Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

CNN discussion - it’s exactly when POTUS abuses the power of the presidency that POTUS should be held accountable. Immune.

 

Posted (edited)

POTUS can now use the DOJ as his personal revenge agency without pretense without remorse and without any concern of an obstruction or abuse of power charge later. Think about that. Immune. 

Edited by troph
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
Just now, tx 3 putt said:

 

He paid lip service to it in the opinion before he said the convos with the AG about breaking the law are absolutely immune and before he said on official acts analysis motivation and legality of the act itself are not relevant. 

Posted

ustice Clarence Thomas used the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity on Monday to again request that the constitutionality of special prosecutors, like Jack Smith, be called into question.

In his opinion, Thomas asked the lower courts to render a ruling on Smith and the legality of the special prosecutor’s office before they proceed with Donald Trump’s pair of federal criminal cases that Smith’s team is prosecuting. No other justice signed onto Thomas’ opinion.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

ustice Clarence Thomas used the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity on Monday to again request that the constitutionality of special prosecutors, like Jack Smith, be called into question.

In his opinion, Thomas asked the lower courts to render a ruling on Smith and the legality of the special prosecutor’s office before they proceed with Donald Trump’s pair of federal criminal cases that Smith’s team is prosecuting. No other justice signed onto Thomas’ opinion.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

I, for one, am shocked!

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh, it's sort of a qualified immunity, with the qualification not being clearly unconsitutional actions, but actions clearly outside the scope of Article II duties.

It's fairly consistent with the civil immunity the President enjoys, with the outer perimeter duties/functions being only presumably immune.

I think for Trump, Chutkan is smart enough to analyze these things in accordance with the opinion where he is not immune.

The troubling part of the opinion is that "immune acts" cannot be used as "other bad acts" to prove motive, intent, etc.  That doesn't sit right with me.

You're doing your weird act again where you diminish just how bad this is and you keep using minimizing language to describe the systemic issue. If the qualification is """CLEARLY""" unconstitutional, then that fuckin standard is gonna get calvinball'd to hell and back by this batch of imperial supremes.

The fact that you ignore this reality is maddening. It puts ever more barriers between Trump and accountability for the FUCKING FASCIST COUP ATTEMPT THAT HAPPENED ON LIVE NATIONAL TV THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

This decision has me in full support of a pack the court strategy. Take it to 15. Hell appoint moderates that’s fine. This court is rogue, overturning precedent left and right. This isn’t all about Trump, I don’t want a stronger executive. It’s time to reign the judicial branch back in. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, troph said:

This decision has me in full support of a pack the court strategy. Take it to 15. Hell appoint moderates that’s fine. This court is rogue, overturning precedent left and right. This isn’t all about Trump, I don’t want a stronger executive. It’s time to reign the judicial branch back in. 

Dem strategy is so bad it's incredible 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

Dem strategy is so bad it's incredible 

No ability to be cutthroat not even to save the democracy. It’s so demoralizing. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

The supreme court expanding to 15 does not prevent Trump from going Andrew Jackson "have the court enforce it".

At the end of the day this is a slow moving coup, if a president can make all official acts immune to discovery then the complicit media lied to me to protect Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Buchanan and Johnson are considered by historians worse presidents than Trump, Biden was wrong, inaction on the eve of a civil war is what will destroy Biden's legacy, I hope he is aware of it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, linux said:

Buchanan and Johnson are considered by historians worse presidents than Trump, Biden was wrong, inaction on the eve of a civil war is what will destroy Biden's legacy, I hope he is aware of it.

Johnson isn't. Please show your work.

Posted
10 minutes ago, linux said:

The supreme court expanding to 15 does not prevent Trump from going Andrew Jackson "have the court enforce it".

At the end of the day this is a slow moving coup, if a president can make all official acts immune to discovery then the complicit media lied to me to protect Trump.

