Jump to content

Ojo Rojo

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1608
  • Joined

Posts posted by Ojo Rojo

  1. 31 minutes ago, sidis said:

    not to be needlessly pedantic but that's not true as proven in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis matter. it just depends on how badly they want to rule and if alito and thomas want to implement their vision for the country, they will take on cases with completely made up facts and a appellant with no standing.

    Except that the ruling in the 303 Creative wasn't based on the hypothetical.

    • Haha 1
  2. 20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    It's kinda too late at that point. You really think once he starts offing people who piss him off the justices are going to be willing to stand up against him? 

    As to SCOTUS not ruling on hypotheticals, c'mon man. They literally rule on made-up facts when they find it convenient. It didn't matter to them one bit that the underlying factual allegations in 303 Creative were lies.

     

    14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    That is not how it works, and you know it.  Because as Wildcat correctly notes, by then it is WAY too fucking late.

    You avoid having a car careen through an intersection, killing pedestrians, by NOT putting up a big bright green light but saying "let's not worry about a car driving through that obvious green light we just gave until AFTER it runs over all the pedestrians."  Considering the consequences of a ruling is an element of issuing it.

    And by holding that evidence of motive is completely inadmissible, the SCOTUS absolutely set up a sequence and gave the green light for a POTUS to 1) use a "presidential power" to 2) serve an entirely personal and illegal end.

    A drone strike on a suspected terrorist is not illegal.

    A drone strike on a person who owes you money, killing them to extinguish the debt, is absolutely illegal.

    And the SCOTUS just made it illegal to inquire into the actual reason for said drone strike.  That was wrong, unspeakably dangerous, and may well be THE SCOTUS case that ends up ending the Republic at some point.  Because once the event happens, it's far too late to take action.  Stop being obtuse.

     

    11 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

    Dumb post is dumb

    Some of y'all's sarcasm meters are broken.

  3. 12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    I LITERALLY just listened to an argument an hour ago where the justices asked numerous hypotheticals to help them understand the scope of the issues and the potential impact of the decision requested of them.  They don't RULE on hypotheticals, but they 100% consider them in evaluating the reasonableness of their potential ruling.

    And again, it's not that the act of "murdering a rival" is the question....the issue is that they - prophylactically, without ANY legal basis - prohibited the consideration of any evidence of whether the POTUS-ordered drone strike on Cal the Creditor was an action against a legitimate target (a terrorist actor) or whether its true purpose was to take out a man to whom the POTUS owed $50 million.  That is, the SCOTUS prohibited a future SCOTUS from even CONSIDERING the actual motive by barring all evidence of the motive.

    That's where the decision goes 100% off the rails.

    I don't disagree that there is a real danger, but let's just do as Roberts suggested and wait until the President actually orders a political rival (or creditor) to be killed and take it up then.

    • Haha 2
  4. 6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    wasn't this written during a time when Donald Trump was facing multiple charges for violating federal criminal law?

     

    4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Is it really an "extreme hypothetical" that Trump "feels empowered to violate federal law" while conducting his official presidential duties?

    Lord.  Am I really defending the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Donald Trump here?  Fuck me.

    You have to read the whole sentence together.  "Extreme hypothetical" = murdering political opponents.  "Violating federal criminal law" = of which murdering political opponents would be an example.  Roberts wasn't saying the hypotheticals were merely violations of federal criminal law (which he was actively engaged in at the time), but extreme (like murder) and hypothetical (things that haven't actually happened).

  5. 6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    You notice he doesn't remotely explain how they're wrong?

     

    7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    The hypothetical is absolutely correct, and it is BECAUSE of the portion of the ruling that bars evidence of motive.

    Is "ordering a drone strike on a person on foreign soil who is accused of supporting terrorist operations against American citizens" 1) a power of the president 2) for which he would have official immunity?  Almost certainly so.

