Eff the Supreme court. They wait until the last day and wait until the last ruling on whether or not Trump is immune. Gore V Bush was decided in days. But we've got to wait most of a year for this court to rule on presidential immunity?
Gotta say
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
And I can't wait for them to rule that he does enjoy immunity. We all know this is coming.
Partial immunity. They won't rule he's totally "immune".
Try a getting a job to help the time pass!
St. Louis Hawk
HR Legend Gold Member
Wednesday at 9:30 AM
Add bookmark
#98
142 days since they granted cert in the Trump case.
Ardvark:
and you know what really gets me?
188 since Grants Pass
195 since Moyle
211 since Ohio
218 since Fisher
287 since Relentless
301 since Corner Post, Moody, and Netchoice
351 since Harrington
416 since Jarkesy...and
452 since Loper Bright.
HR Legend Gold Member
Wednesday at 9:30 AM
Add bookmark
#98
142 days since they granted cert in the Trump case.
Ardvark:
and you know what really gets me?
188 since Grants Pass
195 since Moyle
211 since Ohio
218 since Fisher
287 since Relentless
301 since Corner Post, Moody, and Netchoice
351 since Harrington
416 since Jarkesy...and
452 since Loper Bright.
Gore v Bush was facing a statutory deadline, but whatevs.
Regarding today, some thoughts regarding possible things that may be in opinions:
1. Presidents enjoy "some" immunity for "some" official acts while in office, but the court isn't necessarily going to define what that is/they are in detail. (And frankly, nor should they, and with a little luck, they really don't need to as hopefully this crap never occurs again).
2. However, at a high level, I could see them articulating a distinction between acts of "President Trump" and "Candidate Trump," with some of the former potentially enjoying presidential immunity but the latter not being within the scope of presidential immunity.
3. As I've said elsewhere, Ive not really tried to deconstruct all of the G's categories of activities here to consider which buckets they fall in, and whether any plausibly fall within the former, and there would likely need to be a remand for the district court to consider them.
4. Wild card: I wonder whether anyone will float the idea that perhaps "some" activities of "Losing Candidate X" in a contested election may be protected in some other form, and if so, to what degree the "contested activities" need to be undertaken in good faith. I suppose the theory would be that there are constitutional processes to the mechanics of elections in which a loser can participate or can seek to influence, including ordinary speechifying, and that some form of good faith participation in them might fall within 1A. Presumably if they went down this road, it would also entail some form of remand regarding both activities and good faith, or maybe that would all just be a jury question.
Regarding today, some thoughts regarding possible things that may be in opinions:
1. Presidents enjoy "some" immunity for "some" official acts while in office, but the court isn't necessarily going to define what that is/they are in detail. (And frankly, nor should they, and with a little luck, they really don't need to as hopefully this crap never occurs again).
2. However, at a high level, I could see them articulating a distinction between acts of "President Trump" and "Candidate Trump," with some of the former potentially enjoying presidential immunity but the latter not being within the scope of presidential immunity.
3. As I've said elsewhere, Ive not really tried to deconstruct all of the G's categories of activities here to consider which buckets they fall in, and whether any plausibly fall within the former, and there would likely need to be a remand for the district court to consider them.
4. Wild card: I wonder whether anyone will float the idea that perhaps "some" activities of "Losing Candidate X" in a contested election may be protected in some other form, and if so, to what degree the "contested activities" need to be undertaken in good faith. I suppose the theory would be that there are constitutional processes to the mechanics of elections in which a loser can participate or can seek to influence, including ordinary speechifying, and that some form of good faith participation in them might fall within 1A. Presumably if they went down this road, it would also entail some form of remand regarding both activities and good faith, or maybe that would all just be a jury question.
Last edited:
The court is responding to this case in quicker than normal fashion,.. no reason for complaints.
Huey is upset that the majority of the Supreme court is not part of his cult so he feels obligated to shriek autistically about how evil they must be. Common issue with TDS sufferers, especially those who don't have a day job to keep their brain occupied.
You do realize the Trump case was heard on the last day of oral arguments, right?!
Why don't you have a problem with the DoJ waiting 3 years to bring the case? The January 6 evidence was there on January 7.
Plus now we know Nancy has taken full responsibility for j6 anyways
Uh, i'd say the period beginning around 1943 might beg to differ.
Looks like the usual crowd is out in force, again.
So...in response to them.
So...in response to them.
Plenty of room for complaints. This case was ready for trial in March. If it isn’t tried before the election, it will be because the Court slow walked it. And that’s not even taking into account what this ruling might say today.
At least be intellectually honest about it - this is not the average case and there is a need for expedited handling. I’m not saying 6 days expedited but last case before walking away for the summer ….
The DoJ took their sweet time bringing the case in the first place.
Lol at the usual suspects coming in to defend this fraud of a court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be objective. Do you think if it was Biden bringing this he would be getting this treatment from them? Hell no they would have laughed at him for even bringing it to them. This Court is a ****ing joke and so is anyone defending them.
Maybe. But if you are going to prosecute a former President, you better have your case locked down tight, and that takes time.
38 percent of the US would support Trump and anything that helps him dismantle this country they have been taught to hate by Russian disinformation over last decade even if he groped a 12 year old on 5th avenue on live TV.
Agree, but that also means the reverse, and giving the former President his day in court on a novel defense.
Lets look at it realistically. Of course presidents should have some form of immunity, if not they are always going to be stifled to make important decisions. The question is going to the level of immunity that the court sees fit.
Maybe Biden will nut up and do the right thing now that he has immunity.
How did we ever get through the first 44 presidencies without this having to be taken up? Could it be that the 45th president was actually that shitty?
More like the DOJ has never been weaponized in the fashion that we are seeing today,.. Politics used to be a game for adults.
Actually, it could have been taken up previously, but it didn't quite make it that far. The opinion cited those circumstances going back to the 1700's. As far as that goes, Nixon likely would have faced prosecution had he not resigned and been pardoned by Ford.
To answer question though, yes Trump is that shitty, and if Vegas would have been taking odds in 2016, Trump would have probably been favored to be first.
Could it be that the 46th weaponized a justice system against his opponent with a flimsy case?
And now they find themself in a catch 22 because everything they need to do to keep their prop viable is helping their opponent.
So now in episode 2 we see if the dems sack Biden, understanding they can't keep their Jick alive without also saving the opponents Jack. ( See what I did there with "Trump")
These are the days of our lives.
I'm sad that Biden hasn't already arrested Alito and Thomas pending a full investigation of their finances and their rulings. I'd go so far as to put temporary replacements in and then rush through a bunch of rulings to overturn the damage they've done over the last 4 years. Then those judges can rule on what an official act is (because that's how we do things now, clear conflicts of interest have no bearing on who rules on the case).
But we know that he won't do that and this is why Democrats always lose on stuff like this. They just won't take the gloves off, even when Republicans rip them off their hands.
But we know that he won't do that and this is why Democrats always lose on stuff like this. They just won't take the gloves off, even when Republicans rip them off their hands.
Huey, hopefully you can sleep better tonight, now that the decision has been made, and Trump's indictments remanded to the District Court for trial.
