chasfh Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 7 hours ago, pfife said: He was right. Someone here laughed at it. Foolish. Some here laughed at me on the old board years ago when I suggested this kind of power grab on behalf of a Trump would happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 6 hours ago, pfife said: it's difficult to wrap ones head around just how bad these decisions are today. And how expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaceyLou Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 14 hours ago, chasfh said: Some here laughed at me on the old board years ago when I suggested this kind of power grab on behalf of a Trump would happen. People are still telling me 'it can't happen here.' Time to read Sinclair Lewis again. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 These are the guys that have the expertise and thus don't need SMEs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 Unified Reich voters vote for Unified Reich President(s) Unified Reich Presidents install Unified Reich judges and Justices with a huge Unified Reich assist from the Unified Reich Senate Majorit Leader Unified Reich judges and justices the make terrible Unified Reich decisions. MotownBummers: Bernie Sanders's press secretary LMAO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 On 6/28/2024 at 10:00 AM, CMRivdogs said: Meanwhile it appears we will wait until Monday on the Trump Immunity case. The check is on the RV and taking the scenic route to DC This was decided only to help Trump in his own court cases and in his campaigning, nothing more. That it also happens to help a few J6 terrorists—only those charged which obstruction, which the vast majority were not—is simply gravy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Of note on this ruling is the makeup of the 6-3 justices was a little unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority that included mostly conservatives and one liberal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Huge ruling coming at 10am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hongbit Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I am hoping that justice will prevail but our new reality has me expecting 6-3 for immunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I'm fearful of some compromise that lets him off the hook somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 14 minutes ago, oblong said: I'm fearful of some compromise that lets him off the hook somehow. Exactly. This ruling needs to be 8-0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 I could see them doing something specifically for trump and doing like they did in bush v gore and just say oh sorry bros no precedent here were just doing stuff we like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 three rulings coming today... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 Presumptive immunity for official acts is the interpretation I'm hearing. Nothing for non official acts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Just now, pfife said: Presumptive immunity for official acts is the interpretation I'm hearing. Nothing for non official acts No immunity for unofficial acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 1 minute ago, romad1 said: No immunity for unofficial acts. Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Does this mean Biden can launch an official airstrike on Mar A Lago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 So there will be a big fight about what is official and not official. More delay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 So is Trump calling Georgia asking for 11k votes an official act or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: So is Trump calling Georgia asking for 11k votes an official act or not? Elections not official acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) This is interesting https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24#h_867133fb8317de2440ab603542a10890 Quote In a concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by former President Donald Trump in 2020, expressed frustration with how the court was sending the case back down for more proceedings. “I would have framed the underlying legal issues differently,” Barrett said. She suggested that because Trump’s wholesale challenge to the indictment had failed, at least some of the case could go forward. She wrote “a President facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment.” “If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial,” she said. Barrett took issue with how the court had ruled that evidence from Trump’s official acts should be excluded from the trial, writing that there was no reason to depart from the “familiar and time-tested procedure” that would allow for such evidence to be included. Edited July 1 by romad1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Abandon hope all ye who enter here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Freep/USATODAY on this... In historic ruling on presidential immunity, Supreme Court says Trump can be tried for private acts The headline is the interesting part Supreme Court says Trump immune for 'official' but not 'private' acts (freep.com) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.