The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[LSU-SIU]

MAGA logic at work....oh, my!

I don't know about the MAGA part but the rest is clear cut, exactly what ethical rule are we referring to? We all have bias, it usually comes down to the appearance of bias.

Since no real information is even presented, its hard to comment further to be honest.

 

[lawgator1]

I don't know about the MAGA part but the rest is clear cut, exactly what ethical rule are we referring to? We all have bias, it usually comes down to the appearance of bias.

Since no real information is even presented, its hard to comment further to be honest.

Which is important because the losers have to have faith that the Court did its best with their case and were not influenced improperly by outside concerns.

In commercial cases, that's easier detected. If you lose a case at the SCOTUS and find out that the owner of the interest on the other side took Clarence Thomas on a million dollars worth of vacations, and he voted against your position, you are going to question that.

Now, that's one interest. But translate that to the Alito wife flag flying controversy. Let's say that the Court rules 6-3 in such a way that the 1/6 subjects cannot be prosecuted for some reason, or that Trump has immunity for 1/6, that's going to cause half the country to conclude that the Trump appointees sided with him either out of loyalty or at best with an agenda-drive result.

There is great risk in how they deal with this, and we are likely to have that result in the next few days.

 

[hog88]

Which is important because the losers have to have faith that the Court did its best with their case and were not influenced improperly by outside concerns.

In commercial cases, that's easier detected. If you lose a case at the SCOTUS and find out that the owner of the interest on the other side took Clarence Thomas on a million dollars worth of vacations, and he voted against your position, you are going to question that.

Now, that's one interest. But translate that to the Alito wife flag flying controversy. Let's say that the Court rules 6-3 in such a way that the 1/6 subjects cannot be prosecuted for some reason, or that Trump has immunity for 1/6, that's going to cause half the country to conclude that the Trump appointees sided with him either out of loyalty or at best with an agenda-drive result.

There is great risk in how they deal with this, and we are likely to have that result in the next few days.

And we're not supposed to question the motivation of the 3 dissenters appointed by Dems?

 

[whodeycin85]

Sotomayer got paid for WRITING A BOOK, Joe. Important people get paid lots of money to write books. I don't know what vital Supreme Court cases involved her book publisher--I'm thinking none.

Thomas has been taking money for 25 years because he's corrupt.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according to a report.
Gee I wonder why .

 

[lawgator1]

And we're not supposed to question the motivation of the 3 dissenters appointed by Dems?

No credible legal scholar has supported the argument. Every credible legal expert has rolled their eyes at the notion that a President cannot be criminally prosecuted for criminal conduct. So, the justices that vote that there is no such immunity are in accord with the thinking of everyone who isn't a Trumpian wackadoodle.

There would be no way to reconcile such a holding with prior decisions.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Which is important because the losers have to have faith that the Court did its best with their case and were not influenced improperly by outside concerns.

In commercial cases, that's easier detected. If you lose a case at the SCOTUS and find out that the owner of the interest on the other side took Clarence Thomas on a million dollars worth of vacations, and he voted against your position, you are going to question that.

Now, that's one interest. But translate that to the Alito wife flag flying controversy. Let's say that the Court rules 6-3 in such a way that the 1/6 subjects cannot be prosecuted for some reason, or that Trump has immunity for 1/6, that's going to cause half the country to conclude that the Trump appointees sided with him either out of loyalty or at best with an agenda-drive result.

There is great risk in how they deal with this, and we are likely to have that result in the next few days.

The thresholds on this kind of matter at the lower court level is extremely high, nobody says they can't have bias... its the appearance of bias and in most cases which means acting out in some capacity. (generally)

Why shouldn't they have bias? I mean some of that stuff is generally known... they should have bias. That doesn't mean they don't have the ability set aside the bias on matters of law.

 

[hog88]

No credible legal scholar has supported the argument. Every credible legal expert has rolled their eyes at the notion that a President cannot be criminally prosecuted for criminal conduct. So, the justices that vote that there is no such immunity are in accord with the thinking of everyone who isn't a Trumpian wackadoodle.

There would be no way to reconcile such a holding with prior decisions.

I really hope you are right, that way Obama can be prosecuted for murder.

 

[lawgator1]

I really hope you are right, that way Obama can be prosecuted for murder.

Who did he murder?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Who did he murder?

He authorized killing of Americans overseas without judicial oversight, the government has claimed they have no need for judicial review. Lots of punting until now. You might be correct at some point, but it makes things very difficult to run things outside the country let alone inside the country.

 

[turbovol]

I really hope you are right, that way Obama can be prosecuted for murder.

Go for it. The government can make its case--they were terrorists--and a judge or jury can assess the evidence and decide. Same with the Trump coup attempt. Two very different situations.

