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.

  • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
    313·
    9 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
        12·
        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
          2·
          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.