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
      0·
      8 months ago

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

        • Aleric@lemmy.world
          0·
          8 months ago

          Given “hurdy durrrr hiev meined lolol” is just a lazy argument to begin with, followed up with the somehow even more smooth-brained “muh ratios is muh proofs!”, why would anyone bother trying to respond? You’re unpleasant and engaging in comically bad arguments from the start. If this is your opening salvo, it’s just going to get stupider from here. I’m only responding with obvious, obvious openings because I’m looking forward to some painfully bad logic for teh lulz.

          • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
            0·
            8 months ago

            So, explaining how the 14th amendment works or how the 9th is relevant to his case is… beneath you. I’m painfully illogical for asking for an explanation. “the hivemind will downvote you for having a contrary opinion” is a lazy argument(?), despite direct incontrovertible evidence to support my claim.

            I made no arguments, I asked a question and asserted a claim.

            Thank you for deigning to reply, but I reject this as being of very poor quality, and mostly projection.

    • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 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.

      • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and yes it’s remarkable how often humans fall into this trap, isn’t it? In my experience, the appropriate response is to educate people when they are mistaken. Perhaps you could take the time to correct my mistake instead of ridiculing me?

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      8 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?

        • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
          0·
          8 months ago

          Shalafil posted a rebuttal 8 hours before this comment accusing them of not defending themselves, and this person posted a far more thorough debunking.

          That you think “non-sequitur therefore your argument is invalid” is a compelling argument is depressing.

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            8 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.