 

[lawgator1]

He authorized killing of Americans overseas without judicial oversight, the government has claimed they have no need for judicial review. Lots of punting until now. You might be correct at some point, but it makes things very difficult to run things outside the country let alone inside the country.

I think that is a very different scenario than 1/6. The prosecution of Trump for 1/6 id based largely on the notion that he knew that he had lost and that whatever smattering of votes he could point to as troublesome were so few and far between as to be irrelevant, but he spooled up supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent the lawful transition of power, then stood by for hours, watching it happen.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I think that is a very different scenario than 1/6. The prosecution of Trump for 1/6 id based largely on the notion that he knew that he had lost and that whatever smattering of votes he could point to as troublesome were so few and far between as to be irrelevant, but he spooled up supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent the lawful transition of power, then stood by for hours, watching it happen.

This is what you said.

Every credible legal expert has rolled their eyes at the notion that a President cannot be criminally prosecuted for criminal conduct.

What Obama did is kill an American without due process which is a crime i.e. murder. If the executive branch has immunity than this isn't an issue, but you claim they don't have immunity.

I would say the courts have been punting on this, and for good reason.

 

[Sandman 423]

Go for it. The government can make its case--they were terrorists--and a judge or jury can assess the evidence and decide. Same with the Trump coup attempt. Two very different situations.

President Obama had a 16 year old American citizen killed without due process. What case is there to be made?

 

[turbovol]

President Obama had a 16 year old American citizen killed without due process. What case is there to be made?

Wasn't he a terrorist?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

And we're not supposed to question the motivation of the 3 dissenters appointed by Dems?

Of course not dumbass.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I think that is a very different scenario than 1/6. The prosecution of Trump for 1/6 id based largely on the notion that he knew that he had lost and that whatever smattering of votes he could point to as troublesome were so few and far between as to be irrelevant, but he spooled up supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent the lawful transition of power, then stood by for hours, watching it happen.

LOL

 

[LSU-SIU]

Wasn't he a terrorist?

Maybe but its irrelevant, he needed due process. There might be defenses but it doesn't appear that way from the information I read. He isn't the only one either.

This is why the courts have basically punted. You are arguing facts but at the end of the day, if the President has immunity than its mostly a non-issue.

Watch Apocalypse Now as to how it use to be handled, now what the U.S. does is have another government do it but even that is conspiracy to commit murder i.e. its still murder.



Heck, I think Biden labeled all Trump voters terrorists.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

And we're not supposed to question the motivation of the 3 dissenters appointed by Dems?

Who is claiming it? It's imperative you question it

 

[turbovol]

Maybe but its irrelevant, he needed due process. There might be defenses but it doesn't appear that way from the information I read. He isn't the only one either.

This is why the courts have basically punted. You are arguing facts but at the end of the day, if the President has immunity than its mostly a non-issue.

Watch Apocalypse Now as to how it use to be handled, now what the U.S. does is have another government do it but even that is conspiracy to commit murder i.e. its still murder.

Killing an American turned terrorist and attempting to overthrow the U,S. government are two very different things. I'd be happy to have a strict requirement for authorization before killing an American citizen abroad. I'm be happy to see Obama tried for killing an American terrorist along with Trump tried for attempting to overthrow the government. We'll let judges and juries decide....

 

[LSU-SIU]

Killing an American turned terrorist and attempting to overthrow the U,S. government are two very different things.

True but irrelevant to the general discussion.

I'd be happy to have a strict requirement for authorization before killing an American citizen abroad.

It already exists, its in the Constitution, its called due process

 

[volfanhill]

so we have people who are comfortable with the Executive Branch, determining that someones a terrorist, and because they deem so they can then revoke a citizens constitutional right to due process, and then assasinate them. No way that could ever go wrong.

 

[hog88]

so we have people who are comfortable with the Executive Branch, determining that someones a terrorist, and because they deem so they can then revoke a citizens constitutional right to due process, and then assasinate them. No way that could ever go wrong.

Turbo has already said those who refused the Covid shot should have been put in camps so it's not a stretch to believe he supports extrajudicial executions.

 

[volfanhill]

Turbo has already said those who refused the Covid shot should have been put in camps so it's not a stretch to believe he supports extrajudicial executions.

So in less than 15 years, Democrat POTUS's went from not wanting to assainate Binladen for fear of fallout, to willing to assasinate US citizens. That's quite the turn in a short period of time.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[Sandman 423]

Wasn't he a terrorist?

Still an American citizen though. We have rights and due process. How do you know he wasn’t misinformed like Bush with WMD’s?

I’m not saying President Obama should be prosecuted for it, but once you open the door too prosecute them it could get messy.