this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
348 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19126 readers
3942 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Surprise!!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The disconnect is that this case isnt determining whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. There is already a case going on to determine that. And it's just common sense that it goes in that order, he has to be found guilty of insurrection before he can legally be labeled as an insurrectionist.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Okay but that already happened. There's another case determining the part about whether he goes to jail for it, but that he is an insurrectionist per the amendment is already resolved.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Which case was that which already happened?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The one being relitigated here before the SC. Lowest court ruled that he was an insurrectionist, second tier ruled that president is in fact an office and that the oath for it applies.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's not resolved, this is the same case, a higher court can overrule their decision. It was never their jurisdiction to decide if he committed federal crimes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right. It was their jurisdiction to decide if he was an insurrectionist per the amendment. They did, he is. Federal crimes is a different case. Just like the recent defamation case ruled he was a sexual assaulter. Wasn't a criminal case, didn't carry the risk of jail time, did have consequences.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In that case, the sexual assault had no consequences, it was a defamation case. Like it didnt involve him having to register as a sex offender or anything, because in the eyes of the law he isn't one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Yes, the defamation has had consequences. About 88 million so far.