There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Too bad it’s a state-level thing and not up to him or that would matter.

SnotFlickerman OP ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I’ve seen way too much fuckery that the Republicans keep winning in court on to fully trust that that’s enough to save us.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Oh I’m sure they’ll try. But I think even SCOTUS would have a hard time justifying forcing a presidential candidate who dropped out before the convention to be on the ballot. They may still do it, but I think it will be very, very difficult. I could certainly see Roberts not going for that.

SnotFlickerman OP ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Roberts I’m iffy about, he seems torn between his legacy and his legacy…

The real legacy of being a semi-corrupted court, and the winners-take-all-and-write-the-history legacy of being the bestest court ever who helped Donald Trump secure his win against the evil corrupt Democrats. He seems at least mildly interested in the latter, because it allows him to pretend he’s more serious than he is.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Remember that Roberts didn’t go for Trump’s election lie.

SnotFlickerman OP ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

But he did sit on the immunity decision for months after months of ignoring Jack Smith requesting the same thing. Yet somehow, when a Republican brought the same issue to the court, it was suddenly an important issue… just not important enough to rule on quickly.

…and then they just did a major power grab by making themselves the arbiters of what official acts are and are not.

Sorry, but the immunity decision screams Robert could give a fuck less about being in the pocket.

AWistfulNihilist ,

Dude, absofuckinglutely. Robert’s was never not on Trump’s side, he just bided his time until the right decisions came through, like the one that makes the president a de-facto kingship based in court opinions with a huge amount of freshly minted psychos as judges.

Emperor ,
@Emperor@feddit.uk avatar

Election law expert Richard Hasen wrote that there is “no credence” to the notion that the Democratic Party could not legally replace Biden on the ticket, as he is not the nominee yet – the nominating process generally takes place during the Democratic National Convention.

“Joe Biden is not the party’s nominee now, and states generally point to the major party’s nominee as the one whose name is on the ballot,” he wrote in a piece earlier this month.

I think I’ll believe the expert.

SnotFlickerman OP ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I think I’ll believe the conservative stacked court system that will ignore all that and rule against the Democrats anyway…

BlameThePeacock ,

It’s not a federal legal matter, party internal politics are not regulated the same way as actual elections. There’s some tangential finance laws, but the democratic party can pick whoever the hell they want however the hell they want.

cheese_greater ,

It seems like everything is litigable so we shall see, I put no new low below these animals currently controlling the judiciary

tal ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

You can file a lawsuit over anything.

A judge might throw your case out rather than let it go to court if it doesn’t even warrant a case, but something being “litigable” isn’t much of a bar.

If someone repeatedly files frivolous lawsuits purely for the purpose of harassing someone, they might be guilty of barratry, depending upon locale.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)

Barratry (/ˈbærətri/ BARR-ə-tree, from Old French barat (“deceit, trickery”)) is a legal term that, at common law, described a criminal offense committed by people who are overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation, or who bring repeated or persistent acts of litigation for the purposes of profit or harassment.

Although it remains a crime in some jurisdictions, barratry has frequently been abolished as being anachronistic and obsolete.

If barratrous litigation is deemed to be for the purpose of silencing critics, it is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Jurisdictions that otherwise have no barratry laws may have SLAPP laws.

United States

Several jurisdictions in the United States have declared barratry (in the sense of a frivolous or harassing litigant) to be a crime as part of their tort reform efforts. For example, in the U.S. states of California, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, barratry is a misdemeanor. In Texas, barratry is a misdemeanor on the first conviction, but a felony on subsequent convictions.

  • California Penal Code Section 158: “Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).”
  • California Penal Code Section 159: “No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy.”
  • Revised Code of Washington 9.12.010: “Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.”
  • Virginia laws on barratry, champerty, and maintenance were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States in NAACP v. Button 371 U.S. 415 (1963).
  • Vermont Statutes Title 13, § 701: “A person who is a common barrator shall be fined not more than $50.00 and become bound with sufficient surety for his or her good behavior for not less than one year.”
dhork ,

Hah! Do you really think Republicans let experts tell them what to think? Their ignorance is better than anyone’s knowledge!

toast ,

Ha! According to the supreme court, Biden could explain all of this to Johnson and the rest of the republicans using guns.

partial_accumen ,

Bookmarking this for later when in this crazy timeline we’re in Trump has to be replaced on the Republican ticket before November for some reason.

tal ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

I am confident that that won’t happen. But I could at least imagine Vance being pulled off the Republican ticket in favor of someone else to counter whatever ticket the Democrats run.

SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

House speaker should have an IQ requirement.

SuckMyWang ,

Johnson is an idiot. This is embarrassing for him and the GOP. Keep up the good work loser. All Biden would have to do is get a doctor to say he’s not medically fit anyway. Which we all know wouldn’t be hard.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •