Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Honestly, if they were to rule that Trump is immune, Biden should immediately arrest the affirming justices and replace them with his own appointees, screw the process.
He’s immune, after all.
Of course, the new justices would probably hold Biden accountable and then recuse themselves to allow the displaced justices to return.
At this point I am sorta on the fence to break rules to fix things. Wisdom says that's a terrible idea, yet somehow it keeps popping up in my head.
Not sure we're quite there...yet. Damn if this climb isn't running out of stairs though.
And it’s a hell of a fall when we take that last step.
Got damn. Mr. Smith is on this. Betting the Court defers to the lower court's ruling denying presidential immunity. Bet if they do hear it, they still call him liable.
Remember, not all their rulings have been conservative, and they owe Trump nothing for their seat. I honestly think Trump assumed he was buying Justices and they would always rule for him. LOL no.
I seriously doubt Trump actually picked his SC nominees. Some aid probably presented him with a list of three names and he picked the coolest sounding ones. They are Federalist Society judges, not MAGA republicans. They don’t give a shit about protecting Trump (except maybe the one with a huge conflict of interest)
You can look to Leonard Leo as one source of said list.
NPR/On the Media’s We Don’t Talk About Leonard gives a pretty good report of that asshole.
He was apparently screening candidates by asking them if they'd rule in his favor in given circumstances
They were perfect interviews.
Believe me, they were the best interviews ever. 🙌☝️
And there is nothing to force them to do what they said they would once they are confirmed. Congress would have to impeach them and remove them from office, and that definitely isn't going to happen.
It was super clever of Mr. Smith. He's addressing the delay tactics immediately to prevent them from running out the clock in 2024. It's really encouraging that he understood this and acted to stop it
Could this go bad though?
If Trump is immune, doesn’t that give a free pass to Biden to commit whatever crimes he wants? Maybe even cheetocide.
Exactly. Unless they have some clause specifically excluding Presidents elected in a year ending in "0".
No because SCOTUS is a GOP institution.
This does not bode well for democracy. This illegitimate SCOTUS was hand crafted by fascists to support fascism.
Which is why they should make their decision soon. If they rule he has immunity, then Biden will have time to commit whatever crimes against Trump he can and would then be immune from prosecution for it. Personally, I'm hoping for a public caning.
Caning? You are much more kind than I am.
Well that's just the top of the list. I'll leave anything worse for others to write out. 😂
Yeah, everyone shows up with a cane and one-by-one hits him with their cane and then shoves it up his butt. Whoever makes him pop like a pinata gets their picture on his Wikipedia page.
How about if we get The SloMo Guys to film it?
To misquote Destiny's Child: I don't think we're ready for that jelly
You are failing to remember how vain Trump is, a public caning would destroy every ounce of him psychologically, but I think he should get a public caning after he gets the Cersei Lannister walk of shame treatment.
Agreed id do a public blood eagle.
Pick flogging, flogging sounds more fun to watch.
As someone with (consensual) experience with both - caning hurts more (for me, anyway).
Cane someone on the soles of their feet and make them walk afterward? That's good sadism.
Bastinado. Chef's kiss.
I thought so. I've never gotten to try it on anyone so it's been sort of a in my head that looks worse sorta thing
The SCOTUS has its fair share of shits on it, but they are not a simple "do what Republicans want" machine (aside from Alito and Thomas).
Literally just today, they announced a ruling allowing Washington state to ban gay conversion "therapy". They've already riled against Trump multiple times in other cases.
Don't count on that happening. They like those perks of the job, and a dictator has no need for a supreme court. If they want to maintain their cushy lifestyle, they need to keep the authoritarians from completely subverting democracy.
This right here is bald truth, and I'll bet you a dollar it's crossed all of their minds. Except for Thomas. Thomas has a one-track mind and it has no room for anything except its one preferred thought, which is "I will make them all wish they hadn't talked about that pubic hair" on repeat, ad infinitum.
Wondrous! SCOTUS responded lightning fast. Trump must present written argument by the 20th.
The Trump campaign issued a statement saying that Smith was attempting to interfere in the 2024 election.
"No u"
I hope they rule expeditiously but I think the coward’s way out is to rule against immunity but take your sweet ass time about it so you might not ever have to rule on it. SCOTUS judges love the coward’s way out (see: shadow docket, pretending standing matters or doesn’t, using footnotes to insult people, & cetera).
What immunity are they talking about? Where in the constitution does it say the president has immunity?
This is going to be fun.
Could it backfire if SCOTUS punts the case until after 2024 elections, there by giving the orange de facto immunity against any ongoing litigation?
From the article:
Under the timeline proposed by Smith, the court — if it decides to step in — could hear arguments and issue a ruling in a matter of weeks.
There is precedent for such an outcome, with Smith citing the 1974 U.S. v. Nixon case, in which the court ruled on an expedited basis that President Richard Nixon had to hand over tape recordings sought during the Watergate scandal probe. Nixon resigned soon after the ruling.
...
In a brief order issued just hours after Smith's filing, the court asked Trump's legal team to respond by Dec. 20. The court also said it would consider on an expedited basis whether to hear the case, an indication that it takes Smith's request seriously.
I'd sleep better if this court actually cared about precedent.
Precedence doesn’t mean shit for this court
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to immediately step in to decide whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for his actions seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office," Smith wrote in the court filing.
More recently, the court has on several occasions taken up cases at an early stage of litigation to decide issues of national importance, such as the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for businesses and its plan to forgive student loan debt.
But since he left office in January 2021, the court has not been receptive to filings brought by the former president, including over his separate legal fight concerning presidential documents he stored at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida.
Trump’s lawyers argue that his role in questioning the result of the election was within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibilities as president, a phrase that appears in a 1982 Supreme Court ruling, also involving Nixon, about presidential immunity.
Trump was indicted after a sprawling investigation that included testimony from dozens of White House aides and advisors ranging in seniority up to former Vice President Mike Pence.
The original article contains 627 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Bush v. Gore, folks. They gave themselves a non-precedent-setting exit hatch.
Scotus is going to surprise people with this one and side with the people, not with Trump.
I wish I was convinced as you are. I hope you're right.