Pack the court is a strategy after a dem sweep. At this point Trump is getting off relatively unscathed. I’ve never held my breath for his imprisonment or anything other than a slap on the wrist (which is all the NY 34 felonies are). Done with Trump. Defeat him in November he has no political power then, he dies soon enough. It’s time to save our country and focusing on Trump isn’t the play. It’s all of it. Sweep the election, pack the court, reverse these horrible rogue decisions, and start rebuilding. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But it would really open up a can of worms if every convo between a POTUS and AG was subject to investigation for criminal intent, without regard to the fact that no crime actually occurred.

Twice, I appreciate you as a poster, have learned quite a bit from you, respect your profession, and am impressed with your ability to be patient as you are with the "NUKE THE JUDICIARY FROM ORBIT" crowd.

My guy, this is absolute immunity in a wig.

 anton-chigurh-rule.gif.1c3e08fdcfaca689a010789b77b253b1.gif

Let's maybe not even partially legitimize throwing away what had been a fairly decent run for the sake of a few hypothetical edge cases that haven't ever happened.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

Pierce also failed to do what was right before the Civil War, and obviously Lincoln was #1 at the end of the day someone needs to explain to Biden that his legacy is on the line.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, linux said:

Got to be specific with Johnsons. Careful, too. 

I didn't think long enough to see this is the one you obviously meant. Apologies.

ETA: Well, maybe not apologies. Safe Sex had mentioned LBJ just above your post. It's a big deal. We should argue about it all night.

Anyway, have a nice night.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Nina Totenberg was on Maddow and said the scholars she’s talked to both conservative and liberal thought the court gave Trump more than he even asked for. 
 

she highlighted Barrett’s concurring opinion where she disagreed with the majority in their ruling that the actions taken in an official capacity could not be used as evidence in a claim of official versus unofficial acts - example being a bribe for a pardon. 
 

she also said that maybe the court wouldn’t agree but based on the opinion it is a reasonable interpretation to conclude the president can use the the DOJ for personal revenge, and that yes Nixon should be given his presidency back (maddow’s words but she agreed). Totenberg seemed solemn but still rather shocked. She mentioned that scholars of her age assumed this was settled law in US vs Nixon. 
 

I think the key issues are narrowed to four points: (1) core constitutional acts are absolutely immune - this outlined in the opinion and held that conversations with the AG are exactly that, (2) with respect to official immunity the determination of official versus unofficial cannot consider (i) legality of the act, (ii) presidential motivations, and (iii) the actual acts taken in that official capacity (i.e. the actual bribe).
 

In essence, the only question is if POTUS didn’t know it was illegal, didn’t intent to break the law, and didn’t break the law would it be an official act? If yes then immune. 
 

again, absolute immunity for abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and blatantly illegal acts while acting as president cloaked in language of qualified immunity. 

Edited by troph
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

"Weighing those two sets of interests" ... admittedly I haven't read the opinion. Can someone explain the legal underpinning of it based on the continual drumbeat of originalism? Because it seems to me if you're weighing interests to reach a conclusion instead of being textual like the purported [and disingenuous] Roe rationale ("is a right to abortion inherent in the Constitution), you're taking inferences based on policy concerns to reach a particular outcome, rather than looking to the plain language in the Constitution. Which seems extremely hypocritical and transparent. Why is the default immunity, vs. lack of immunity based on the literal text being applied? 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

"Weighing those two sets of interests" ... admittedly I haven't read the opinion. Can someone explain the legal underpinning of it based on the continual drumbeat of originalism? Because it seems to me if you're weighing interests to reach a conclusion instead of being textual like the purported [and disingenuous] Roe rationale ("is a right to abortion inherent in the Constitution), you're taking inferences based on policy concerns to reach a particular outcome, rather than looking to the plain language in the Constitution. Which seems extremely hypocritical and transparent. Why is the default immunity, vs. lack of immunity based on the literal text being applied? 

