The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

uhh ohh y'all SCJ's just made the hot lil' taco squad member mad

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[turbovol]

There it is...

You forget: Nobody takes Clarence Thomas seriously....except MAGA.

 

[jmacvols1]

You forget: Nobody takes Clarence Thomas seriously....except MAGA.

Nobody takes Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Biden, Obama, Clinton seriously except for the radical left.

 

[RockyTop85]

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?

A lot of the big cases do that but I think “congress, do your job” ropes this case in, too.

 

[turbovol]

So, as I understand it, the case goes back to a lower court to decide whether Trump's attempted coup was an official act or a private
act. If that is correct, then we shall see. Given there was zero evidence of vote fraud, his attempt to subvert the election seems a private act--not official.

It's pretty clear that we've got a radically conservative and corrupt SCOTUS. Corrupt because we had justices--and certainly Clarence Thomas was one--who clearly had a conflict of interest in the case and clearly should have recused and yet refused to do so. When your (crazy) wife is an active participant in Jan.6 and the insurrection, THAT is a major conflict of interest.

It's also a court that has decided that bribing public officials is OK so long as you the official after the contract is awarded and not before. Nice. Coming from a group of group of conservative justices who've all accepted financial favors from conservative rich guys with political agendas, I supposed we can't be surprised at this decision either.

 

[LSU-SIU]

You forget: Nobody takes Clarence Thomas seriously....except MAGA.

Yup. Black dudes are only taken seriously if they're still on the plantation.

 

[hog88]

So, as I understand it, the case goes back to a lower court to decide whether Trump's attempted coup was an official act or a private
act. If that is correct, then we shall see. Given there was zero evidence of vote fraud, his attempt to subvert the election seems a private act--not official.

It's pretty clear that we've got a radically conservative and corrupt SCOTUS. Corrupt because we had justices--and certainly Clarence Thomas was one--who clearly had a conflict of interest in the case and clearly should have recused and yet refused to do so. When your (crazy) wife is an active participant in Jan.6 and the insurrection, THAT is a major conflict of interest.

It's also a court that has decided that bribing public officials is OK so long as you the official after the contract is awarded and not before. Nice. Coming from a group of group of conservative justices who've all accepted financial favors from conservative rich guys with political agendas, I supposed we can't be surprised at this decision either.

Wow what a dumb tweet.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Wow what a dumb tweet.

As I said before its a troll account. The rate he was posting tweets the other day it was like bot.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Yup. Black dudes are only taken seriously if they're still on the plantation.

Bingo again. What are the odds?

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[LibertyVol]

You forget: Nobody takes Clarence Thomas seriously....except MAGA.

Really. Actually the only Supreme Court justices I take seriously are the one’s I agree with. Kinda like you do.

 

[RockyTop85]

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.

It’s difficult to reconcile this as anything other than short-sighted partisanship. On the one hand, you think the executive branch or government as a whole is corrupt and not to be trusted, on the other hand you think it’s a waste of time to deter officeholders from trying to strip your one form of leverage over that government.

I think it’s the cherry on top of the whole Trump experience that this is the majority position of the “conservative” party.

 

[jmacvols1]

(Shipwreckedcrew has been a Fed Prosecutor for 22 years and Defense Attorney for 55 years)






Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew

My biggest "I TOLD YOU SO" --

I think I've been about the only voice of legal analysis on the right -- so far as I'm aware -- who has repeatedly called out the use by the lower courts of the normal "standard of review" on a motion to dismiss that the "Facts of the Indictment are constructed to be true for purposes of the motion."

I have said from the start that that standard does not work for this immunity claim -- in order to determine if immunity applies, the Judge needs to look at the evidence behind the allegations, and not just accept what the prosecutor has written in the indictment. That requires an evidentiary hearing where both sides are heard.

That was NEVER done and that is a key to the Court's decision to send the case back -- with some specific instructions on how that is to take place, many of which favor Trump's position.



Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew

This will make the Liberals heads explode:

The Court seems to adopt the "Unitary Executive" theory.

The POTUS is an individual who comprises an entire branch of the Govt making him unique.

So....

YES -- IN SOME WAYS POTUS IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Quit spitting out that stupid and not accurate saying to the contrary.

========================
Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew

The Court states explicitly what many don't understand but is an important point of Con Law and Separation of Powers:

The Judiciary's role in a criminal prosecution is to conduct the procedure.

"Immunity" for SCOTUS official conduct means the courts cannot adjudicate guilty or innocence without stepping BEYOND THE COURT's POWER.

