The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#9,776
#9,776
turbovol said:
Never charged? I'm quite sure countless protestors, in all sorts of settings, have been arrested and charged over the years. I assume there is a legal
distinction between entering a building legally and then disrupting a proceeding versus breaking and entering--which is what the Jan. 6 protestors
did. They also destroyed public property, assaulted police officers in various ways.
Click to expand...
I mean, they've "charged" people that stood outside and did nothing to police officers, did not enter the building, and did not disrupt anything. So once again, you either don't know how to read or your head is so far up your own ass you never bothered to try.

I'd tell you to stick to football takes, but those are even worse than the garbage you post here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, 82_VOL_83, W.TN.Orange Blood and 4 others
#9,777
#9,777
turbovol said:
Never charged? I'm quite sure countless protestors, in all sorts of settings, have been arrested and charged over the years. I assume there is a legal
distinction between entering a building legally and then disrupting a proceeding versus breaking and entering--which is what the Jan. 6 protestors
did. They also destroyed public property, assaulted police officers in various ways.
Click to expand...
Lol. You never cease to amaze.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188, UT_Dutchman, whodeycin85 and 2 others
#9,778
#9,778
So the Federal Government’s argument is that this statute 1512(c) would only apply (in this sense) to the Jan 6 rioters.

None of the other obstructions / disruptions laid out by the Justices would.

So a special statute just for Jan 6 - that doesn’t apply to everyone else.

Sounds like NY Governor saying the tax charges only applied to Trump - others “need not worry”
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO, 825VOL, Vol8188 and 3 others
#9,779
#9,779
85SugarVol said:
So the Federal Government’s argument is that this statute 1512(c) would only apply (in this sense) to the Jan 6 rioters.

None of the other obstructions / disruptions laid out by the Justices would.

So a special statute just for Jan 6 - that doesn’t apply to everyone else.

Sounds like NY Governor saying the tax charges only applied to Trump - others “need not worry”
Click to expand...
2 tiered justice system cheered on by the commies on the board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, SlipKidVol, UT_Dutchman and 1 other person
#9,780
#9,780
85SugarVol said:
So the Federal Government’s argument is that this statute 1512(c) would only apply (in this sense) to the Jan 6 rioters.

None of the other obstructions / disruptions laid out by the Justices would.

So a special statute just for Jan 6 - that doesn’t apply to everyone else.

Sounds like NY Governor saying the tax charges only applied to Trump - others “need not worry”
Click to expand...

If the ruling isn't unanimous the dissent should be interesting.
 
#9,783
#9,783
🇺🇸 Freedom Piper 🇺🇸
@FreeThinkerInc


🚨🚨🚨 BREAKING: In a landmark 9-0 ruling on Wednesday that you will never hear about in the media, the US Supreme Court has undercut all DEI-based discrimination, sending the Marxists into a tizzy.

The US Supreme Court's ruling that a St. Louis police sergeant can sue over a job transfer she claims was discriminatory lays the foundation for legal action against employers who push discrimination against white people in job hiring, work assignment and promotion. That’s right, those “diversity-preferred” job postings, the practice of passing over whites for promotions, discriminatory job transfers, pushing unfair diversity trainings, etc…all of these are now legally actionable.

The ruling was championed by human rights groups as "an enormous win for workers,” but has lawyers for companies like Disney warning that it could have a chilling effect on employers' diversity initiatives.

Disney’s "Pale and Male is Stale" policy is a prime example. Disney has allegedly used it to drive out white animators by giving them the worst assignments, even though they them have the most experience, skill, and seniority, in order to make the job humiliating enough that they quit…which many of them have done.

The same companies argue that there is ‘good discrimination’ and “bad discrimination’, that white people should be purposely disadvantaged to pave the way for diversity. The lawyers stated that the decision will ‘complicate’ DEI programs and limit their ability to discriminate against white men.

The Supreme Court torpedoed these claims, re-asserting that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Further, the court has established a relatively ‘low standard’ for bringing discrimination cases. The victim need not suffer ‘actual harm’. An employee only must show "some harm" under the terms of their employment, AND that harm need not be "material," "substantial" or "serious." The decision makes it much easier for workers to sue over discriminatory practices.

This is a big win for equality!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, Vol since 77, LouderVol and 3 others
#9,784
#9,784
Supreme Court arguments on Trump's claim of "presidential immunity" in the 2020 election conspiracy case about to get underway.

www.c-span.org

Supreme Court Hears Case on Former President Trump's Immunity Claim

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in [Trump v. United States], concerning whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 election results. This case is in response to a federal indictment from Special Counsel Jack...
www.c-span.org www.c-span.org
 
#9,785
#9,785
Velo Vol said:
Supreme Court arguments on Trump's claim of "presidential immunity" in the 2020 election conspiracy case about to get underway.

www.c-span.org

Supreme Court Hears Case on Former President Trump's Immunity Claim

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in [Trump v. United States], concerning whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 election results. This case is in response to a federal indictment from Special Counsel Jack...
www.c-span.org www.c-span.org
Click to expand...
What I’ve read of Sauer (Trump side) argument, it sounds like the debates that were had on here about the Zelenskyy call: whether there’s anything out of bounds for a president when he’s carrying out official duties that confer a personal benefit.

Court seems to be at least 7-? That there is, question is where and how to draw the line.
 
#9,786
#9,786
Sum Facet
@SumFacet

I liked when Trump's team led with the question - "Should we charge Obama for ordering the deaths of several U.S. citizens?"

================

Travis Media Group🇺🇸
@TM1Politics

JUST IN: Justice Alito just blew up the entire argument by the DOJ.

Alito: "If the president gets advice from the attorney general, that something is lawful, is that an absolute defense?"

Dreeben: “yes”

Alito: “Wouldn’t the President just pick an AG who’ll let him do whatever he wants?”

Dreeben looked stunned

Apparently the AG can provide absolute immunity, but the President who is his boss can’t.

=======

Channeling my inner Beria!
@Dimitri_Kissov

This question goes back to Obama and the droning of 2 US citizens. DOJ/Holder found this action legal and Alito knows this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and davethevol
#9,787
#9,787
jmacvols1 said:
Sum Facet
@SumFacet

I liked when Trump's team led with the question - "Should we charge Obama for ordering the deaths of several U.S. citizens?"

================

Travis Media Group🇺🇸
@TM1Politics

JUST IN: Justice Alito just blew up the entire argument by the DOJ.

Alito: "If the president gets advice from the attorney general, that something is lawful, is that an absolute defense?"

Dreeben: “yes”

Alito: “Wouldn’t the President just pick an AG who’ll let him do whatever he wants?”

Dreeben looked stunned

Apparently the AG can provide absolute immunity, but the President who is his boss can’t.

=======

Channeling my inner Beria!
@Dimitri_Kissov

This question goes back to Obama and the droning of 2 US citizens. DOJ/Holder found this action legal and Alito knows this.
Click to expand...
I still find it insane that leftoids don't give a single **** about the insane stuff that Obama did almost every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, UT_Dutchman, davethevol and 6 others
#9,793
#9,793
Presidents should have absolute immunity
Presidents should not be able to have political rivals assassinated

Pick one
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top