    But what if the president "orders a drone strike on a person on foreign soil who is accused of supporting terrorist operations against American citizens".....except that person is REALLY just a dude to whom the president personally owes a lot of money, or is simply a political opponent on an issue the president cares about, like school vouchers?  Those facts -- the true nature of the person, and the true motives of the POTUS (which could be proven by testimony of an aide who states "yes, he said 'we need to kill that guy, he's going to call my $50 million note due next week, and we can't have that'")....cannot be adduced or used.  The sole question is whether the act itself, by its nature, is an official use of power.

    And ordering drone strikes is the kind of thing that the POTUS has the power to do.  Against whom, and why?  Well, we can't delve into that.

    So, yes, the scope of the POTUS's official immunity goes FAR beyond the scope of immunity granted to other government officials -- federal, state, local, under any set of laws.  The POTUS absolutely, 100%, can exercise a "presidential power" to serve an entirely personal, and illegal end, and he has total immunity now.  The dissent's observation was spot-on and the only logical conclusion.

    A court, especially the Supreme Court, doesn't rule on hypotheticals.  There has to be an actual case or controversy. So, I guess if you are a pessimist or whatever, then you could assume the court would determine murdering political opponents is an official act and that the President is immune for prosecution of it, but we don't really know that.

  6. 7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    I know the argument.  Chief Justice Roberts said it better than I ever could:

    "The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,'" he wrote.

  7. 1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

    You said the Court got the immunity decision right. They in effect ruled that the President could assassinate his rivals. That was literally argued in oral arguments and the dissenting justices made clear in their dissent that's how they interpreted the majority's reasoning. 

    See above. It's not remotely hyperbole.

    They did not rule that in effect the President could assassinate his rivals.  The dissent was making a point.  C'mon.

  8. Buncha Chicken Littles up in here. What has actually happened so far?  Deportations and pardons have happened and those are within the president's powers.  The other shit - shutting down federal agencies, blocking funding, giving private citizens access to very sensitive data and processes - all of that shit is currently being challenged in the courts.  The Supreme Court has yet to rule on any of those issues.  If the courts overturn Marbury v. Madison and disregard the Constitution to hand absolute power to Trump or if the court rules against him and he defies the order and there is no mechanism found or used to force him to comply then, and only then, yes, we are actually fucked.  That's when the people have to take to the streets and show Congress, the President, fellow citizens and the rest of the world that Americans want the rule of law and the foundations of our country to stand. That will show which way the political winds blow and the politicians will follow.  Either that or Trump's gestapo will mow down all protestors in cold blood, at which point they can bury me upside down so the whole world can kiss my ass.

  9. 15 hours ago, The Royal We said:

     

    I think the pig is out of the pen on SCOTUS not wanting to be seen as Trump stooges. The Colorado ballot case and the immunity decision are pretty hard to overlook. I sure hope you are right, but I tend to lead more to the Brisket school of thought on this one.

    Trump and Musk are already ignoring court orders and there are GQP congressmen hand waving it away. There's no one coming to save us. I think it's going to come down to massive protests (with protestors getting shot) and/or a general strike before anyone in the GQP even starts to get queasy.

    The immunity decision didn't answer the core question - did Trump violate the law by inciting the Jan. 6th insurrection, among other things? SCOTUS kicked that issue back to the lower court then the case was dropped when he got reelected.  I actually think the court got both cases right. The president does, and should, have broad immunity for official acts. They didn't fully answer the question of what constitutes "official acts." They did suggest that the efforts to get slates of fake electors and inciting the riot were not official acts.  The Colorado ballot case was the longest of longshots from the beginning.  So neither of those cases proves that the Supreme Court has fully bent over for Trump.

  10. 5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    If the POTUS refuses to follow a ruling from SCOTUS, and Congress does not impeach (and they won't, that ship has sailed and the mechanism no longer exists), then you know the answer: there is literally one manner of recourse remaining.  Force of arms.  That's it.  Either a significant enough group of the people rises up and actually does what the NRA says we are supposed to all be keeping and bearing arms for, or we surrender to the fact that we have now become an absolute monarchy.  