Sotomayor quoted the federalist papers in a bit of a “what the fuck?” response to Roberts using originalism against them.

i may read the opinion later but I’ve been reading about it, quotes from it and listening to a number of analyses - this is a sneaky opinion with a nothing burger headline - we lawyers all understand the idea of qualified immunity no big deal - this opinion is wildly not that. It’s arguably one of the most dangerous opinions the court has ever given. Not hyperbole.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I tend to agree with that part about subjective intent.  I don't think it can be the only criteria, but to dismiss it entirely is bad, a mistake.

You keep saying Cannon is making mistakes, that the Supreme Court is making mistakes, but mistakes are things that happen by accident.

You are far too intelligent of a poster to not see that all of it is on purpose. It's not remotely subtle. They are barely trying to hide it. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted

Dark Brandon needs an Executive Order 66 to execute.... In his official capacity of defending the Republic. Then he can pardon himself even though he doesn't have to.

  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

ustice Clarence Thomas used the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity on Monday to again request that the constitutionality of special prosecutors, like Jack Smith, be called into question.

In his opinion, Thomas asked the lower courts to render a ruling on Smith and the legality of the special prosecutor’s office before they proceed with Donald Trump’s pair of federal criminal cases that Smith’s team is prosecuting. No other justice signed onto Thomas’ opinion.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

this guy's whole thing is to riff on shit not before the court to signal to all the other assholes on leonard leo's payroll to start bringing lawsuits.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

They substantially changed what is considered "official" and greatly limited what evidence can be evaluated when making that determination. 

The Leo Court also said the POTUS’ potentially criminal motive could not be considered when determining legality.

Posted
47 minutes ago, elfenix said:

this guy's whole thing is to riff on shit not before the court to signal to all the other assholes on leonard leo's payroll to start bringing lawsuits.

 

they're making beeline to amarillo 

Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

this guy's whole thing is to riff on shit not before the court to signal to all the other assholes on leonard leo's payroll to start bringing lawsuits.

Isn't this argument (Smith shouldn't be on this case) part of Cannon's current review? 

He's telling her that the runway is clear... 

Posted
4 hours ago, troph said:

This, roe, chevron, the prior EPA case (this court), citizens united, are all recent really bad cases. Only citizens united was not this court.  If we survive this the Roberts court will go down as one of the worst. And it’s been  only 3-4 years.

Also gutting the Voting Rights Act. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Also gutting the Voting Rights Act. 

How could I forget that one, I guess so much has happened in 3 years.

provided we defeat Trump in November it will be his Court that proves to be the greater threat than him. 
 

 

Edited by troph
Posted
8 hours ago, YGIFS said:

The senior/flag officers don't pledge an oath to case law precedent---even from SCOTUS, they pledge it to the Constitution.  The vast majority of them will honor that oath and refuse to operate within our borders for non-defensive purposes.  

The real shitshow begins when the minority of senior/flag officers operate under an Executive Order that indicates persons of color, undocumented residents, LBGTQ+, Muslims, recent Asian immigrants, et. al to be removed or encamped; and our Armed Forces goes to war with itself.  On our own soil.  We are going to fix it so we suffocate ourselves and then blame the "different" people for forcing our hand.  And that's when the citizen 'militias' emerge, to support the "National Defense" and we have military-on-citizenry violence on U.S. grass.  This how it begins,  the battle theater could be gamed out in weeks, not months. 

There are only two ways out of this---get the middle 25mm Trump voters to have a substantial portion of that stay home in November out of disgust, or have him die.  The third option, is far more grim.  Arrange it so they go to war with one another on our lands, and watch unimaginable innocent Americans die in the conflict.  While our enemies laugh and laugh, without having fired a round. 

All officers swear to defend the constitution, so do lots of civilians. If we are at the stage where it’s “we can trust the military and feds to be ethical” then it’s over. 
 

