now the SCOTUS will take it up and sit on it till November.
This is doubtful. The Supreme Court fully understands that ruling the President has absolute immunity will serve to permanently undermine their own power. There is no material benefit to the Supreme Court in waiting to rule on this case, and every reason for them to make a hasty decision affirming the lower courts finding or simply refusing to hear the case altogether. Regardless of their own personal politics, it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will make ANY rulings that serve to undermine or limit the authority of the judiciary.
You're absolutely right. It's highly unlikely they'd rule in his favor. As you said, that would give any president absolute power and that's not agreeable to the court who, after overturning Chevron, will wield a lot more power themselves.
I hope they refuse the case. It would have been smart for the judiciary as a whole to do that a long time ago. Let trump face trial while they still had another viable candidate in the race. However, the strategy in all of his legal fights has been to drag this out as long as possible in the hope that he becomes president and it's all null and void. Thus allowing him to never face trial and the court to never rule either way.
I'm doubtful they'll sit on it. As you said, they already indicated a lack of desire to pick it up last time Trump submitted an appeal to them on this basis. I'm pretty sure everyone is expecting a repeat performance here. Remember the rule of four would apply here and I'm sure Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Roberts would do exactly the repeat as before.
There's just not the numbers to play petty favors for Trump here.
TIL what the Rule of Four was. Thank you for sharing that!