Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted

Gotta respect the long game of 45 other U.S. Presidents across, as of literally today, precisely 235 years to plan out not obtaining indictments or immunity from the other 44 of them.  All plotted out over centuries to just singularly fuck over Donald Trump in an unfair, political witch-hunt!  It is absolutely how fucking stupid we are as a country but made it this far.  Welp, had a good run...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

So 44 previous presidents served their terms and stepped away without being indicted. Hmmm

Heck 9 of them managed to walk away from failure to win re-election without trying to usurp the Constitution and remain in power.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, texasdago said:

So what's it say because I deleted Xitter

Mitchell is credited with devising the novel enforcement mechanism in the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 (or SB 8), which outlaws abortion after cardiac activity is detected and avoids judicial review by prohibiting government officials from enforcing the statute and empowering private citizens to bring lawsuits against those who violate it.[4][5] On September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to enjoin the enforcement of SB 8, marking the first time that a state had successfully imposed a pre-viability abortion ban since Roe v. Wade.[6]

Mitchell has argued five times before the Supreme Court of the United States and authored the principal merits brief in eight Supreme Court cases.[1] Mitchell has also written amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mitchell and a colleague urged the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade, arguing that overturning Roe should eventually lead to the reversal of other "lawless" court decisions such as those establishing a right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), while distinguishing and defending the right to interracial marriage recognized in Loving v. Virginia.[13] [14]

  • Rage+1 6
Posted
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what's next?  Is that final or does he get to appeal again? 

He can ask for a rehearing en banc (meaning asking for the entire circuit to rehear it rather than just the original panel) from the appellate circuit, which is not an appeal as of right, but discretionary. Of course, he can seek a writ to the Supreme Court, which is also discretionary, with a couple of percentage points chance of it being accepted, but for the fact it is such a sexy hot button high profile case with huge implications. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Finally.

 

33 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what's next?  Is that final or does he get to appeal again? 

Yeah, He'll wait to submit his appeal to the USSC on the last day but my bet is they decline to hear it unless the money flows to hear it just to delay and then they deny the appeal anyway but the straightforward apprach would be to deny the appeal.

Posted
1 minute ago, TexasEd said:

 

Yeah, He'll wait to submit his appeal to the USSC on the last day but my bet is they decline to hear it unless the money flows to hear it just to delay and then they deny the appeal anyway but the straightforward apprach would be to deny the appeal.

4 have to agree to hear it, 5 for a decision in his favor

I've said it before and I'll say it again - he doesn't have 5 votes in his favor on this.  The liberals + Roberts + one of Kavanaugh/ACB will rule against him.  Kavanaugh typically follows Roberts. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So does this ruling affirm that a sitting POTUS does have executive immunity, or does it just say should such a thing exist, it doesn't extend past time in office?

They specifically call out the a former president can be prosecuted for any CRIMES committed while in office.  Executive immunity would still apply to official duties because the official duties of the president are not criminal.

 

That bit about following the advice of pillow salesmen and conspiracy theorists instead of say the advice of Whitehouse counsel is coming back to bit him.

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

The fraud penalty in New York should drop any minute now as well unless something has changed. It would be nice to put a second harpoon into this orange whale this week or even today.

Perhaps we're a step closer to a victory of the obvious over the convoluted.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
Just now, RomaVicta said:

The fraud penalty in New York should drop any minute now as well unless something has changed. It would be nice to put a second harpoon into this orange whale this week or even today.

Perhaps we're a step closer to a victory of the obvious over the convoluted.

Yep, but over at fox news they'll have some outrage story about Taylor Swift or andocrene harvesting instead of these rulings.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

 

Yeah, He'll wait to submit his appeal to the USSC on the last day but my bet is they decline to hear it unless the money flows to hear it just to delay and then they deny the appeal anyway but the straightforward apprach would be to deny the appeal.


Right wing SC justices about to cash in !

  • Haha 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

4 have to agree to hear it, 5 for a decision in his favor

I've said it before and I'll say it again - he doesn't have 5 votes in his favor on this.  The liberals + Roberts + one of Kavanaugh/ACB will rule against him.  Kavanaugh typically follows Roberts. 

I think there's a decent chance they actually reject cert.  Roberts doesn't want 3 justices writing a dissenting opinion that a President is actually a king and probably doesn't want to write a majority opinion on this himself either. I don't know that I'd bet on it, but I think he's probably strongly considering trying to get ACB and Kav to join him in rejecting this one.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

4 have to agree to hear it, 5 for a decision in his favor

I've said it before and I'll say it again - he doesn't have 5 votes in his favor on this.  The liberals + Roberts + one of Kavanaugh/ACB will rule against him.  Kavanaugh typically follows Roberts. 

Personally, I'm looking forward to Scalia's mental gymnastics to disavow his previous opinion from 2014 that the President was indeed an "officer of the United States".

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think there's a decent chance they actually reject cert.  Roberts doesn't want 3 justices writing a dissenting opinion that a President is actually a king and probably doesn't want to write a majority opinion on this himself either. I don't know that I'd bet on it, but I think he's probably strongly considering trying to get ACB and Kav to join him in rejecting this one.

I agree.  I think there's a bigger chance they just don't take it up.  Roberts knows his court / reputation won't ever recover from it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So does this ruling affirm that a sitting POTUS does have executive immunity, or does it just say should such a thing exist, it doesn't extend past time in office?

fn 8: "We do not address policy considerations implicated in the prosecution of a sitting President or in a state prosecution of a President, sitting or former."

Posted

Opening paragraph from his petition for writ of ceriorari:

 

"I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold-fringed flag. A flag with gilded edges is the flag of an admirality court. An admirality court signifies a naval court-martial. I cannot be court-martialled twice.

That is all. "

  • Haha 7
Posted
38 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's absolutely horrifying that saying "the President is not a king" would be a split decision at SCOTUS but we know it would. It's beyond depressing that everyone knows it but it's not actively terrifying the entire nation. 

some language on that in the opinion, which is a nice exposition on the history of our laws.

 

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69 (nice): "The President of the US would be liable to be impeached, tried and, upon conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."  The court looked at that language and rejected Trump's argument that the 'afterwards' requires a prior conviction with impeachment.  ". . . Hamilton stress that the President must be unlike the 'king of Great Britain,' who was 'sacred and inviolable.' It strains credulity that Hamilton would have endorsed a reading of the Impeachment Judgment Clause that shields Presidents from all criminal accountability unless they are first impeached and convicted by the Congress."

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I agree.  I think there's a bigger chance they just don't take it up.  Roberts knows his court / reputation won't ever recover from it. 

 

31 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think there's a decent chance they actually reject cert.  Roberts doesn't want 3 justices writing a dissenting opinion that a President is actually a king and probably doesn't want to write a majority opinion on this himself either. I don't know that I'd bet on it, but I think he's probably strongly considering trying to get ACB and Kav to join him in rejecting this one.

That would be the biggest coward move of all time considering they are taking all of the other trump cases. This presents a novel issue and concerns the head of the executive branch, it would be absurd to deny cert under those circumstances. I honestly also don't see even Alito or Clarence providing god king immunity. I predict that it will be affirmed per curiam, meaning unanimously, without a written opinion, and issued faster than ordinary appeals.

  • Hook 'Em 3


×
×
  • Create New...