The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[lawgator1]

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?

I did not say I objected to it. I just said that the practical consequence is to kill the 1/6 case against Trump should he win.

 

[LSU-SIU]

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?

Did they charge anyone else for saying people should storm the capital? Probably not.

 

[hog88]

I did not say I objected to it. I just said that the practical consequence is to kill the 1/6 case against Trump should he win.

Shouldn't it be killed if the court rules he was acting within his official capacity?

 

[Sea Ray]

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.

Trump did not ask a crowd of people to block the transition of power. He told them to protest peacefully and obey authority

 

[ButchPlz]

Trump did not ask a crowd of people to block the transition of power. He told them to protest peacefully and obey authority

Which is again what makes all of this hilarious, because you've regularly got Democrats like Maxine Waters openly calling for violence and aggression and voter intimidation. The left really doesn't like when others get to play by their "rules".

 

[LSU-SIU]

Which is again what makes all of this hilarious, because you've got regularly Democrats like Maxine Waters openly calling for violence and aggression and voter intimidation. The left really doesn't like when others get to play by their "rules".

If Trump was a normal guy, he wouldn't be criminally prosecuted even if it were true. lawgator is just a loony lefty and he is basically cheering on others that want to overthrow the current President to protect their loony world.

Imagine lawgator telling everyone that Biden is now unfit.

 

[RockyTop85]

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

Haven’t read the dissent, but I think it is easy to disagree with how broadly the majority defines official acts and that they precluded examination of the president’s motives. There’s also an issue of how little guidance they gave to decide what is official and unofficial.

Taking Trump’s interactions with Pence, for example (IMO one of the most problematic situations in the whole thing). They don’t explicitly say it’s immune, but it is official.

Seems like their standard for official but not immune is that it is “manifestly or palpably beyond [the president’s] authority.” Trying to get the VP to unilaterally decide the outcome of the election seems unauthorized to me, but they say the court can’t look at whether he was trying to get the VP to do something illegal. Without considering motives, it seems like an impossible burden to meet. I’m not sure what the government could possibly show, besides motive, to establish that it’s not authorized.

They leave open the questions related to people outside the executive branch, but there’s so little guidance given on what to do with it that this will just be back for another round in 4 years, unless Trump wins the election.

Otherwise, he will likely be dead before this case is over.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Trying to get the VP to unilaterally decide the outcome of the election is not official conduct.

I'm not sure on this point, and I doubt there will be a real outcome even if it came to it. Its a political question as far as I can see which is what I think the SC would rule or similar.

The VP simply doesn't have oversight in that instance from what I can tell.

 

[ButchPlz]

If Trump was a normal guy, he wouldn't be criminally prosecuted even if it were true. lawgator is just a loony lefty and he is basically cheering on others that want to overthrow the current President to protect their loony world.

Imagine lawgator telling everyone that Biden is now unfit.

Even worse, imagine that a bar somewhere apparently gave someone whose opinion can be easily swayed by low-IQ talking heads a license to practice law.

 

[CobbVol]

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

You are fine with that? Not a crime?

The 1st Amendment can be difficult for some.

 

[whodeycin85]

I'm not sure on this point, and I doubt there will be a real outcome even if it came to it. Its a political question as far as I can see which is what I think the SC would rule or similar.

Prior to the Dems making the VP role ceremonial, the VP did have limited power to reject electors that had open courts cases. There was precedent to that fact.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Prior to the Dems making the VP role ceremonial, the VP did have limited power to reject electors that had open courts cases. There was precedent to that fact.

Yeah I think this one is a dicey one which is why it all came up. I really don't think there is much that could be done if the VP just did whatever he wanted. (tough one, not sure) Its even suggested that the VP actually has that power for a reason.

 

[lawgator1]

I'm not sure on this point, and I doubt there will be a real outcome even if it came to it. Its a political question as far as I can see which is what I think the SC would rule or similar.

The VP simply doesn't have oversight in that instance from what I can tell.

Asking the VP to refuse to do the ministerial act of certification, so as to stay in power, cannot be called official just because the call comes from Trump sitting in the oval office.

 

[GoodTimeVol]

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

They need to prove a lot things in that case when there is actual sitting president in violation of the same law…

 

[LSU-SIU]

Asking the VP to refuse to do the ministerial act of certification, so as to stay in power, cannot be called official just because the call comes from Trump sitting in the oval office.

