SCOTUS and whatnot

[chasfh]

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.

[chasfh]

6 hours ago, pfife said:

it's difficult to wrap ones head around just how bad these decisions are today.

 

And how expected.

[LaceyLou]

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.

[pfife]

These are the guys that have the expertise and thus don't need SMEs.

[pfife]

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.   

[romad1]

 

[chasfh]

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.

[SkyBlue]

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.

[romad1]

Huge ruling coming at 10am.  

[Hongbit]

I am hoping that justice will prevail but our new reality has me expecting 6-3 for  immunity.  

[oblong]

I'm fearful of some compromise that lets him off the hook somehow.

[smr-nj]

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.

[pfife]

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 

[romad1]

three rulings coming today...

 

[pfife]

Presumptive immunity for official acts is the interpretation I'm hearing.   Nothing for non official acts

[romad1]

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. 

[pfife]

1 minute ago, romad1 said:

No immunity for unofficial acts. 

Yep

[Motown Bombers]

Does this mean Biden can launch an official airstrike on Mar A Lago?

[pfife]

So there will be a big fight about what is official and not official.    More delay.

[Motown Bombers]

So is Trump calling Georgia asking for 11k votes an official act or not?

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

So is Trump calling Georgia asking for 11k votes an official act or not?

Elections not official acts. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[romad1]

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, 2024 by romad1

[smr-nj]

Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

[romad1]

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)