352
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2025
352 points (100.0% liked)
politics
25300 readers
2461 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
See, I don't think it would be physically enforced. They can only arrest her or not. They can't restrict her to a location by force. The cops know that. And nothing in the "rule" says leaving without signing the slip is an arrestable offense. Even if they did arrest here, she could get out on bail very fast.
I don’t agree with any of the BS the GOP is trying to do there. But I feel like her staying is more of a stunt then actually being physically held against her will.
They can arrest anyone for anything they want. The executive branch controls the police and has that power. If it is an illegal arrest, you can pay thousands to a lawyer and spend a few months fighting it in court, but that is only after you are arrested. There is no magic "bail" number that lets you out of jail immediately, it's set by a judge on a case by case basis and takes a day or so to set. If you are a flight risk, as they claim is true in this case, you will not be allowed out on bail. If they really want to, they can hold you in a cell without letting you in front of a judge to get a bail set. Is it legal? No. Does it happen all of the time? Yes. Will anyone do anything about it? Never. Especially when POTUS is fully backing it.
I hear you, but no. If, and that's a big if, the local state courts didn't put an immediate stop to any of the illegal things you suggest they can do, then the federal would.
And you are conflating multiple issues. They can have the police follow her, as far as I know that isn't illegal. So she can easily say that she is not a flight risk. But, she will also have broken no laws by leaving the capital building. So if they arrest her, the local courts will 99% just dismiss it and let here go.
She isn't joe nobody. She has the weight of the democratic party behind her. That's a lot of lawyers, and a lot of money.
They are just posturing on the part about not being allowed to leave without signing the note.
I promise you, your faith in the system is admirable but unfounded. POTUS literally personally requested this, SCOTUS is full of bribe-taking jokers, and Congress is half made up of spineless tools that have demonstrated over and over again that they will defend their own in the face of literally anything, including Insurrection, rape, and child trafficking.
And, again, it literally does not matter in the slightest what the courts say, they can not go back in time and undo an arrest. And courts can't just go around ruling on random things. They need someone to bring a case to them, and cases require time, money, evidence, and cause/damages to put together. Then it takes months or years to move through the court system. Even if they could rule on whatever they want, they have no method of enforcement. That's the executive branch's job.
You may find SCOTUS's ruling on the Trail of Tears and the Executive branch's subsequent actions quite interesting. Hint: SCOTUS said no, Andrew Jackson did it anyway, no invisible force stopped any of it happening, legal or not.
I don't think you should say his faith in the system is admirable. It's dishonest.
Yeah, I was being polite. Admirable like the innocence of a child, or maybe more like the naïveté of a child.