Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
sturg33
I
You're very welcome.
I think there’s still a very real question to be answered of what a post-Trump Republican Party looks like. Does he have enough carrying power with his base to play King-maker in a Primary race? Trump is already a bad candidate for a general election and he *waltzed* to victory.
sturg33
I
His track record is mixed. He's gotten behind MAGA people who get killed in the primaries and generals. He has successfully kneecapped good conservatives like Bob Good in favor of RINOs. He failed at getting rid of Massie.
He failed miserably at kneecapping RDS before his election, or Kemp. He's blasted people like Kim Reynolds and Youngkin bc they didn't kiss the ring.
He's tough to read. Failures across the board but unquestionably the top dog in the party. Still, half the party voted against him early in the primary.
Results are all over the place. But his cult is real and will do as they are told. We see evidence of this daily
Yeah, I don’t think he has much sway in state elections, which tend to have much lower turnout and feature the types of voters concerned with specific issues. But I wonder what a Presidential primary looks like if Trump finds his heir apparent.
sturg33
I
I don't even see the national appeal. As a % of the vote. Since this century, his % of the vote share would rank 4th and 5th out of the 6 elections we have had, only surpassing McCain.
He just has the GOP by the balls. He owns somewhere between 35-45% of the voters who will not budge and will do whatever he says.
Not a king maker but with any type of opposition splitting, almost impossible to overcome
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Fortunately, I think the Supreme Court got it right. Content moderation is a form of expressive activity. It would also be strange not to recognize that content is the product and that social media platforms should be allowed to develop their brands as they please with respect to the kind and quality of content they permit. At the end of the day the markets appear to have made this issue moot. Under Musk's ownership twitter has a very different approach to what kind of content is consistent its their brand.
Last edited:
As someone who doesn’t think Trump did anything illegal (even if wrong) with his handling of the election results, I actually agree with his team’s framing of his conduct. I would prefer to err on the side of *not* giving sitting Presidents sweeping criminal immunity, but I don’t think Trump’s conduct should have been viewed through that lens.
What becomes a bit more muddied is where the line is being drawn by this ruling. If Joe Biden looks at the 2024 election and believes (falsely, I’m not starting a conspiracy) that the election was stolen and that Trump is a threat to the country, is he immune from prosecution if he uses the Executive branch to stop the peaceful transition of power?
What becomes a bit more muddied is where the line is being drawn by this ruling. If Joe Biden looks at the 2024 election and believes (falsely, I’m not starting a conspiracy) that the election was stolen and that Trump is a threat to the country, is he immune from prosecution if he uses the Executive branch to stop the peaceful transition of power?
But he probably should be in that hypothetical, right? I guess I just don’t love the idea that the only real check on a President abusing his powers is the legislative and judiciary branches disagreeing with that President, especially when the President could feasibly invoke the use of the military to bypass the other branches. It’s a very hypothetical gripe, and I’m fine with the practical result of today’s decision, but I think there’s still some work to do on the subject of Presidential immunity.
I largely agree with this. I think SCOTUS got both of these cases right.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think he would need to do so in a way that reinforced the view that he was acting out of concern for election integrity rather than losing the election. So my advice to a future president wanting to hold on to office after losing an election is to challenge the outcomes in a couple states where he won the election. That way he could make the claim that he was throwing out the election based on concerns about election integrity rather than based upon his losing the election. That's my reading of this distinction between immunity for "official acts" as opposed to "unofficial" ones.
Similarly, if a president wants to rid himself of an opponent through an assassination, he needs to make sure he targets broader group of "terrorists" rather than the single individual he is looking to take out.
Presidents have a lot of leeway. You can make the argument some of Biden's other actions should have gotten him into legal trouble like the student debt thing but I don't want to see presidents come under legal fire for their decisions. I don't like Biden but he shouldn't be prosecuted for it.