The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[turbovol]

Here's proof of what a radical--and I'm quite sure radically politicized--group of conservatives we have on SCOTUS now.

 

[ButchPlz]

Democracy? To what are you referring?

You know, that word racists like you enjoy tossing around when you really mean "oligarchy".

 

[LSU-SIU]

Here's proof of what a radical--and I'm quite sure radically politicized--group of conservatives we have on SCOTUS now.

Retard or Radical. Not much of a difference at this point.

 

[ButchPlz]

Retard or Radical. Not much of a difference at this point.

Didn't Ted Lieu famously make up a ton of stuff about COVID and Russia?

 

[RockyTop85]

Did the ruling prevent using possible motive?

The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me from a political science perspective, but is unsatisfying from a practical standpoint, especially without an answer to the post-term impeachment question.

I think what the majority is essentially saying is that the answer to a president’s abuse of official authority is impeachment. That makes sense. It’s a big reason why I was so adamant that it didn’t have to be a crime to be impeachable.

It’s unsatisfying for Trump to skate on impeachment on the grounds that “he can be held accountable by courts” and courts to say “naw, you got it all wrong, that’s your job.” Basically, we have a situation where our idiocracy gave him the first coup attempt for free.

I think I could tolerate that, but then we have the same guy running again and a dysfunctional congress that seems unlikely to address the systemic issues of presidential authority with either sound legislation or well-reasoned impeachments.

 

[RockyTop85]

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?

Courts decide that stuff all the time. This argument comes up in all kinds of cases on here, but motive or intent is shown by the content of his speech and the outcome of his actions.

Harassing pence with stuff like “Hey Mike, we really need you to only open the votes for me so I’ll win the electoral college” and stuff like what he said in his speech on the 6th is evidence of motive.
Him saying “actually I didn’t want Mike to overturn the results of the election” after he’s been indicted is also evidence of motive.

The finder of fact usually gets to decide which is more credible.

 

[hog88]

Here's proof of what a radical--and I'm quite sure radically politicized--group of conservatives we have on SCOTUS now.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say abortion.

 

[hog88]

The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me from a political science perspective, but is unsatisfying from a practical standpoint, especially without an answer to the post-term impeachment question.

I think what the majority is essentially saying is that the answer to a president’s abuse of official authority is impeachment. That makes sense. It’s a big reason why I was so adamant that it didn’t have to be a crime to be impeachable.

It’s unsatisfying for Trump to skate on impeachment on the grounds that “he can be held accountable by courts” and courts to say “naw, you got it all wrong, that’s your job.” Basically, we have a situation where our idiocracy gave him the first coup attempt for free.

I think I could tolerate that, but then we have the same guy running again and a dysfunctional congress that seems unlikely to address the systemic issues of presidential authority with either sound legislation or well-reasoned impeachments.

LOL "first coup attempt".

Your takes on this have been pretty dang good and informative until this.

 

[RockyTop85]

LOL "first coup attempt".

Your takes on this have been pretty dang good and informative until this.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the vice president gets to choose the president.

 

[hog88]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the vice president gets to choose the president.

Agreed. Point?

 

[whodeycin85]

Courts decide that stuff all the time. This argument comes up in all kinds of cases on here, but motive or intent is shown by the content of his speech and the outcome of his actions.

Harassing pence with stuff like “Hey Mike, we really need you to only open the votes for me so I’ll win the electoral college” and stuff like what he said in his speech on the 6th is evidence of motive.
Him saying “actually I didn’t want Mike to overturn the results of the election” after he’s been indicted is also evidence of motive.

The finder of fact usually gets to decide which is more credible.

But his words and actions met up with him conceding.... his other words had no action behind them...show.me where he forced kemp or Pence to do anything??

 

[Orangeburst]

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

twofer lol

 

[ButchPlz]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say abortion.

But what it does say is "shall not be infringed".

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[LSU-SIU]

I think I could tolerate that, but then we have the same guy running again and a dysfunctional congress that seems unlikely to address the systemic issues of presidential authority with either sound legislation or well-reasoned impeachments.

The legislative branch can possible provide additional scope to duties but they can't be contrary to the duties and intent of the authority spelled out in the Constitution. I'm still unsure as to whether even if Pence didn't certify whether that would be a criminal act. ????

I think I could tolerate that,

 

[NorthDallas40]

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

If she’s pissed off that generally is a good indicator SCOTUS got it right.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[RockyTop85]

Agreed. Point?

The point is pretty obvious: trying to maintain elected office by means other than those established in the constitution is a coup.

If people want to cry about whether that is a coup, that’s fine, but that’s semantics, so I’ll continue to call it a coup.

 

[whodeycin85]

The point is pretty obvious: trying to maintain elected office by means other than those established in the constitution is a coup.

If people want to cry about whether that is a coup, that’s fine, but that’s semantics, so I’ll continue to call it a coup.

How did he force pence to overturn the election?

 

[LouderVol]

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.

yup. government protecting government. I think it will very quickly get flipped on its head, with both sides predictably feeling the opposite of they do today.

 

[RockyTop85]

The legislative branch can possible provide additional scope to duties but they can't be contrary to the duties and intent of the authority spelled out in the Constitution. I'm still unsure as to whether even if Pence didn't certify whether that would be a criminal act. ????

I don’t think I’ve said anything inconsistent with the first sentence. If I have, it was unintentional and I’d amend it.

I'm still unsure…

 

[LSU-SIU]

The point is pretty obvious: trying to maintain elected office by means other than those established in the constitution is a coup.

If people want to cry about whether that is a coup, that’s fine, but that’s semantics, so I’ll continue to call it a coup.

He took no "means" even. (beside all the other obvious flaws)

 

[LSU-SIU]

I don’t think I’ve said anything inconsistent with the first sentence. If I have, it was unintentional and I’d amend it.


View attachment 655702

So, its a criminal act?

Let me get this right, if the VP doesn't certify the election he can be criminally prosecuted? If the Congress doesn't count the electoral votes they can be criminally prosecuted?

 

[hog88]

The point is pretty obvious: trying to maintain elected office by means other than those established in the constitution is a coup.

If people want to cry about whether that is a coup, that’s fine, but that’s semantics, so I’ll continue to call it a coup.

Call it whatever you want.

 

[NorthDallas40]

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.

The stupidity within your posted tweet directly reflects on your own demonstrated intelligence on the ruling. The ruling doesn’t prevent puddinhead from doing what the post says it just protects him against prosecution for doing it. However if puddinhead did that Trump would immediately sue in court and quickly win and he would also likely recoup civil penalties against the government for the illegal action. So by all means go ahead!