The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#10,407
#10,407
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is there a law that says the VP MUST certify the election even when there is strong evidence of wide spread voter fraud? Or is there a law that says it is criminal for the POTUS to have the VP carry out the POTUS' agenda in the Senate? Is it the constitutional function of the POTUS to see to it that elections are fair and reliable with no fraud or illegalities taking place? The POTUS and VP are impotent to do anything therefore allowing one political party to steal election after election and it is criminal if the POTUS and VP do something about election fraud/theft?

1719851702303.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol and W.TN.Orange Blood
#10,410
#10,410
RockyTop85 said:
I think that there will be good and bad. Optimistic there will be more good than bad.

A lot of the media coverage (“iT’s a JUDicIaL pOwER GraB”) is garbage.

The whole term, including the Trump immunity case, can be summarized as “congress do your job.” Who you vote for on congress matters. If you want a healthy country, stop voting for ****ing Instagram influencers and people who just want to get on cable news.

Congress can avoid all of the predicted bad outcomes by writing clearly articulated, more well-researched statutes and they can conscript agencies into that research function. Using the facts of the case: a follow up where the NMFS comes to congress and says “hey we’ve done our research and talked it over and we feel that we need these observers. We need you to fund them or pass a law requiring the licensed fishing companies to fund them.” And congress can either say “no, find a better way” or do one of the things the agency requested. That seems like how things were always supposed to work, to me.
Click to expand...
Is it fair to categorize the Court’s actions this term as wresting power out of the Executive branch, and vesting it back (whether they want it or not) with the Legislative branch?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#10,412
#10,412
Vol423 said:
Or they could do something really radical and stop wasting taxpayer money trying to invent ways to twist and fabricate laws to persecute their political enemies.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Democrats or those with TDS are interested in the Constitution. All they are interested in is hang him. Next is let’s hang those who support him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, UT_Dutchman, LSU-SIU and 1 other person
#10,413
#10,413
hog88 said:
Did the ruling prevent using possible motive?
Click to expand...
I jumped around, but that was my understanding of it. Said that would allow too much intrusion on the basis of any old accusation.

The “core constitutional power” example was threatening to fire the acting AG. So that seems like a pretty surface level examination to get things into their respective classifications (core constitutional, official, and unofficial).

Then the presumption of immunity is overcome if the act is “manifestly or palpably beyond his authority” and that doesn’t mean “prohibited by a rule of general prohibition” and they can’t look at his motives. If those tests are ever met they’ll come back later and decide if actually all official acts are completely immune…

I guess I’m unclear on what courts are supposed to do to determine whether an official act is immune or not and still not super clear whether something like “organizing an alternative slate of electors” is official or unofficial and how they are supposed to decide that. I probably need to read it again more carefully, but won’t have time today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#10,416
#10,416
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Taking off my partisan hat and looking at it as objectively as I can; yeah, if they want to have any chance of winning in November, they simply cannot keep Biden. But if they do try and replace him; there are major practical problems that may be worse than keeping him (this is of course just opinion).

1) As an attorney, i know that you realize that with most election laws, it is up to the states. There is a huge patchwork of differing legislation about when you can replace a candidate (or in a few cases, if you even can replace them for any cause other than Death). I am reading that the Republicans are already identifying states where they can bring suit if Biden is replaced. Of course , Courts will rule on these on an expedited basis; but even so the certain appeals through The state and then federal courts could take weeks at the minimum; leaving the voters uncertain as to who the nominee will be making campaigning almost impossible.
2). The Israel vs Palestinian divide: I know you are aware of the bitter divisions between the older Democrats who are strongly pro Israel vs the younger and more vocal pro Palestinian faction. We got a hint of how ugly this can get during the Michigan Primary, when the nominee was already pretty well certain. Opening the ticket back up without an establishment consensus will be a signal for open warfare between these two groups and any potential nominee will have to thread a very fine course to attempt to win the support of both. We would see chaos unmatched sine the 1968 convention.
3) unless the nominee is Harris; ALL of the money accumulated so far by the campaign will be unusable. Campaign finance rules don’t allow simple transfer to a new candidate. This, more than anything else may force the Democrats to stay with Biden.

It is a real pickle. We are in for maybe the most intersting couple of political months in my entire life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, MemphisVol77 and 825VOL
#10,422
#10,422
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley

...Note this language:

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

...On his speech:
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.” Hawaii, 585 U. S., at 701; cf. Lindke v. Freed, 601 U. S. 187, 191 (2024). As the sole person charged by the Constitution with executing the laws of the United States, the President oversees—and thus will frequently speak publicly about—a vast array of activities that touch on nearly every aspect of American life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol and W.TN.Orange Blood
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top