The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[lawgator1]

Yeah. A conspiracy because they can't have their crimes exposed. Its a soft coup.

A "soft coup."?

 

[Sea Ray]

This is exactly as I thought they would rule and by a 6-3 count. I thought it'd be either 6-3 or 5-4.

I think it's the correct decision. You can't serve as President if you're worried about getting sued. That's not a tenable situation

 

[lawgator1]

It certainly can be.

I'd say its clear you don't want the Dems to replace him.

 

[volinbham]

The Democrats very bad no good week

 

[LSU-SIU]

A "soft coup."?

View attachment 655651

No violence necessary.

You what you have proposed in multiple threads is a coup, and conspiracy to interfere with an election because it would exposed crimes if nothing is done.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I'd say its clear you don't want the Dems to replace him.

I don't vote, I get a chuckle at the mental gymnastics for people to conspire to dethrone a sitting President and even suggest 25th amendment/impeachment nonsense to cover up their crimes.

 

[hog88]

This is exactly as I thought they would rule and by a 6-3 count. I thought it'd be either 6-3 or 5-4.

I think it's the correct decision. You can't serve as President if you're worried about getting sued. That's not an attenable situation

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the 3 dissenters.

 

[Sea Ray]

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the 3 dissenters.

It’s the same ol’ “our democracy is in peril” argument

 

[Majors]

Trump banging out wins the last week. Bad day for Jack Smith and the left.

 

[volinbham]

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the 3 dissenters.

Hard to imagine the default position isn't the existence of some immunity.

 

[CobbVol]

The indictment also contains various allegations regarding Trump’s conduct in connection with the events of January 6 itself. The
alleged conduct largely consists of Trump’s communications in the form of Tweets and a public address. The President possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.”
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701. So most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.

 

[NorthDallas40]

So based on today’s ruling I’d guess Trump is off the hook for everything except not returning the classified documents when told to do so. I believe the charge was obstruction on that issue. And even then the prosecution is going to have to prove obstruction

 

[ButchPlz]

Guys, we just need to make Ol Joe comfortable while our Dem overlords decide whether or not to abort him.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Hard to imagine the default position isn't the existence of some immunity.

Agree. It’s analogous to the constitutional provision granting Congressional Members immunity from prosecution for anything that say from the floor during session (I.e their “official acts”). This does not protect them from other crimes as we are seeing with Senator Menendez. I think the Supreme Court is just clarifying the logical inference

 

[whodeycin85]

Actually this ruling is very reasonable.. The POTUS has immunity for official acts... If charged they have to prove the acts charges are outside the official duties of the POTUS. So with J6 they have to prove that there was no reason for the 2020 election votes to be questioned... Tougher to prove now then it would have been 2 years ago... More evidence, investigations, and admitting of voting issues. Which was the basis for J6. Intent of POTUS actions can't be ruled on as order of why the charges are brought. The desenting opinion is basically trump bad...

 

[lawgator1]

The indictment also contains various allegations regarding Trump’s conduct in connection with the events of January 6 itself. The
alleged conduct largely consists of Trump’s communications in the form of Tweets and a public address. The President possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.”
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701. So most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.

What if the President urges all black citizens to kill all white citizens?

You are fine with that? Not a crime?

 

[Sea Ray]

What if the President urges all black citizens to kill all white citizens?

You are fine with that? Not a crime?

It's not a crime. Not everything should be dealt with via a court

 

[Majors]

Guys, we just need to make Ol Joe comfortable while our Dem overlords decide whether or not to abort him.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN this morning kept saying don’t worry about 90 mins and articles written. She kept dropping the term elites as the only opinion that matters.

 

[lawgator1]

Actually this ruling is very reasonable.. The POTUS has immunity for official acts... If charged they have to prove the acts charges are outside the official duties of the POTUS. So with J6 they have to prove that there was no reason for the 2020 election votes to be questioned... Tougher to prove now then it would have been 2 years ago... More evidence, investigations, and admitting of voting issues. Which was the basis for J6. Intent of POTUS actions can't be ruled on as order of why the charges are brought. The desenting opinion is basically trump bad...

No, there is a difference between "questioning" the election result and urging a crowd of people to block the transition of power. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the result and being complicit in fake electors, or seeking to manipulate the results by asking the Governor of a state to manufacture new votes for you.

 

[lawgator1]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN this morning kept saying don’t worry about 90 mins and articles written. She kept dropping the term elites as the only opinion that matters.

The Dem loyalists who are advocating for keeping Biden are doing a disservice to not just the party, but the country on the whole. Just call it like it is, Biden is done, move on.

 

[whodeycin85]

No, there is a difference between "questioning" the election result and urging a crowd of people to block the transition of power. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the result and being complicit in fake electors, or seeking to manipulate the results by asking the Governor of a state to manufacture new votes for you.

Show me where think said, storm the capital to stop the certification? And as for the GA phone call, that's not what he said... He was questioning the voting process rightfully, especially considering the issue of of custody in GA. Which is a violation of GA voting laws.. Hence an official duty to question Kemp to find the illegal votes.

 

[hog88]

What if the President urges all black citizens to kill all white citizens?

You are fine with that? Not a crime?

What would be the charge?

 

[LSU-SIU]

No, there is a difference between "questioning" the election result and urging a crowd of people to block the transition of power. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the result and being complicit in fake electors, or seeking to manipulate the results by asking the Governor of a state to manufacture new votes for you.

Maybe he was just following the Democrats lead?

 

[LSU-SIU]

What would be the charge?

None really. (not in that context)

 

[hog88]

No, there is a difference between "questioning" the election result and urging a crowd of people to block the transition of power. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the result and being complicit in fake electors, or seeking to manipulate the results by asking the Governor of a state to manufacture new votes for you.

And now the DOJ will have to take it to the Cricut Court and argue which were official acts and which were not. On it's face sounds like a reasonable ruling, what are your objections to it?