Okay, so if I called the VP and said don't certify, I'm going to get criminally prosecuted.

 

[whodeycin85]

Yeah I think this one is a dicey one which is why it all came up. I really don't think there is much that could be done if the VP just did whatever he wanted. (tough one, not sure) Its even suggested that the VP actually has that power for a reason.

He could have as there were cases open...but I'm order to overturn the electors or would have to be approved by 2/3s vote which never would have happened.. They made it ceremonial and are trying to apply that retroactively

 

[LouderVol]

This is correct. The best way for the Dems to orient big picture, long term progress based on science and reason is to get and keep control of the House and Senate. The Court is now the biggest impediment to sound public policy.

based on what?

under Chevron it certainly wasn't "public" policy. it was unelected bureaucrats either creating new laws or completely rewriting others. no reasoning needed or given, no chance for the public or congress, or the president to interfere.

This removes the unintentional fourth branch of the government, and rightly breaks it back up to fall under either the legislative or executive branches where the public actually gets a say and there is actual oversite.

no more an unelected bureaucrat can make millions of people felons over night.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Just heard a rather hilarious comment relating to puddinhead. These same protections extended to Trump today will also extend to puddinhead when he leaves office and nobody is going to be able to pursue him for the politically motivated law fare his DoJ is pursuing right now. That actually sounds fair!

 

[whodeycin85]

Just heard a rather hilarious comment relating to puddinhead. These same protections extended to Trump today will also extend to puddinhead when he leaves office and nobody is going to be able to pursue him for the politically motivated law fare his DoJ is pursuing right now. That actually sounds fair!

That was in the desenting argument that assassinating a political opponent is an official duty

 

[ButchPlz]

based on what?

under Chevron it certainly wasn't "public" policy. it was unelected bureaucrats either creating new laws or completely rewriting others. no reasoning needed or given, no chance for the public or congress, or the president to interfere.

This removes the unintentional fourth branch of the government, and rightly breaks it back up to fall under either the legislative or executive branches where the public actually gets a say and there is actual oversite.

no more an unelected bureaucrat can make millions of people felons over night.

The whole premise of the law is just insane. Thinking people in government are experts in anything? Wild.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That was in the desenting argument that assassinating a political opponent is an official duty

That is basically where this world has gone. Down the toilet. I mean look what we have going now.... the corrupt feeding on itself now. How long before lawgator suggests to JFK the Ice Cream Man? He has suggested everything else which to me is just part of a bigger conspiracy.

 

[85SugarVol]

Haven’t read the dissent, but I think it is easy to disagree with how broadly the majority defines official acts and that they precluded examination of the president’s motives. There’s also an issue of how little guidance they gave to decide what is official and unofficial.

Taking Trump’s interactions with Pence, for example (IMO one of the most problematic situations in the whole thing). They don’t explicitly say it’s immune, but it is official.

Seems like their standard for official but not immune is that it is “manifestly or palpably beyond [the president’s] authority.” Trying to get the VP to unilaterally decide the outcome of the election seems unauthorized to me, but they say the court can’t look at whether he was trying to get the VP to do something illegal. Without considering motives, it seems like an impossible burden to meet. I’m not sure what the government could possibly show, besides motive, to establish that it’s not authorized.

They leave open the questions related to people outside the executive branch, but there’s so little guidance given on what to do with it that this will just be back for another round in 4 years, unless Trump wins the election.

Otherwise, he will likely be dead before this case is over.

Different decision, but do you have any thoughts on Chevron?

 

[85SugarVol]

Lol. Sotomayor is big mad. Throwing out terms like “king”.

 

[CobbVol]

Lol. Sotomayor is big mad. Throwing out terms like “king”.

It like a pull string in any of her dissents ... threat, fear for democracy

 

[whodeycin85]

That is basically where this world has gone. Down the toilet. I mean look what we have going now.... the corrupt feeding on itself now. How long before lawgator suggests to JFK the Ice Cream Man? He has suggested everything else which to me is just part of a bigger conspiracy.

Curious how one would justify an official duty of assassination of a political rival...I have a feeling we will find out after the election of Trump wins of whether prosecution of political opponent is an official duty..SCOTUS will have to make that determination or something official needs to be set in law, if it's not already.