    Because understand, if the POTUS doesn't need to obey an order of the SCOTUS enforcing item A from the Constitution, why would he obey any OTHER part of the Constitution, like item B (like the 22nd amendment, limiting the POTUS to two terms)?  He wouldn't.  It's over.  There is no check on presidential power.  It's not even presidential power anymore.  It's whatever the person currently residing in the White House decides it is, with no limits except what the apparatus of force and violence (federal law enforcement and the military) decide they will or won't do in response to his orders.  That is, the only limit on the president's powers would be, when he orders the Air Force to carpet bomb California because Newsom hurt his fee-fees, Air Force leadership says "no."*

    * But understand, even that won't last.  He will oust leadership and install leadership who will obey his orders, and kill Americans as he orders.

    That's how this all ends.  It was always going to be this way.  What is happening is not new, it has happened numerous times before.  Pick up those books, skip ahead to the later chapters, and you see the "bloodshed, violence, murder of his own people" chapter.  It is ALWAYS in there.

     I refuse to believe that our entire nation, as storied, victorious, and strong as it is, with all of the power and wealth on the line, comes down to "You're not the boss of me."

    • Like 1
  11. 1 minute ago, Hagbard Celine said:

    BREAKING

    20 MINUTES AGO


    21 min ago
    “I always abide by the courts,” Trump says after several policy priorities were halted
    From CNN's Donald Judd

    President Donald Trump said Tuesday he will “always abide by the courts,” after reporters asked if he’d follow a judge’s ruling if it blocked one of his administration’s policy priorities.

    “Well, I always abide by the courts, and then I’ll have to appeal it. But then what he’s done is he’s slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books,” Trump said.
    “So yeah, the answer is, I always abide by the courts, always abide by them, and we’ll appeal, but appeals take a long time.”

    Well, he is a world-class liar, so...

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  12. 3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    The court's republican majority is not going to issue a ruling it knows Trump will ignore. They will say it's a political issue and punt.

     

    3 hours ago, The Royal We said:

    That's my bet as well. If the case involves Trump breaking the law they will kick it to congress and say impeachment is the only remedy. And we know there's no chance of that happening with the spineless bags of goo that make up the GQP congress critters.

    There is a difference between breaking the law (criminality) and violating the Constitution.  For crimes, yes, impeachment would be the way to address it.  There is also a difference between political issues and legal questions.  What Trump is doing clearly, clearly invokes a legal issue, which deals with one of the most fundamental tenets of American law. That's one of the things that is so stupid about all of this. First year con law students can tell you that just about everything that is being done violates separation of powers. Constitutionality, which is what this is about, is the Supreme Court's primary function. They aren't punting Constitutionality, especially not such critical issues as these. The Supreme Court justices have become de facto political tools, but that is as much a function of the electorate and Congress as anything.  But they are not spineless sycophants. I consider Barrett and Kavanaugh to be illegitimate because both should have been Dem. nominees but for Mitch McConnell's party-over-country fuckery.  The justices are proud, learned people. They REALLY don't want to be seen as Trump's stooges. Especially considering Roberts' track record, I see the Supreme Court as delivering the beginning of the end of this Trump/Musk fascist dictatorship cartoon. And I see it all being done with 9-0 per curiam opinions.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 2
  13. 16 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

    You lost me when you said Roberts would go against Trump.

    He's done it before.

    15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Well, first we have to have SCOTUS rule that these things violate separation of powers, which is not a sure thing.

    But, I do rather doubt that SCOTUS will tolerate flaunting of its rulings, or even those of the lower courts.  That strikes directly at the power of the judiciary.  They've been happy to aggrandize the executive at the expense of the legislative, and to a certain extent, their power.  But this is direct.

