The entire legal system?
Which part would you like to defend as just?
Roberts is strategic. He tries to steer the court away from stuff that will energize democratic voters.
1 Like
There are plenty of just decisions issued every day throughout the entire system across the country. Writing off the entire legal system because of a handful of unjust decisions are made is dumb, especially considering these decisions are more of a reflection of our society’s values than of some inherent flaw in the entire legal system. Maybe you want to argue that the flaw is it’s made up of people?
1 Like
The legal system is set up to protect rich people and pound poor people and minorities.
Again if anyone hasn’t listened to serial season 3 check it out.
3 Likes
This could go here or in the abortion thread.
SCOTUS is hearing arguments for an Idaho law that challenges the idea that EMTALA (the federal law requiring doctors to treat or stabilize any patient who shows up in the emergency room) necessarily covers abortions in cases where the mother’s life or health are at risk.
Idaho’s lawyer casually suggesting that maybe fetuses have the same status (and constitutional rights as citizens). Very cool. Very easy to see a nationwide ban on abortions if SCOTUS accepts that view.
https://twitter.com/ProfMMurray/status/1783140352704102443
Edit: Here’s a NYT opinion piece from last month that saw this coming:
This is a good thread:
https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/1783136251195126256
This one is good, too:
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1783131044012834865
And this is gross:
Turner [arguing on behalf of Idaho], replying to Sotomayor: YES, Idaho law does say abortions are not allowed if a woman would just lose an organ but not be at risk of death.
1 Like
I mean, really, who actually NEEDS their skin, amiright?
Amazing to me that this guy is the same guy as Monk’s boss
3 Likes
People without twitter accounts can’t read threads there so if there’s an unrolled link or something could you do that? thanks
2 Likes
What happens if SCOTUS rules tomorrow that the president does have full immunity for official acts, but not unofficial? Does another hearing get set to decide on what’s official and unofficial? Or can the case proceed just on what’s considered non official acts?
I doubt the second answer can be correct because of course they’re going to claim everything was acting in his official capacity even tho some of it was clearly campaign
He already has immunity for official acts, at least while in office. Pretty sure you can’t take the president to court over an official act. I don’t think Trump’s rally on the 6th counts as an official act though.
I think I meant if he’s acting in his official capacity. I suppose it’s possible to commit a crime even if you are. Like war crimes would be one example and why almost every president could technically be legit prosecuted
In theory, suppose a president really did believe there was massive vote fraud and a conspiracy to conceal it. What could/should he do?
Murder the VP and all of congress obviously.
1 Like
I’m not sure if this will work or not, here goes:
1 Like
If that were really the case then it’s likely that he or she could find a court to agree. Unlike in 2020 where they lost something like 60 of the 61 cases they brought
1 Like
They’re just hearing the arguments tomorrow, not ruling. They likely won’t rule until the end of the term which is end of June/start of July. I have heard a theory that they might try to stall it even further by making some narrow ruling and sending it back to the lower courts for further proceedings; we’ll see though.
2 Likes
Find evidence that 1) Other people can see, and 2) holds up in court.