Lol Luttig?! The moron who continues to contend that the 14th amendment should be used after SCOTUS ruled otherwise 9-0? You're still an idiot. You two must be the same age and temperament.
Supreme Court Live Updates: Conservative Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Yeah, I’m sure you know more than Luttig. Moron. 🙄
Tom, you've been on the wrong side of every argument you pick with me because you're such a huge libtard and a very uneducated teacher. Luttig is wrong on this SC case as well. They will uphold criminal immunity for official acts and remand to district court for what are those official acts.
Dumbass
Last edited:
Time for Joe to pack the Court, in order for Lady Justice to keep her head above the water level of Trump's and the RW's corruptness in order to save our republic.
This Court's irresponsibleness to not have decided this case by accepting the lower court's decision before now shows that they are clearly running interference for Trump and his cronies. They have sold out our democracy.
Thomas should be impeached, immediately, at a minimum.
I can’t believe the Federalists don’t get it that Trump would turn on them in a heartbeat and have them whacked if it suited him.
We have an actual attempt to overthrow the government. And we have mishandling of documents. Please don't tell me you think those are equally bad.
Can you try that again in English?
The sad thing is that after Trump wins, states like Texas and Florida will force textbook companies to rewrite history to fit @RicoSuave102954's version of "the truth."
I guess the Court does understand “loyalty”……this is a contrived orchestrated fiasco, I fear……wow! Imagine…..I watched the United States collapse in my adult lifetime! And to a carnival barker, no less……My mom and dad are spinning in the graves, I think.
This case is serious because the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity will impact the office of president forever,.. I suspect the court moves incrementally here and does nothing rash.
Weird.
Weird how no other president before Trump had a problem with this.
Cases like this could have been brought up against numerous past presidents,.. What's weird is how the current party in power seems so willing to shatter political norms for short term personal gain and inevitable long term national disaster...
I had to read that part a couple times too. But then it made sense, because that's exactly what Trump did. Facing the prospect of criminal prosecution once he left office, he did everything he could to remain in office, even to the point of encouraging a coup. However, that's a piss poor reason to give any and all presidents a get out of jail free card.
No; they couldn't.
Because no past President has ever attempted to overthrow an election, and not accept election results.
That is all this is about, and all that the SC needs to rule on.
I would love to hear these "numerous" comparable examples
No, this is about way more than that,.. This is about a potential never ending stream of retaliatory post presidential criminal indictments waiting on the horizon,.. SCOTUS understands what's at stake here.
right...so just let them commit crimes and then we don't have to worry about that
perfectly reasonable
from "lock her up" to "it's dangerous to even potentially hold politicians responsible for criminal conduct"
Probably should listen, when John Dean is telling you that democracy is "unraveling" in the SC.
Lawyers used to laugh when they heard Nixon’s analysis during Frost/Nixon: “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Listening to the arguments before today’s Supreme Court, it appears the Republican Justices are all in with Richard Nixon. American democracy may be unraveling quickly…
Lawyers used to laugh when they heard Nixon’s analysis during Frost/Nixon: “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Listening to the arguments before today’s Supreme Court, it appears the Republican Justices are all in with Richard Nixon. American democracy may be unraveling quickly…
We certainly wouldn't want them to "rashly" do the right thing, now would we?
Not if we can put it off and help Trump by doing so.
No; it is not.
It is about whether a President can commit crimes before, during or after his tenure in office and be shielded from any criminal liability.
Even John Dean says you're nutty here.
No,.. I think they land somewhere in the realm of immunity for presidential acts vs liability for personal acts..
Only reason I can come up with that SC Justices would even bother entertaining this nonsense, is that some very very rich people have some shit on them.... Some really really bad shit.
the fact that we're drawing a line anywhere for "where politicians should be immune for crimes they commit" is ridiculous
and it just goes to show how full of shit and cynical all of the "lock her up" hysterics from 2016 were
Trump did not act in any "official capacity" in the Stormy Daniels mess, when he illegally conspired with a media mogul to hide stories and push others against his rivals (clear violation of election laws)
Trump did not act in any "official capacity" regarding the election and fake electors - the President has NO ROLE in elections, whatsoever.
Trump did not act in any "official capacity" regarding his stolen secret documents case; all of those classified documents were not legal for him to hold onto. Nor did he "declassify" any of it.
So, we aren't really discussing "official acts" in office in ANY of these cases, and the question of whether they were "official acts" needs to be in the hands of a JURY.
No; they will not.
NOT if the SC delays those trials and allows Trump to regain the WH. Then, it's formally over.
Trump, and his sycophants will fully unravel American democracy. He'll load the SC with other sycophants who won't rule on the law, they'll rule to protect HIM and HIS BUDDIES.
Opportunistic and evil people will fall in behind him. This is how democracies fail.
I don’t agree. Why would any political rival need to go after their adversary if they already have been voted out?
They do. A possible democrat being president again. Nutbag R justices can't have that.
Cut the BS. This is easy AF. Does the president (or anyone else) have immunity from prosecution if they break the law? Are there ANY exceptions in the Constitution? Is there ANY evidence that the framers intended the president or any other government officials to be immune from prosecution? The answer to both questions is clearly no. The only way to justify it is to turn logic on its head, which Alito is clearly doing, or to be even lazier and justify it on the legal doctrine of "because we say so," which the other conservative justices seem open to doing.
I would not put anything past “this” Court. The conservatives on the bench understand they have a chance to move America in a direction they want. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavannaugh, Barrett know what they are there for…..Roberts is the swing vote….This Court understands “loyalty” and that is not what necessarily serves the law best.
That's actually a lie. It's limited to liability for criminal acts while POTUS. Trump may claim otherwise, but that argument was rejected by Trump's attorney during arguments, and SCOTUS won't be ruling on unofficial acts.
You're in a cult if you think Trump doesn't deserve ALL of this.
Similar threads
