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.
- 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.
- 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
I hate to say it, and I know it's going to sound fatalistic, but her decision is very likely going to stand.
Clarence Thomas literally handed her this argument on a silver platter. And say what you will about him, the legal system still considers him one of nine justices of the highest court in the land, and his words still carry that legal weight.
If Jack Smith appeals, there's (IMO), a 50/50 chance he wins on appeal. I could see the appeals court using things like logic and rational thought, kicking Cannon off the case and reinstating the charges against Trump (Or however that would work in the legal sense). But I could also see them saying that since she was merely following what Clarence Thomas told her to do, her decision is on sound legal footing, would most likely survive Supreme Court scrutiny, her decision was proper based on the SC ruling, and the decision stands. And from a strictly legal standpoint, they'd be right in doing so.
And if this case were to make it all the way up to the SC......since Cannon was literally following their blueprint, there's 0% chance that they'll suddenly rule against her. Nothing good can come out of appealing to the Supreme Court, and in fact it may be exactly what this supreme court wants and why Clarence Thomas added that little tidbit into the decision, so the SC can rule that all special counsels are illegal and the entire J6 investigation was unconstitutional as a result.
(Of course, Hunter Biden's conviction will still stand, because reasons.....)
This case is dead. The other three are on life support, and the doctor has already called for the chaplain to deliver last rites.
It's even worse than that, it had nothing to do with Thomas or SC. She claims the AG has no constitutional authority to appoint a special counsel.
Because Thomas literally gave her that argument to make in the immunity ruling. She literally cited his comments and basically copied his ruling like a high school kid copying off the "smart" kid in the class.
He basically told her "Hey, throw the case out. We've got your back."
Except nobody signed on to his concurrence. He was acting alone in his "analysis"
That's the Thomas two-step. He uses these concurrences to issue marching orders to the judges below him, so that it can be challenged up to the Supreme Court and then his concurrence becomes precedent.
Thomas is not the supreme court. And he's starting to alienate himself from even the other conservative justices. He's on an island and I doubt the others would follow his lead if this reaches SCOTUS on appeal.
They'll rule it's Constitutional to hunt Democrats for their pelts and you'll still be pretending the Court is legitimate. 🙄
None of them went out of their way to distance themselves from his comments, either. They didn't offer any kind of dissenting opinon. They didn't speak out against his advisory opinion, which is supposed to be against SC norms. And they haven't spoken out since. And given their rulings since gaining the supermajority, along with their "nuke it and everything close to it" approach to ruling on matters, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't gladly just go along with whatever Clarence Thomas says, or at the very least, not care enough to vote against him.
This isn't even the first time he gave an advisory opinion. Remember the literal list of cases he said he wanted to review and overturn? He wouldn't be so brazenly and openly giving these literal roadmaps of what cases to bring before them if he didn't believe he had at least four more votes. And none of them have given us any reason to believe otherwise.