Cool part is that the President can openly take bribes for pardons now. No need to hide that shit anymore.
SCOTUS gives Trump most of what he wants, helps him run the clock out on the rest.
- Thread starter Hoosierhawkeye
- Start date
Court set a limit on communicating with members of the cabinet. Anything the president communicates with them is de facto immune. No matter what the motive or what the communication is even about.
The rest of the stuff they punted back to other courts to decide because they wanted to run out the clock for Trump. Those courts will decide and Trump will appeal to the SCOTUS when he doesn't like the decision and they will probably say that everything else was an official act too.
Even if you agree with the decision, the delay is inexcusable. This is not calling balls and strikes. This is putting a thumb on the scale.
Court critics have noted that the justices could have considered the case as early as in December, when Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith unsuccessfully sought review of the same questions later put forward by Trump.
All of this stands in stark contrast to the way the court has handled other presidential power cases. In 1974 the justices ruled against President Nixon just 16 days after hearing oral arguments. The vote was 8-0, with Justice William Rehnquist recusing himself because of his close ties to some of the officials accused of wrongdoing in the case. And this year the court took less than a month to rule unanimously that states could not bar Trump from the ballot.
Do you think the Supreme Court should have involved itself in deciding official vs non-official acts in the Trump case?,.. I certainly don't.
There has been no delay,.. By historical standards this decision was made quickly, and it complies with the timeline requested by the special prosecutor...
We need a strong Blue Congressional sweep so that the 6 anti-democracy Justices can be impeached and removed - and so President Newsom can replace them with people who will honor their oaths.
Alternatively, Biden (operating under the cover of immunity) should exercise his constitutional duty to protect America by arresting the anti-democracy Justices and shipping them off to Gitmo.
Alternatively, Biden (operating under the cover of immunity) should exercise his constitutional duty to protect America by arresting the anti-democracy Justices and shipping them off to Gitmo.
And then get it appealed to the higher courts...which could take years and eventually to the Supreme Court and we all know how that will turn out.
where then, would you have the process start? this is, after all, the 'usual' way that the judicial process works, and its object is decidedly "not" to serve as a mechanism for keeping an individual on, or off, of an upcoming presidential ballot.
(Setting aside,. of course, that the likelihood that we are going to see a case like this again is quite low.)
The court is completely wishy-washy on this. If they are going to set the guidelines, then they need to provide more definition and more accountability for themselves. They opened up the door for ambiguity. They should have never opened the door. It was a bad ruling.
This is going to make my life so much better. 
There's just no way an aggrieved idiot with a cult of personality and a history of purposefully obfuscating everything he's ever done will take advantage of this right?
There's just no way an aggrieved idiot with a cult of personality and a history of purposefully obfuscating everything he's ever done will take advantage of this right?
He asked for resolution during this session, and that is what he received...
Did you bother to read what NPR listed?
Of course not. Facts don't matter to MAGAs.
Here it is again. Notice the example where the current court worked quickly when it was to Trump's advantage.
Court critics have noted that the justices could have considered the case as early as in December, when Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith unsuccessfully sought review of the same questions later put forward by Trump.
All of this stands in stark contrast to the way the court has handled other presidential power cases. In 1974 the justices ruled against President Nixon just 16 days after hearing oral arguments. The vote was 8-0, with Justice William Rehnquist recusing himself because of his close ties to some of the officials accused of wrongdoing in the case. And this year the court took less than a month to rule unanimously that states could not bar Trump from the ballot.
Does this all mean Nixon was actually innocent?
He should have just held out.
He should have just held out.
You missed the part about a strong Congressional sweep.
If we don't get the sweep, just waterboard the traitors until they come around.
Which traitors, you ask? As I recall there were 147 who voted against the peaceful transfer of power in 2021. Any of those still in Congress are fair game, imo.
i rather doubt he could have been convicted of much. But impeached? different story entirely.
that would still be a helluva sweep, given that the max senator number is 60 this year. So waterboarding then.
Fair question.
But remember, Nixon resigned because he had an iota of integrity. Only an iota, but that's more than Trump and our 6 traitorous Justices combined.
On C-SPAN (or maybe Pay Per View).that would still be a helluva sweep, given that the max senator number is 60 this year. So waterboarding then.
No which is why they shouldn't have even taken this case in the first place.
Instead they took the case, waited until the last possible day to rule on it. And then they left a whole massive amount for the lower courts to re-rule on which can then work it's way back up to the SCOTUS and re-appealed and they could then drag their feet on deciding it and probably find calling the secretary of state of Georgia and demanding he find Trump votes is somehow an official act.
Of course I doubt many of you will care because authoritarianism is fun when you are the authoritarians and you've found a president willing to take full authoritarian power over the country and a court willing to grant him that.
that would still be a helluva sweep, given that the max senator number is 60 this year. So waterboarding then.
60 / 67
220 / 221
fundraising generally occurs before an election, deficit reduction after. I do tip my hat though, to your instinct to resolve this through an actual election.
We no longer have a presidency, we have a KING who is ABOVE THE LAW. Thanks SCOTUS.
Which needs to be a national conversation. Not something decided by paid employees of oligarchs and plutocrats behind closed doors.
I'm not sure that's quite a satisfying answer. But perhaps a more satisfying one would be that perhaps Justice Barrett's approach of just deciding 'as applied' challenges to indictments rather than trying to create some official/unofficial dichotomy to define immunity, would have been a better approach (albeit one which still acknowledges trump wins some of these as a matter of law)
I think SCOTUS absolutely should have provided a base framework of what constitutes an official act, yes.
SCOTUS should have provided a basic definition of that an official act was before bouncing the case back.
The lower court's ruling was totally untenable, the office of President has to come with some level of immunity from prosecution,.. SCOTUS had to take the case.
This Court is just awful. There are so many silly errors in judgment, I can't list them all. But what SCOTUS clearly doesn't GAF about is the future. Incentivizing criminal activity by future POTUS'
It's now the law of the land. The people advising Biden need to get him to take maximum advantage.
So here's the next question.... If Biden takes advantage, and then this ruling is corrected by a better Court, does Biden retain the immunity he acquired under cover of this new immunity?
I'm guessing "yes" - he keeps the immunity. But even if that's wrong, he can probably run out the clock on any effort to hold him accountable - just like Trump is doing with the help of the Traitorous Six.
Good thing all those libs sat out voting for the email lady or voted for Jill ****ing Stein. Worked out great.
Official vs Non-Official,.. that to me sounds like the beginnings of a base framework.
Well, at least all the douchebags flying their flags upside down are finally right.
6 of them want Trump to take authoritarian power.