    Hey, I know it's kind of fun and not-just-a-little comforting to say, "The country's fucked; we're all fucked." We're all sharing some good ol' fashioned gallows humor. But in truth, it is inconceivable to me (how many times have I said that since 2016) that SCOTUS will go against Marbury v. Madison. I mean that is THE case. Without it, the court, all courts, are totally emasculated. Would the illegitimate Trump-appointed shitbirds and the unrepentant right wing nuts (Alito and Thomas) side with Trump on certain things?  Probably.  But on this?  To cut their own power, let alone abandon the rule of law that has existed for over 200 years? I don't think so.

    14 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

    What’s their recourse if Trump ignores them?

    Will they strenuously object? Write a sternly worded letter?

    At the state and federal district level, the courts can order the local law enforcement (sheriffs, constables and U.S. marshals) to do shit - levy property, execute bench warrants, etc.  I don't know for sure, but there has to be something similar at the Supreme Court level, where SCOTUS sends an order to the U.S. marshals to enforce their orders.  If the marshals break faith and their oaths and refuse then that could be the breaking point.  Or, if the marshals show up to DOGE headquarters, or whatever, and they are met with armed resistance, either by other federal law enforcement officials or otherwise, that could be another breaking point.

     

    My opinion - I don't think the bastards have the balls to go through with it all the way to the violence phase.  Right now it's all rhetoric and I think that's what it will remain.  I continue to maintain that this is the cartoon version of a fascist dictatorship.  Yes, the president does have certain real powers that we can't do anything about - pardoning Jan. 6th traitors, deporting our cheap labor workforce, etc.  But the shit he cannot do, which is being challenged in court, will probably come out the right way, i.e. unconstitutional.  Trump and his band of wannabe fascists will bitch and demonize.  Some judges might get assassinated because of it, actually, by some true-believer dipshit.  But that's as far as I predict it will go.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 2
    • Drool 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  14. On 2/9/2025 at 4:01 PM, Willfully Horn said:

    Fair enough. Nevertheless, force the AG to countermand a judge’s directive. Let’s get this abscess out in the open.

    This is going to come down to one of two things:  (1) law enforcement agents with integrity and loyalty to the Constitution will enforce the court's orders, or (2) SCOTUS will rule, which goes back to No 1 eventually.  These cases will go to the appeals courts and then will go up.  Justice Roberts will probably attempt to get unanimous rulings that Trump and his admin are way, way out of Constitutional bounds to send the strongest message possible. If Trump & Co. say, "Fuck that, we're doing it anyway" it will come down to violence. At some point, politics will come into play. How politically popular will it be to violate a Supreme Court ruling?  How about jailing government employees for doing their jobs? Sure the fascist shitbags will be for it, but 70% of the country probably will not. If he loses the majority of the people and if the minority he controls are stupid or ineffectual, then he cannot complete a takeover of the United States.  Right now there is a lot of bluster.  Trump and Elon are giving a lot of orders, people are suing them and now just about everything is in the courts.  I think we'll know in several weeks if we have a country left.

     

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 3
  15. 1 hour ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

    SIAP. No other words except RAGE.

    There is no bottom

    Trans, LGBTQ kids removed from National Center for Missing and Exploited Children website.

     

     

    That may well be the most despicable thing they've done, in a sea of despicable things. Just wow.

    • Like 2
  16. 1 hour ago, Satchel said:

    A 25-year-old engineer named Marko Elez, who previously worked for two Elon Musk companies, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the US government, has resigned from from his post in the Trump administration. The WSJ is reporting that he was the author of social media posts that called for the abolishment of the civil rights act, and a return to racism and eugenics.

    Why would the FOTUS associate with these kind of people?

    https://www.wsj.com/tech/doge-staffer-resigns-over-racist-posts-d9f11a93

     

     

    Why did he resign?  That shit is de riguer to work in the Trump administration.  It's totally acceptable now.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 3
×
×
  • Create New...