Just as Congress cannot criminalize certain POTUS conduct, Courts cannot host efforts to prosecute that conduct.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[hndog609]

uhh ohh y'all SCJ's just made the hot lil' taco squad member mad

It's like watching an AL fan acting incredulous and outraged that their O-line were called for holding on a play.

 

[LouderVol]

How is it a coup for Biden to either voluntarily step aside ? Even if the Dem party at the convention allowed delegates to change their pledges, that is not a coup as its not government.

neither were the rioters on 1/6.

and you really think there is absolutely zero input from the elected members of the DNC and the party itself? If Biden steps down, no way to consider it a coup. agreed. If Biden doesn't step down at the DNC breaks its own rules in order to replace the sitting president of the US in a non-democratic (vote by the public) manner. sounds pretty coup-ish to me.

now if the DNC just forced a vote, said nothing against Biden, let Biden be on the vote, and the delegates reconsider their choices that would be something not-coupish. But if its the leadership pushing a predetermined result against the will of Biden I fail to see how it isn't a coup.

 

[volinbham]

So, as I understand it, the case goes back to a lower court to decide whether Trump's attempted coup was an official act or a private
act. If that is correct, then we shall see. Given there was zero evidence of vote fraud, his attempt to subvert the election seems a private act--not official.

It's pretty clear that we've got a radically conservative and corrupt SCOTUS. Corrupt because we had justices--and certainly Clarence Thomas was one--who clearly had a conflict of interest in the case and clearly should have recused and yet refused to do so. When your (crazy) wife is an active participant in Jan.6 and the insurrection, THAT is a major conflict of interest.

It's also a court that has decided that bribing public officials is OK so long as you the official after the contract is awarded and not before. Nice. Coming from a group of group of conservative justices who've all accepted financial favors from conservative rich guys with political agendas, I supposed we can't be surprised at this decision either.

another in a long line of terrible takes - yours and the one included in the tweet

 

[whodeycin85]

Quick question on motive....so if DJT says I was not trying to keep power and overthrown the election...and then conceding that power when Biden is sworn in....who to say what his motive is??? Basically he is following thru with what he said. Or does motive only apply to those prosecuting the cases interpretation of DJT motives?

It’s difficult to reconcile this as anything other than short-sighted partisanship. On the one hand, you think the executive branch or government as a whole is corrupt and not to be trusted, on the other hand you think it’s a waste of time to deter officeholders from trying to strip your one form of leverage over that government.

I think it’s the cherry on top of the whole Trump experience that this is the majority position of the “conservative” party.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Quick question on motive....so if DJT says I was not trying to keep power and overthrown the election...and then conceding that power when Biden is sworn in....who to say what his motive is??? Basically he is following thru with what he said. Or does motive only apply to those prosecuting the cases interpretation of DJT motives?

Motive isn't needed as if he has an official capacity to due the "thing" than whether he had other motives is not material. Its like a judge having bias (as I said in the thread a few weeks back), a judge can and usually does have bias... the issue is the appearance of bias (high standard). In this case, we're talking about the executive branch which doesn't even have the ability to recuse.

The other thing as I mentioned is, shouldn't there have to be a determination on some of this. (I haven't read the indictment in full) Meaning, if part of it is based on contact with the VP not to certify or similar. If the VP had done it, is this criminally prosecutable? (I would say its suspect at best)

I wouldn't have been criminally prosecuted doing what he did, why is he? Why aren't the others that did the same thing?

I say the U.S. is completely lost because of people like that lawgator.

 

[KptVFL]

I don't know the rules of the convention but its a party nomination. Seems like the party ought to be able to oust Biden from being their nominee even if he's unwilling. That's nowhere near a coup. By definition.

So primaries are meaningless. Interesting. Democracy at work......Oh wait

 

[ButchPlz]

So if I can sum up today's leftoid kvetching, "democracy for me, but not for anyone that doesn't think and vote exactly like I do."

I guess the standard definition of "democracy" is not settled science to these buffoons.

 

[turbovol]

So if I can sum up today's leftoid kvetching, "democracy for me, but not for anyone that doesn't think and vote exactly like I do."

I guess the standard definition of "democracy" is not settled science to these buffoons.

Democracy? To what are you referring?

 

[LSU-SIU]

So primaries are meaningless. Interesting. Democracy at work......Oh wait

Yeah. They should all be able to get together in the back, get all their people (media, congress, etc) on board without telling the public. Oust a sitting President using conspiracy tactics and its just okay, probably blackmail at this point.

Democracy.

Its a coup.