We are cooked, presidential republic bros.  The revolution was a mistake.  The Brits have a sovereign with full immunity but no power and all their political leaders can actually be held responsible.  This year Biden needs to call Charles and offer to come back. Hand over a few of the most incorrigible rebels to be locked in the tower in exchange for representation in parliament and a couple decades where the sovereign can order a reelection if we choose any unacceptable ministers. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Biden doesn’t have to do anything right now other than campaign on this and abortion. If he happens to lose in November, then he can go King Biden and throw out the results, etc etc etc.

Posted

I'm in disbelief. I was sure even this radical, worst of all time SCOTUS wouldn't go this far. We are doomed. Conservatives have finally flipped the playing board over. It's all over but the shooting. That'll be fun. Bump stocks are back too. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's almost like it's on purpose.

You realize that the voters are very different, right? Trump says he’ll jail lawmakers he doesn’t like, republican voters say great, what strength. Biden says he’ll pack the court, dem voters will cry dictator. It’s the massive downside of the left that most (or at least half) of their traditional voters actually give a fuck. The other side are sheep who just nod along with literally anything their dear leaders say. How do you propose convincing those people to do the same? I personally hate the idea of court packing but you have to dig pretty deep into what has happened the last 8 years and I now support it for those reasons. Tons of people don’t pay that close of attention and will be turned off by that proposal, the same people who probably haven’t heard trumps proposals or don’t think they’re as serious as they truly are at this point.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

You realize that the voters are very different, right? Trump says he’ll jail lawmakers he doesn’t like, republican voters say great, what strength. Biden says he’ll pack the court, dem voters will cry dictator. It’s the massive downside of the left that most (or at least half) of their traditional voters actually give a fuck. The other side are sheep who just nod along with literally anything their dear leaders say. How do you propose convincing those people to do the same? I personally hate the idea of court packing but you have to dig pretty deep into what has happened the last 8 years and I now support it for those reasons. Tons of people don’t pay that close of attention and will be turned off by that proposal, the same people who probably haven’t heard trumps proposals or don’t think they’re as serious as they truly are at this point.

I was awake at 3am thinking about judicial impeachments too, I don’t like the idea I don’t like packing the court but what is left for us to do? 
 

this court has given the Johnny cash middle finger to stare decisis.  The notion that the court can just do whatever it wants is now here. Is that ok?

republican voters don’t even realize this court is against them too. 
 

 

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, immamac said:

Dem strategy is so bad it's incredible 

I'm no apologist for how the Dems fuck things up, but what is the winning move here? What would it have been 20 years ago?

Before it became apparent to me that the GOP was a criminal organization operating with regard for neither law nor the future of the republic, we were all operating in ignorance of the paradigm shift that was already occurring. Even now, when that paradigm change has occured, most people remain blind to it including, as I begin to tiresomely opine, the free press.

If we are operating outside of the law, that leaves us with natural law. Legislators are not equipped for that. A political party operating with any level of responsibility is not designed for that. They hold the hopeless belief that exposure of wickedness will lead to destrucion of same. No more.

I watched the House hearing on Jan 6. Information could not have been laid out any clearer. Those in GOP/MAGA jersies will never turn on their own team. No mater what. Argument don't work around here no more.

I honestly can't think of a political strategy for dealing with the fascist rise. Legal strategies are going over the side as well when the Supreme Court is in the bag.

It's natural law, but we're all too fat and happy to do much about it.

Comfortably numb. Bad luck for the queens and the coons and the Reds and the Jews (Pink Floyd).

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

“We believe the alternate slate of electors was an official act of the presidency.” 
 

that needs to be put on blast. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, troph said:

this court has given the Johnny cash middle finger to stare decisis.  The notion that the court can just do whatever it wants is now here. Is that ok?

republican voters don’t even realize this court is against them too. 

The republican voters want to vote to give more wealth and power to the oligarch class, therefore their interests are aligned with the Imperial Court

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...