The U.S. Supreme Court has set April 25 as the date it will hear Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from prosecution on charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss - the last day of oral arguments of its current term.

The court released its updated argument calendar a week after it agreed to take up the case and gave the former president a boost by putting on hold the criminal prosecution being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith. It previously had disclosed which week it would hear the matter but had not given the precise date.

The justices will review a lower court’s rejection of Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution because he was president when he took actions aimed at reversing President Joe Biden’s election victory over him.

    • no banana@lemmy.world
      452·
      11 months ago

      People should stop with this hivemind stuff. It’s okay to feel something and be corrected. It’s fine to learn.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      302·
      11 months ago

      Yeah imagine thinking the 9th and 14th amendments matter… Silly liberals

    • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
      72·
      11 months ago

      I read your comment and it reminded me of something, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it. It took me a few minutes, then it dawned on me: it was my drunk Trumper uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. He was telling us how the “Mexicans and Blacks” are sabotaging “White Christianity™” by crossing the border and interbreeding with white women and that our telling him to shut up and go home was the real intolerance

      Tl;dr: dumb people often blame everyone else for any consequences of their failure to recognize they’re dumb.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      313·
      11 months ago

      The hive-mind children in here are worse than reddit ever was, and was there for 12-years. Notice not a soul stated anything counter to what I posted?

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            11 months ago

            The overturning of Roe vs Wade, which was an almost 50 year old precedent, is an example of the supreme court acting in a partisan manner. Since the premise is that the current supreme court has never acted in a partisan manner, the counterexample refutes the premise. And if the premise of an argument is not true, then the argument doesn’t support the thesis. So, the guy you cited is also wrong.

            Edit: Turns out the rebuttal you linked is a reply to a different, albeit identically worded post. And in this context, Shalafil didn’t use the term ‘never’ in their premise, meaning that in that context, a single counterexample actually isn’t enough to disprove the premise. So you’re right on this one. Sorta annoying that these two clash several times in this discussion.